chem cleaning vs. ultrasound cleaning

evan · Post by **evan** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:33 pm

Hi all,

I've seen both chemical cleaning and ultrasonic cleaning methods used for professional horn cleaning. Are there any advantages or disadvantages for either method? It seems to me that a chemical cleaning could potentially react with the metal (maybe even remove some corrosion?) while ultrasound would just be able to remove accumulated dirt.

-evan

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:46 pm

evan wrote:I've seen both chemical cleaning and ultrasonic cleaning methods used for professional horn cleaning. Are there any advantages or disadvantages for either method? It seems to me that a chemical cleaning could potentially react with the metal (maybe even remove some corrosion?) while ultrasound would just be able to remove accumulated dirt.

Maybe the ultrasound will shake a bunch of solder joints loose? (Hopefully, some one who actually knows what he is talking about will respond.)

evan · Post by **evan** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:54 pm

Yeah I actually wondered about that myself, especially on an older horn...

Mark wrote: Maybe the ultrasound will shake a bunch of solder joints loose? (Hopefully, some one who actually knows what he is talking about will respond.)

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:59 pm

My tech told me they still use the same solution, getting rid of gunk and corrosion, and that the ultrasound gets stuff out of the crevices better. If the solder joint shakes loose, it needed re-soldering anyway!

evan · Post by **evan** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:20 pm

So they fill the ultrasound tank up with the chemical they use for normal cleaning? I guess that would do the best of both.

iiipopes wrote:My tech told me they still use the same solution, getting rid of gunk and corrosion, and that the ultrasound gets stuff out of the crevices better. If the solder joint shakes loose, it needed re-soldering anyway!

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:33 pm

A practical question, if you please.

I'll be the first to concede that getting those nasty calcium deposits out of the tubes is a very good thing to do (tends to hold back red rot).

But what advantage does getting the inside of a tuba REALLY REALLY clean have? I mean, I've had enough horns apart to see the really gross discontinuites at the ferrules, etc. It just sems unlikely that removing anything smaller than a grain of sand is going to do very much for the sound of an instrument.

And there is something to leaving a bit of oxide on the innards to protect things, isn't there?

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:50 pm

Well, it kind of sorts itself out. With the prices my tech quoted me, I'll probably have my cornet done later this year, but I will probably not have my tuba done. We all know there will those who have it all done. I suppose if I was having an historically important instrument restored, I would, but otherwise, regular cleaning is probably sufficient for a tuba. Another thought: for those who have removable valve blocks, like some student tubas and some sousaphones, I can see with the outdoor exposure to dust and not brushing your teeth before playing, I could see sending the valve block out!

opie · Post by **opie** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:13 pm

I have no experiance with chemical cleaning however I do have experience with ultrasonic cleaning. We use a 90 plus gallon tank and pour the desired amount of chemical cleaner into the water. A lot depends on the intensity and time parts are left in the tank. We never leave anything in the tank longer than six minutes on the high intensity level. If this does not get the desired effect we put it in the tank again. Obviously it is important to drain the tank after it has become filthy.

prototypedenNIS · Post by **prototypedenNIS** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:26 pm

evan wrote:So they fill the ultrasound tank up with the chemical they use for normal cleaning? I guess that would do the best of both.

iiipopes wrote:My tech told me they still use the same solution

Much lighter mix, no gloves needed.

We use a sotrage container with styrofoam on it that floats up top with a higher mix for really nasty small parts.

For problems, there aren't many.
Old Bundy and B&H Oxford instruments have a bad lacquer that will peel off. Aside from that, if you leave a horn in there for an hour you might be able to get some lacquer off of it.
(I tried to get the lacquer off my Yammie Bone... it was in the tank for about 3 hours... nothing.

Does some reddening of the bare brass, chem does it too. Nothing to worry about but won't be as shiny, solution, brasso.

Bad plating... if plating is done substandard it may flake. We had a couple of dud Bach Strad trumpets come in that weren't cleaned properly before they were plated (sent back to the factory) and some "B&H 300" trumpets (90's Indian made Boosey and Hawkes student horns) where a little bit of silver was plated on the inside of some of the slides which came off.

Aside from that, I have yet to see any downsides to Ultrasonic cleaning.

I work with it all the time so if you have any questions just ask.

Dan Schultz · Post by **Dan Schultz** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:32 pm

I use both... standard chem-cleaning with chemisty that removes lime/calcium deposits... and ultrasonic. I haven't had very good luck with ultrasonic being able to deal with lime/calcium deposits but it is VERY good at getting general dirt off of parts.

TubeNet

chem cleaning vs. ultrasound cleaning

chem cleaning vs. ultrasound cleaning

Re: chem cleaning vs. ultrasound cleaning

Re: chem cleaning vs. ultrasound cleaning