Is this the solution to LP static issues?? Seems to be!

"Why are we NOT using this stuff today?? "

Probably was later discovered to cause cause like everything else. One of the best series of LP recordings. Can't get enough of them.

Were they all washed the same? Or at all?

I am pretty new to all things turntable related but I think I've got all my static issues sorted with a can of GruvGlide. Maybe some expert will chime in on the long term effects of using said product, but it seems to work really well. 

Dear @daveyf : It's an unknow product, to many years ago to recovery any internet information that maybe was a" propitary "one by the LP label.

https://tenwatts.blogspot.com/2008/09/317x.html?m=1


R.

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.

 @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?

Davey, I have no idea what Miracle Surface with 317X is. This attachment purports to be the advertisement where it is first announced: [url]http://classicalmusicreferences.com/home/classical-music-record-sets/rca-records-miracle-surface-ant...[/url]
Some of the text preceding the ad copy suggests that the material was offered to the industry "license free" but I see no basis for that; to the contrary, RCA seemed to claim that it, and only RCA had this miracle substance, which was obviously used as a marketing tool.
Some years ago, I pored through a vast amount of material in the AES archives, mostly papers presented by engineers and scientists, some of whom worked for the large labels. There was always a fair amount of stuff about vinyl compounding, stabilizers, thermal flow, reducing static, etc. I don’t know that this Miracle stuff would have been patentable in and of itself-- it may be in one of the RCA patents at the time (or not). I did set aside copies of many of the papers for my own use and they are stashed away in a box up in the attic. If you or someone else here is an AES member, you now get access to the archive as part of your membership fee. (It used to be an additional fee to see all the archival material). Somewhere, there’s somebody alive that knows.... Maybe. (One of the people who assigned a few patents to RCA was Sarwan Kumar Khanna, but most of his work was in the ’70s, after your Miracle stuff had been invented. I suspect it was part of the compound, but who knows...).
Gotta love digging through this stuff. Maybe somebody named it after their kid. :)

From reading that interesting link the most likely answer would seem to be some additive like propylene glycol. Whatever it is, it can't be a coating or additive since no way anything like that would last for decades. Has to be something in the vinyl itself. The record industry is just like the movie industry, penny wise and pound foolish.

The solution is a Furutech Destat 3.

@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!).

Davey- I suspect these days, very little plastic is made Stateside due to EPA, OSHA, etc. Some of it is probably pretty nasty, but I’m not a materials scientist or chemist so I couldn’t tell you. A lot apparently comes from Thailand.
My impression is that the special formulations are ordered in the same way that the meat packers in Manhattan used to use a particular mix of chuck, short rib, brisket, and sirloin for burgers for specific restaurants- everyplace that charged 15 bucks plus for a burger claimed they had a proprietary recipe.
I have a few of each of these new formulations and I guess they were fine, maybe I didn’t play the records enough to appreciate them. Even though I have mixed views about the sound of the old MoFi releases, that formulation was, to me, just superb. It had to withstand the rigors of losing the high frequency carrier for discrete 4 channel and though that never really had a market, it made a marvelous stereo record. I played some of those records to death back in the day and they are still flawless. There’s another mystery-- what was in the JVC super vinyl? That stuff was resilient as hell.
I don’t have too many issues with static given how I clean and handle- all in bare feet, but I know it can be a bear. The central heating in the NE only made it worse when the humidity would drop during the winter. At one point, I talked to an old hand at vinyl compounding and he said, "mold release" what the hell are you talking about. And so it goes....

DDT

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.

Part of the problem is that felt mat. Notorious for causing static. I use leather instead. As far as this particular record, never heard or seen one. I'll have to research it. Thanks.

The Solution Is.....Digital !

Cheers 

@1971gto455ho   Uhmm..No!

@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.

I wipe clean all of my LP’s prior to playback with ‘ahp Klangtuch IV’ microfiber cloth which helps eliminate electrostatic charges.

In 1983 I treated my Records with SoundGuard. Spray it on, used a special brush to spread it evenly. 

I still have those records. They repel dust like no one’s business. Very slick, too. They’ve all been washed. The treatment is permanent.  I still use a lint brush before playing. You can feel how slick they are, and they don’t attract dust anywhere close to normal records. They sound great also.

If you are at all interested, the details of Miracle Surface are addressed in the following RCA Engineer Magazine 1960 Oct/Nov - see article Anti-Static Phonograph Records,  1960-10-11.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) . The ingredient is a cationic surfactant that is blended into the record so that some quantity is on the record surface. It functions by absorbing moisture from the air to form a water-film on the record which causes the record to be 'dissipative' so it does not collect/retain a static charge.  

RCA's last Record Patent 3,960,790 1498409551006799538-03960790 (storage.googleapis.com)  addresses use of a similar  "Catanac 609 Antistatic Agent' that is a cationic surfactant.

The anti-static ingredient can over time be leached enough from the surface (i.e. - wet brush clean every use) to exhaust the reservoir. All anti-static surface treatments with any lasting effects all use some form of a cationic surfactant to leave a film on the record. Any number of debates on to the wisdom of this approach.

There is 'some' reason to believe that the record compounders may be able to now produce a record formulation using graphene or other advanced ingredients to formulate a record that is essentially forever 'dissipative' and anti-static without use of cationic surfactants.

@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??

I found this on AA.
"...patent #3,960,790 issued to RCA...could this be the mysterious 317X additive? methylammonium methosulphate."

And further:
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3960790.html

So I was right, its mixed in the vinyl. Next thing, why assume no one does this any more? Some may well be doing it (or something like it) and just not advertising it. This would certainly explain my experience of some records being incredibly charged while others are completely free of static even without me doing anything. I never paid attention to which are which because this never occurred to me before. Now that I think about it though some records a speck of dust blows right off- no charge. Some a shot of Zerostat will liberate, while others are so highly charged almost nothing will get them off. Now I will have to start paying attention and see which particular records are which.

One more thing to do. As if I needed that. Thanks. Thanks a lot. ;)

Hello,
propylene glycol is the product that Kirmus uses. I have been cleaning my collection using this machine and method. At the very end you spray the brush with a few light sprays, spin the record on your platter, and then lightly drag the brush with the solution. I am sure we can do this every once in a while ourselves. 

In the late 1987 I bought a Well Tempered TT/TA with an acrylic platter, no mat, and a vicous oil damped main bearing and tonearm bearing.  Ever since then I have NEVER ONCE experienced any static buildup, static discharges or any of the many other static-related phenomena commonly experienced before that with SOTA, Linn, Technics, HK ST-7, Dual, Rabco, 'tables and arms.  Needless to say, I still spin my platters on the WTTT/TA!  I also put all my records in high quality sleeves...I bought a box of 1000 from a local record company to get a low cost/sleeve.  That may have helped, too.

Good detective work there, Neil @antinn 

@whart,

Thanks - I did a deep dive into static a few months ago, so I was familiar with the background and the applicable sources.  Based on the deep-dive, I identified a material that I am now using as a record mat along with grounding the platter bearing that for now has pretty much eliminated any problem I may have had with static (I deep wet clean all records) and the material has damping qualities that benefit the acoustics - win-win; you can read details here if interested -   vpiforum.com • View topic - Anti-Static Record Mat with Damping

Best Regards,
Neil

Ball Corporation made the product called Sound Guard and I used it for years, it was very helpful.  Then I switched to a product made by Stanton called Permastat.  It was even better. I wish it was still made today but it isn't and I have no idea what was in it.  I used both products in conjunction with the original Disc Washer and D3 and later D4 fluid along with a Zerostat as necessary.  In addition my later Shure cartridges had their stabilizer carbon fiber brushes.  All of these used together eliminated all static issues.

This comment reminds me of the Pac Man machine at the pizza parlor next to Sound Advice in Gainesville.  We would zap the machine  with a D'Stat device for free games, and played free for hours at a time.  I still wonder what kept us from frying game the computer

If I may make a suggestion.  I purchased  a device called a Static Draining Brush from a Company called Mapleshade several years ago.  It is a simple device that plugs into the ground on a three pronged AC outlet.  It does the trick.  I have been very pleased with it.

@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!

I agree with Audioguy that switching from a felt mat to leather makes a big difference to the amount of static that the record accumulates. 

Back when I was developing the Redpoint Turntable with Peter, we had terrible static issues in the Winter. The solution for our designs may be relevant to you.

We grounded the bearing to the phono stage (any earth ground will do). You might not expect a bearing whose only electrical path from the platter surface to ground is the capacitive coupling between the bearing spindle and body (a distance on the order of .0001", separated by lubricant), but it does.

Obviously, there are two approaches to this problem: (1) keeping static from being generated, and (2) draining it to ground. Either one or both are viable solutions. I don’t want static production to dictate my record to platter interface, so I prefer option 2. Anyone who has experimented with the sonic effects of different mats (and their effect on energy transfer) will understand why.

I rebuild Fender Telecasters as a diversion, and I’ve found that some pickguard materials generate quite a bit static. Irrespective of whether I shield the pickup cavities, I’ll use some conductive foil under the pickguard to connect it to ground. Problem solved.

... Thom @ Galibier Design

That's a good one. Mine's even threaded. Thanks!

One of our crazy designs (never made it to production) generated so much static, that, you could see sparks jumping from the platter to the turntable base. I kid you not. It didn't manifest until we hit the low-humidity Winter months, and needless to say, it came as quite a surprise ;-)

... Thom @ Galibier Design

@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. 

Hi @daveyf,

Grounding the bearing is specific to the turntable and its construction.

On our turntables, we have a dedicated grounding screw on the bottom of the bearing. You’d have to look at your turntable to see if you can adapt something in order to accomplish this.

I’m not current on Linn subchassis construction (they used to be stamped sheet metal). I’d look somewhere in this general area, while of course, taking care to not mess up your suspension tuning.  I'd do so by probing with an ohm meter (one end on the record spindle), to see how far away from it you can find continuity (to attach a ground lug).

Your tonearm cable ground (the 5th wire) is primarily intended to carry the shield through the arm tube (metal arm wands, obviously). Finishing methods like anodizing aluminum or titanium create an insulating layer, and this will interrupt the connection to the armboard, etc.

... Thom @ Galibier Design

@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. 

FWIW - Different ground locations can have different results. When I first grounded my platter spindle (VPI TNT/Classics platter), my first ground attempt was to the phono-preamp ground connection. This was not successful - record playback was still noisy. I then tried a ground post that is on the balanced power transformer (BPT) that supplies power to my system - this was not successful. I tried grounding it to a 120VAC outlet different than the one supplying the BPT - that was not successful. I now have the ground wire (1/4" tin plated copper braid) attached to the 120VAC outlet ground with a banana-plug (lug via the cover plate attachment screws is an option) that supplies power to the BTP. This follows the basic wisdom to ground back to the source to minimize circulating ground currents/voltages; and it may be more than just grounding to drain away static, there 'may' be other electrical noise in-play.  

Just some personal experience.

Hi antinn,
The relative humidity is dropping fast and I will start running my experiments again shortly. Static accumulation on records is a very complex issue. The environment, storage and how they are played all affect this. 
I was always led to believe that the stylus rubbing the groove was the primary motivator but then last Summer I played a record with and without the conductive sweep arm I always use and there was no static accumulation either way indicating that perhaps the cause of static lie elsewhere. I am about to perform the same experiment again at low humidity.
Having said all this, putting anything that leaves a residue on the records is a big mistake. It will only gum up your stylus. A clean record should never need to be cleaned. Always store records in static resistant plastic inner sleeves, never paper as paper will always increase static accumulation on vinyl.  

mijostyn

... putting anything that leaves a residue on the records is a big mistake. It will only gum up your stylus.

Absolutely agree! There is nothing like playing a pristine, clean LP. The goal is to have it free of any gunk.

A clean record should never need to be cleaned.

I’m not sure what that means. I suspect @mijostyn means that once cleaned, an LP will never need to be cleaned again. If so, he’s mistaken. Eventually, if the record is played occasionally, it will acquire dust from the environment and need to be cleaned again.

If taken care of correctly a clean record should never get dirty other than incidental dust that can be easily removed with a brush or sweep arm.
Keeping the record free of static is part of this equation. Static will pull dust deep into the groove where it is more difficult to remove with a brush. Pollution in the air from smoke and/or cooking fumes is another problem that is easily avoided. 
As I have mentioned before I always use a conductive sweep arm during play and always keep the dust cover closed during play. Since I do not buy used records I have no use for a record cleaning machine. 
As an aside the 5 Analog Productions albums I sprayed off with brake cleaning fluid are doing just fine.

mijostyn

If taken care of correctly a clean record should never get dirty other than incidental dust that can be easily removed with a brush or sweep arm.

It is easy to show that this is mistaken - all that’s needed is a bright lamp, a clean record, and a few hours for it to accumulate dust. Those sweep arm brushes actually grind the dust into the record because it is just a small contact patch that contacts the LP. That may be OK for removing static - although it’s not my solution - but it doesn’t result in a truly clean record. Perhaps it is "clean enough" for your purposes, though.

I always use a conductive sweep arm during play and always keep the dust cover closed during play.

The wisdom of using a dustcover during play is widely debated.

Since I do not buy used records I have no use for a record cleaning machine.

Many new LPs accumulate dust before they ever leave the pressing plant. I suggest you visit a pressing plant sometime - you’ll discover that LPs are not pressed in a "clean room."

As an aside the 5 Analog Productions albums I sprayed off with brake cleaning fluid are doing just fine.

Brake cleaner? On LPs? Apparently your new LPs are not as clean you sometimes profess!

It’s interesting that many audiophiles have never heard a truly clean, pristine record. Once you’ve heard one you’ll find it hard to go back.

@mijostyn,

The article “Phonograph Reproduction 1978” in Audio Magazine May 1978 (download here - https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-A ... 978-05.pdf ) goes into some detail on static; what causes it and what does not – the needle in the groove was not source of static.  So, your results are not surprising.

You are not going to give-up talking about brake cleaner. 

But, to others please note the following:   CRC brake cleaning fluid https://www.crcindustries.com/products/crc/crc-brakleen.html (and others) now comes in various compositions, one non-flammable version contains perchloroethylene which is a known human carcinogen. One VOC-free 50 state version contains acetone & naphtha (very flammable) and the acetone can partially dissolve the vinyl record.  Years ago CRC Brake Clean contained a CFC solvent (likely methyl chloroform or CFC-113), that was safe with vinyl records and was not flammable or toxic.  But that version is no longer available and never will be again.    Most chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) solvents stopped manufacture in 1996 per the Montreal Protocol.   Old stock has long since been sold-off.

 

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.

daveyf

What's a clean record? To some, it is one cleaned with, ahem, break fluid ...

It is odd that the one guy here who cleans LPs with brake fluid insists he doesn't need a record cleaner. Maybe he's right!

@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.

Wow, cleeds, sir what planet are you living on. I don't know what you do but when I play a record it comes out of the sleeve directly onto the platter, the sweep arm is placed, the tonearm is cued and the dust cover goes right down. On the return trip the process is mirror imaged. The record is not in the open air for more that 20 seconds. A 1/2 hour?
There is one difference. After the record is away I wipe all that dust that I just ground into the record off the sweep arm (on a felt pad) I do not know which sweep arm you used but mine tracks with the tonearm perfectly and gets every spec of dust on the surface. I do have to be careful not to shake the brush when I remove it from the record or I wind up dusting the record. It is only older records I have not played for years that have any dust on them, contamination from the old paper sleeves. As I play them I am replacing all the old sleeves with new plastic ones. Records already updated have very little if any dust on them. The sweep usually comes off the record visibly clean.

Cleeds, I was not cleaning new Analog Productions albums, I was treating them with what amounts to be very cheap "Last" I know for a fact there is nothing in Last other than the solvent. Some people swear it works. So in giving them credit I am testing out a pet theory. As you know PVC compound is 0.2 or 0.3 % plasticizer. It softens the PVC making it easier to press. Removing the plasticizer conversely hardens the PVC improving it's wear characteristics. You might also take a leap and hypothesize that PVC that is not so mushy sounds better. I'm not going to spend 50 bucks on a little bottle of chlorofluorocarbon solvent to run an experiment. Certain brands of Brake Cleaning fluid are nothing but CFC solvent. I keep a case of the stuff around for cleaning bike parts and stuff. So, I sprayed both sides of five records, let them dry and put them right away. Observation #1 is that this did absolutely no immediate harm to the records. They all sound just the same. And boy do they sparkle. In a year or two I will compare them to other Analog Productions records I have that I do not play near as much, see if there is any difference in wear. 

Daveyf, for 20 bucks you can buy one and try it. It won't be near the most expensive mistake you'll ever make. Of course, if your records are already a mess you might as well take them out back and power wash them.