Not sure how my thread went from inquiring about the age old anti-static formulation that RCA was using on their vinyl, and which seems to work like a charm, even decades later...to: Brake Cleaning fluid used to clean one members LP's!! Just goes to show how fast these threads can and do go off rail!! LOL |
@mijostyn No record of mine is ever going near Brake cleaning fluid, just like no record of mine is going in a plastic inner sleeve, they only go into rice paper sleeves. YMMV |
@rauliruegas Thanks for that link, very informative. What is extremely interesting, is that whatever 317x is, it seems to have a life long effect on the LP, and IMO, one that is actually beneficial. I wonder how long Gruv Glide actually works for? |
I had not cleaned this particular album recently ( I had vacuum cleaned it before a few months back), and it went through the same playing ritual as all of the other albums on the table last night. I do think the formula that was described as ‘Miracle surface’ was indeed doing what it was supposedly designed to do. As audionoobie noted, Gruv Glide does seem to work in a similar manner, but this was 317x addition was added at the time of the record manufacturing...decades ago!
The Miracle surface is nothing new, I have it on several shaded and white dogs in my collection, but this time the difference in static build up was very noticeable. |
@audioguy85 While the felt mat probably does allow for more static build up, the issue was non-existent with the felt mat and the 317x treated RCA white dog. I happen to think that the original equipment felt mat is better sounding than any aftermarket mat I have tried on the LP12, including a leather mat. YMMV. |
@whart Thanks Bill. I think the amazing thing is that we all probably have quite a few RCA’s with this stuff added to the vinyl. I know I do.Reading your link, seems to imply that some kind of off-setting electrical charge was added in the formulation...an intriguing idea. ( I can tell you, whatever it is, it was working like a charm yesterday!) However, yesterday was the first time that I was playing one of these albums and noticed the marked improvement in static reduction. BTW, most of these original White/ Shaded dog LP’s do sound very good, with or without the Miracle Surface. The ability for the LP to have reduced static attraction must be beneficial to the SQ, as RCA was claiming. I wonder why the coating ( or whatever it is) was discontinued in the record industry? It would seem to me to be pretty beneficial to the potential SQ, and since we now have various reissue labels going to One Step’s, UHQR’s, SRX formulation and the like...wouldn’t an old solution like 317x be something for them to consider? ( assuming of course that the identity of 317x isn’t lost in time!). |
Bill, interesting question, what was in the JVC super vinyl? I was always intrigued by the fact that you could hold one up to a light source and see through the vinyl. This is apparently similar now to what is utilized in the newer MoFi one step vinyls. All of this is certainly somewhat beneficial to the SQ, but a formulation in the vinyl to knock down static is certainly a great idea, IME... and no one seems to be using anything like this anymore. |
|
@antinn Thanks for the research, that is very helpful. It seems that the coating is a Catanac Sn product that was mixed with the vinyl. Very interesting that there was some concern given to the fact that consumers should NOT have to deal with static build up in the LP that would be an ongoing concern for all from the start of manufacturing on. Impressive that RCA and perhaps others in 1959 were attempting to address the issue. Odd that no one today seems to concern themselves about it...in the record manufacturing industry that is. Perhaps RCA’s patent is still applicable, although I would have thought it would be in the public realm by now...but maybe not?? |
@jili12 Thanks for the suggestion, I will look into that. My OP was also more along the lines of why an ages old formulation of the vinyl, which was clearly so effective ( thereby not requiring brushes or any other devices) is no longer utilized, or some additive similar to it. The current record producing companies seem to be unaware of this problem, yet in the past, a large company like RCA made it a priority! |
@thom_at_galibier_design with the Linn table, the subchassis is connected to the bearing, both being metal parts, the subchassis connects to the tonearm post, which has a ground to the phono stage. |
@thom_at_galibier_design Thanks for your thoughts on this. How do you ground the bearing to the phono stage? Isn't this done via the tonearm cable ground to the phono stage, which is the only way i can think of...particularly with my Linn table. |
What's a clean record? To some, it is one cleaned with, ahem, break fluid, to others...it is one cleaned on a vacuum cleaning machine or a US machine. I clean all of my LP's with a specific regimen, and have done so with both new LP's ( primarily to remove any enzymes, etc) and LP's that have sat on the shelf for any length of time. The difference in SQ is quite apparent with a 'clean' LP vs. one that has not been cleaned recently....or swept with just a brush. |
@cleeds Or, maybe’s he’s wrong! Or, maybe for his definition of clean and his expectation of what a ’clean’ LP sounds like, maybe that is good enough...and you are correct...maybe he’s right (for him)! I’m not buying it though. |
@mijostyn As a long time record collector, calling me Victorian is quite a complement. LOL.
@antinn Thanks for attempting to bring some common sense and experience to this thread. +1 |
@thom_at_galibier_design Well Thom, I did learn that there is a member who uses Brake Cleaning fluid on his records, and to him I am Victorian. There is that, lol.
|
