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

@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.

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

Why address the original question when you can have a food fight instead. Ah ... the joys of the interwebz ;-)

I stopped hanging out here for the longest time, primarily because of the snark factor and poor signal to noise ratio. I suppose that the passage of time has taught me how to filter it out for the most part, so there’s that ...

... Thom @ Galibier Design

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,

Your summary of CFC's is wrong.  All manufacture of  Class I ODS substances were banned in 1996 - and this included all applicable  refrigerants and solvents.  Class II ODS (HCFCs) are now banned or will be shortly.  Good heavens man, I was awarded an EPA Ozone Protection Award in 1995 for my Navy work in reducing the use of CFC-113 solvent  in precision cleaning of Navy life support systems.  I am intimately familiar with the whole CFC phase out and my follow-on work made me intimately familiar with the global warming issue with many refrigerants.

But you have confused chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) with chlorinated which are completely different.  The 'chlorinated' product you are using is the one that contains perchloroethylene - the human carcinogen.  The CRC Brake Clean Chlorinated SDS is here -  Grainger SDS Lookup.  

Cleeds, I was simply responding to your comments which seem rather odd. At any rate your previous comments were a perversion of the subject at hand thus misleading. 

Antinn, CFCs were banned in certain high use applications such as air conditioners. The worry was that they were breaking down the Oxone layer. They are readily available in various forms used for other purposes. This is the one I use https://www.grainger.com/product/5YK77?gclid=CjwKCAiAq8f-BRBtEiwAGr3DgW8iLDfylpAiijn-6L6umNg4_a4W971...
CRC also makes a CFC free formulation (green bottle) This one might damage PVC I do not know but rest assured the CFC version does no immediate harm to PVC even if you soak the record for a week because unlike several commentators here I have done it.  As you note there are various CFCs with varying boiling points. The ones in use now have relatively high boiling points. 

@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

@mijostyn,

CFCs were banned 20+ years ago - whatever is left is with those that horded the product a long time ago; and CFC-solvents have an indefinite shelf life.  So, enjoy what you have  - very few people have any left.  There are some laboratory quantities left for sale - but they are insanely expensive.  But for the sake of the planet and the safety of others - please stop recommending it or discussing it.  As I have now said twice, the replacement solvents in Brake Cleaner are now either carcinogenic or will dissolve the record.

And, the CFC's in your car AC system such as CFC-12 boiled at room temperature and could not and were never used as a solvent.  And the current replacement HFC-134a (that can dissolve Viton fluorinated rubber) that has no ozone depleting potential is being phased out because it has a high green house warming potential - yeah we fixed one problem only to cause another.  

mijostyn

Wow, cleeds, sir what planet are you living on.

Ignorance and snark are a bad combination, @mijostyn, and it didn’t turn out well for you last time you tried to engage me as your foil. I’ve already answered all of your questions about record cleaning, both on this thread and others, so please feel free to review them at your leisure.

daveyf, ok rice paper sleeves. I get the MoFi ones whatever they are. As long as they don't donate electrons you are in business.

You are so Victorian. What is so precious about a record (screams of agony) Take a piece of PVC pipe and throw it in a pot of Brake cleaning fluid. Let it sit there for a year. What happens? Absolutely nothing. Records are the same stuff (with a few different minor ingredients). You use "Last"? It is brake cleaning fluid. Same stuff is used for cleaning electronic parts. It is very inert but is a great solvent for non polar substances. It also has a very high vapor pressure and makes an excellent refrigerant. It is running around your car in rubber hoses heated to in excess of 200 degrees F. You are making an assumption (Brake cleaning fluid is bad for records) which is totally false and may be the exact opposite. This is the way myths get started. I greatly prefer observable reality when available. 

This conversation inspired me to document how to work with the shielding tape.  Check this blog post if you're interested:  https://galibierdesign.com/dont-give-me-no-static/

... Thom @ Galibier Design

Following on from my comment yesterday (08-Dec), it dawns on me that you could achieve a static drain connection to some bearings with adhesive backed shielding tape - the material I referenced earlier.

The adhesive is conductive, and you can solder to the foil.
Depending on the construction of your turntable bearing, you could solder a ground wire to the foil, then peel the backing off and affix it to the bearing.

It might take some fiddling, and obviously won’t work in all situations, but it’s something that might work for you.

I just finished a roll of this, and it works as advertised: https://www.stewmac.com/electronics/shielding/conductive-copper-tape.html

I recently picked up a roll of this, but haven’t used it yet: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07C6YLNYL/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

... Thom @ Galibier Design

@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

I had a lot of records to do so drove down to my local Home Depot paid a couple day workers $20 each to pressure wash em in the drive way. Lost a label or two for which I docked each one $5. They were more careful after that let me tell you!  

All my records are treated very carefully. No matter what you might think, set the cheeseburger down. Trust me. Also the platter is not really a platter, and should not be used for food, not even chinese, which is a shame seeing how it rotates and all.   

Static will attract dog and cat hairs, and bird feathers. When this happens use the brush attachment, do not just vacuum on the floor however much better this may seem, its not. Trust me. 

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.

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 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.

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!

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.

@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.

 

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.

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

... 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.

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.  

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.

@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. 

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  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. 

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

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

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

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. 

@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!

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.

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

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.

@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

Good detective work there, Neil @antinn 

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.

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. 

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. ;)

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

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

@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??

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.

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.

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

@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.

@1971gto455ho   Uhmm..No!

The Solution Is.....Digital !

Cheers 

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.