Jump to content

soundfan

Vibrato Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

Recommended Posts

Well Flouride is added to Australia's water supply to help prevent dental cavities, maybe it will also help stop pitting [if indeed it occurs at all ? ] in LP's run through Ultra Sonic water cleaning cycle.[ ;)  ]

 

I think the differences you are detecting via your ELP Laser Turntable, and attributing to different water used for LP cleaning, could possibly be put down to changes in the reflectiveness of treated LP's with the different waters used, since your turntable reads the discs optically.

Much the same can be detected if you compare a Japanese Super High Material CD version of a album to a standard CD version of the same, the only difference between the two is the improved transparency polycarbinate resin used as the SHMCD's transparent substrate, it's a subtle improvement, but at least detectable.

 

If the same differences you are attributing to different water used in Ultra Sonic cleaning are detectable via a phono cartridge are in fact true, they could only be put down to two things.

1] The viscosity of the vinyl has changes, somehow causing the stylus to travel differently the the LP's groove [ which should be reversible ]

2] Or the Ultra Sonic cleaning has indeed change the LP in some manner [non reversible ] I think the Temperature used when cleaning might have a large, if not larger bearing than the use of Ultra Sonic's it self, on end results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several 2nd hand purchases that have gone through my Audio Desk probably 5+ times, 30yr old LPs that I'm hoping will get better (think I need David Copperfield's help for these to improve!!).  Visually they haven't changed either (still look ebay 'n/mint' :( ).

 

I have dual copies with some new releases (where one is scratched), guess I could over time give a scratched LP multiple washes/plays of a track to compare it against the 'cleaned once' copy, though it may be what I hear (or don't hear) is of no value.  I'll be buggered if I can hear any degrading/changing of sound by simply playing LPs many times (normal playing, not continuous), and similarly can't hear any difference between SHM & normal discs sourced from the same master :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Flouride is added to Australia's water supply to help prevent dental cavities, maybe it will also help stop pitting [if indeed it occurs at all ? ] in LP's run through Ultra Sonic water cleaning cycle.[ ;) ]

I think the differences you are detecting via your ELP Laser Turntable, and attributing to different water used for LP cleaning, could possibly be put down to changes in the reflectiveness of treated LP's with the different waters used, since your turntable reads the discs optically.

Much the same can be detected if you compare a Japanese Super High Material CD version of a album to a standard CD version of the same, the only difference between the two is the improved transparency polycarbinate resin used as the SHMCD's transparent substrate, it's a subtle improvement, but at least detectable.

If the same differences you are attributing to different water used in Ultra Sonic cleaning are detectable via a phono cartridge are in fact true, they could only be put down to two things.

1] The viscosity of the vinyl has changes, somehow causing the stylus to travel differently the the LP's groove [ which should be reversible ]

2] Or the Ultra Sonic cleaning has indeed change the LP in some manner [non reversible ] I think the Temperature used when cleaning might have a large, if not larger bearing than the use of Ultra Sonic's it self, on end results.

It is pretty presumptuous for anyone to think that I would describe those sonic issues without first checking via a needle based system.

As I already mentioned, the same differences are also audible through needle playback systems.

Those passing through Singapore, visit the house of turntable and listen through whatever project turntable model they happen to have on demo.

They have had the same spinner machine for nearly a year now.

They can clean and dry a record without any physical contact except with just water.

You can listen to the effects with just tap water, or with just distilled drinking water, or with the combination of both types of water.

If you are game you might even bring a bottle of your own distilled water.

They even have had customers who bring their own water with higher alkalinity.

At home I have a my secondary rig (gyro SE / sme v / lyra Skala / pass lab Ono)

Edited by jeromelang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Flouride is added to Australia's water supply to help prevent dental cavities, maybe it will also help stop pitting [if indeed it occurs at all ? ] in LP's run through Ultra Sonic water cleaning cycle.[ ;)  ]

 

I think the differences you are detecting via your ELP Laser Turntable, and attributing to different water used for LP cleaning, could possibly be put down to changes in the reflectiveness of treated LP's with the different waters used, since your turntable reads the discs optically.

Much the same can be detected if you compare a Japanese Super High Material CD version of a album to a standard CD version of the same, the only difference between the two is the improved transparency polycarbinate resin used as the SHMCD's transparent substrate, it's a subtle improvement, but at least detectable.

 

If the same differences you are attributing to different water used in Ultra Sonic cleaning are detectable via a phono cartridge are in fact true, they could only be put down to two things.

1] The viscosity of the vinyl has changes, somehow causing the stylus to travel differently the the LP's groove [ which should be reversible ]

2] Or the Ultra Sonic cleaning has indeed change the LP in some manner [non reversible ] I think the Temperature used when cleaning might have a large, if not larger bearing than the use of Ultra Sonic's it self, on end results.

Those shm CDs suck.

The differences you heard are not only due to different polycarbonate materials.

The more important issues are they were mostly transferred from inferior duplicate digital masters.

About 7 - 8 years ago, one of my audio buddies invited me to his house for a listening session. it was in one of those quaint little suburbs in Tokyo, which one has to change trains a couple of times to get there. i wouldn't been able to find it on my own. well, rather excitedly, he wanted to share with me the sonic merits of the SHM CDs (from universal). one of the many universal SHM discs he played was the keith jarrett's koln concert (originally recorded in analogue under the ECM label). we compared it against an earlier german pressing disc he bought while he was stationed in germany many years ago.

long time readers will remember that i have a peculiar method of cueing up a track to play on optical disc players. but i let this friend of mine use the conventional methods first (just hit the play button on the remote). and our first impression was - the shm disc sounded fuller-bodied, compared to the earlier german pressing, which was more distanced. both discs have constricted soundstaging - the height barely reached the speakers' tweater position, and imaging was upfront, forward of the speaker baffles. the piano tone on both discs sounded clangy and very dry, and as i didn't know it any better then, since it was my frst exposure to keith jarrett, i would have said that he was playing an electonic keyboard. either that, the piano might have been so closely mic'ed, that there was no chance for the reverberations to blossom naturally.

i noticed that this german disc have the aluminium silver area covered very close to the spindle hole area (unlike most discs nowadays you see which has a wider band of clear plastic area around the spindle hole). from my experience buying 1st print west germany made CDs on ebay, i instinctively knew that it wasn't a first print, since the spindle hole area wasn't entirely covered in silver. there is still a 2mm gap of clear plastic around the spindle area. nevertheless i suggested that my friend sit back and let me do the cueing up (using jerome procedure)for the rematch.

the result - the SHM disc remained constricted in soundstaging and upfront, and the piano still sound clangy. but the german disc then sounded totally transformed. instead of sounding "distanced", we heard the piano performance receeding further back into the soundstage, very distinct from the huge swathes of reverberation that gave the feeling of the large space where the recording was made. the soundstage projected by this system became very much bigger, the height of which we could make out to be close to the ceiling of the listening room, the width extended beyond the boundary of the 3 walls that cocooned around the speaker system. but what is startling is that we then heard distinctively, the fundamental (basic)notes being hammered, then followed by myriad harmonics of the resonating strings interacting and modulating against each other, and then bloosoming into a magical sonic cushion of sound in a large cavenous hall, as 3 separate and distinct entities. as we tried each discs again back and forth (using jerome procedure), it became very clear that the shm disc sounded hard and lifeless. loud climaxes sounded constricted, while fundamental notes, the harmonics and subsequent reverberation don't quite "separate" as they should. this is something the SHM CD has failed to do and something my friend didn't realise until he heard an earlier CD pressing, albiet a 2nd pressing, but made and released by the original german label compared against it.

i also tried playing the german disc again using conventional the cueing method. when i did that, the piano started to sound clangy again, the soundstage collasped, and the individual notes and reverberation no longer sound as separate entities. cueing the disc to play in this way made the german disc sound closer to the shm CD. but otoh, the sonics of the shm cd didn't changed very much regardless of whatever cueing methods were used. in another word, whatever is causing the same german disc to sound so different just by using 2 different types of track cueing methods has produced some sort of sonic artifacts which had already has been encoded into the shm CD. and this is the sort of sonic artifacts/differences that i have noticed when i made duplicates of CDs or when I ripped wav files from CDs.

then jump to march the following year, i went back for a rematch. this time, armed with the first pressing, german made CD that i managed to find on ebay. this original first pressing have the spindle hole area covered entirely in silver. the disc track listing also differs from the 2nd pressing and shm CD in that it contains only 3 tracks. the last track, which is available on the other 2 later CD discs, and also available on the 2-disc gatefold LP, had been omited from this first pressing CD disc. we compared all 3 CD disc, again using the jerome procedure. needless to say, the sense of the separation is even more vivid on this first pressing disc. however, the piano, while still sounding deep into the cavenous, reverberant stage, now has more focus, more palpable weightage, surrounded by a rich tapestries of sound moulded by the interplay of the resonating strings using the pedals and holding down the keys. for the whole of 25 minutes as we sat fixated, listening to the first track of this first pressing disc, a profound and transcendant drama unfolds as we hear the grandeur and sweep of jarrett's playing in his prime.

if you happen to visit an audio show in the USA somewhere in the near future, and happen to pop in into the kimber kable room, look for the soft-spoken, skinny japanese gentleman who would there to demo some handcrafted speakers from hokkaido, ask him about this lil' matchup of the keith jarrett koln concert discs. chances are he might play you this german 1st print cd. i gave it to him as a parting gift.

P.S.

I also did a laser self alignment test through the earlier generation sony sacd players using different CD discs made in different countries (Japanese, USA, UK, early West Germany, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore) The resultant sound using different disc from different countries to "tune" the laser of sony sacd players are very very interesting. The result from using shm cd discs fare very very poorly. I am not sure if anyone wants to know more details? Perhaps I should start a whole new thread on this. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To hear what the playback design MPS5 can really do - you should first make sure no disc is inside the player, then shut down its power via the rocker switch at the back. Then power it up again. Let it search disc and settle. When it is finally settled, open the tray by pressing the open/close button on the top panel. Do not use remote. Insert the disc and close the tray by pressing the open/close button. Let the player read TOC and fully settle. To play track one, press the skip forward button once and play button once in quick succession using a finger each from both hands. The speed and timing on how both buttons are pressed should be about the same as you would pronounce the word "Lyra". You can't press both buttons too quickly in succession, or else the player doesn't start playing. Too slow, the sound could become very very different. Press skip forward button on the "Ly" and press the play button on the "ra". Do not use remote. The esoteric transport that the playback design uses have a little bit of lag in response time compared to transports from other makers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@jeromelang, because you went to the effort of typing those detailed play instructions for the MPS5 I'll oblige by giving it a go tomorrow (and I'll try to be open-minded re the outcome though have to confess I'm somewhat skeptical :)  We are severely off topic though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread will keep watching developments

9 l distiller water a time!

Unless you are harvesting the water from an expensive clothes dryer that becomes expensive

 

My mistake, and I added an "edit comment" on the post upstream where I mentioned using 9 litres every time I use it.

 

It's a 6 quart capacity tank, which equates to 5.6 litres. As a 5 litre container costs me $4.25, I find it not expensive at all, especially considering I usually only clean LP's once a month.

 

My unit has now been fitted with a new Aluminium enclosure, and is about to be shipped back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of pics of the unit that arrived this morning. Couldn't help myself, had to clean a couple of records too.

 

IMG_20150730_130432926_zps0gowfrcl.jpg

 

IMG_20150730_130647914_zpsj3konrx8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×