@theaudiohiffle I've had the LAST cleaning system around for decades using the all-purpose cleaning solution (I would never use so called "preservatives" on my records or stylus!) and no matter what you do it always leaves residue. When I was still relying on it after using three drops of the solution on the applicator and distributing it according to LAST's instructions, I would roll the applicator on a dry and clean rolled up cotton T shirt at least six times to remove the excess before applying it to the record surface. After multiple plays even within months or years between plays there will be a minute white glob on the tip of the stylus.
As a general rule I keep record cleaning to a minimum. Breaking the seal on a new record it only gets a single pass with a dry carbon fiber brush as I queue up each side, (unpowered, rotating the turntable platter one revolution with my left hand) then a pass with a silicon roller left and right with a quarter turn of the platter and left and right again. I do repeat this procedure with every play whether I've used a more extensive cleaning method on used records or not.
Consider using the Last Record Cleaning system. I started using it on my records in the late '60's (55-60 yrs ago..wow) and those records still sound as new. Use the preservative before first play, then use the cleaning fluid every 3-5th time you play the record. No expensive machinery required, either.
@audition__audioI like your approach. I think the Spin Clean is just the thing for records you pick up at the used record store before ever setting my stylus down on them. I do follow that up with my unsealed record cleaning method as outlined in my previous post to @theaudiohiffle. The final step I believe is playing the record since the stylus is the only thing that makes sufficient contact with the surfaces in the groove followed with a pass with the silicon roller to remove the debris that the stylus flicks up onto the surface of the record during the first play. I never see any reason to ever deep clean a used record again provided you put them in a new clean sleeve and handle them properly before dusting them with a brush and the roller before play. I would also wet clean my stylus before the start of any record I put on the platter as you suggested. In most instances, even on the first play, used records play silently all the way through.
If I can't live with the noise from surfaces imperfections, etc. on that pressing, I return the record for credit or exchange.
I believe that Spin Clean makes a good, manual wet system. You will need to dry the vinyl after cleaning. Also needed will be a anti-static brush and a stylus cleaner. I clean all albums before playing with a wet system and then use the brush for the next 5 or so play before using wet again. You should be able to get all this for under $ 200.00. Nitty Gritty makes a very good wet vacuum, manual system for higher $.
I was in a similar situation, having hardly played records after CDs came out.
Thanks to this forum, I discovered the bible on how to clean records. It is PACVR-3rd-Edition - Precision Aqueous Cleaning of: Vinyl Records.
Like the bible, at 192 pages it is pretty lengthy. But unlike the bible, the author Neil Antin is still alive and is active on this forum!
What I have distilled from this is that
newer line contact stylus profiles read information from parts of the groove walls that have not been 'worn out' by older stylus shapes
ultrasonic cleaning is the best way to dig contaminants from deep in the groove
most contamination is far too small to see with visible light and most people do not have access to electron microscopes
So I bought a Chinese ultrasonic record cleaner for less than A$300 and use it once on all my records, old or new. Polysorbate 20 is the 'detergent' and I use water passed through a Brita ion-exchange filter. Then I rinse the records using a very dilute mix of Ilfoton photographic wetting agent and let them air dry on the rack that came with the machine.
I replace the inner sleeves with Japanese Nagaoka anti-static sleeves.
Before playing any side, I use an AudioQuest carbon fibre anti-static record brush just in case there is any dust.
After switching to this regime, my stylus stays clean far longer. When it needs cleaning, I use Audio Technica stylus cleaning fluid brushed from the rear (my main cartridge is an Audio Technica with a Micro-line stylus). I follow up by lowering the stylus a couple of times into a gel pad which is a purpose built alternative to clay - the DS Audio ST-50 stylus cleaner.
The bottom line is that most of the old pops and crackles have audibly disappeared though nothing can remove scratches. I believe static electricity is the biggest cause of surface noise and water is an excellent way of discharging static. I also think static charges are created in the groove when it is rubbed by a diamond stylus. Charged particles of dust are attracted and stick incredibly firmly - the inverse square law of attraction applies.
I sometimes use the carbon fibre brush after playing a side, especially if I see any dust. And I do use a dust cover while playing.
ultrasonic cleaning is the best way to dig contaminants from deep in the groove
UT cleaning is but one way to clean a record. As the book says Chapter XII about the manual-sink process that uses 3 chemicals with one being a weak acid, The incorporation of the acid chemistry does manually what ultrasonics can do with power; their convenience notwithstanding. But the book in the Forward also states: All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. In the final analysis, the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you.
I also think static charges are created in the groove when it is rubbed by a diamond stylus.
In the book (Chapter VI) it states: The article Phonograph Reproduction 1978, James H. Kogen, Audio Magazine May 1978 (Audio-1978-05.pdf) goes into some detail on static; what causes it and what does not – the needle in the groove was not a source of static. The article indicates that static is not uniform, but exists as islands on a record. Additionally, once the static gets high enough to discharge to the cartridge it only reduces to about 4200 volts. A static charge on the record of 4200 volts will not create noise by itself, but it can by electrostatic attractive forces cause a transient increase in cartridge VTF as much as 0.375 grams leading to distortion and premature wear. So, managing static has many benefits.
The book also addresses the shortcomings of anti-static brushes such as carbon fiber and Thunderon, as follows: How effective are conductive brushes in removing static – only partially effective. In the paper SealezeTM SSG515AT2D Static Dissipation Brush Performance in an Operational Environment (Microsoft Word - SEALEZE_WHITE_PAPER_Final dam.doc) Thunderon™ bristles in a grounded metal frame were only able to reduce the static charge developed during a plastic film manufacture to about 4000 volts whereas the brush with an ionizing device was able to reduce the static charge to less than 300 volts. As previously stated, reducing the static to 4000 volts will be sufficient to prevent static inducted noise, but not enough to prevent affecting the VTF.
@richardbrandThere is no relationship between the specific electrical charge on the surface of a vinyl record and noise. As far as the diamond creating "static" as you people like to call it, last I heard diamonds are made of carbon which is the most conductive material known to man. Of course, at the contact patch there several thousand pounds of force per square inch combined with the velocity of that patch along with the spinning record generates enormous amounts of heat any charge generated by that action would be conducted through the stylus itself, up the cantilever to the metal cross and out through the coils to the preamp and then to ground. Superfluous! The interaction between the spinning record and the dustcover generates more charge while the record is playing and a resulting effect on VTF. "Static"? I just ignore it.
I believe static electricity is the biggest cause of surface noise and water is an excellent way of discharging static. I also think static charges are created in the groove when it is rubbed by a diamond stylus.
Vevor makes an Ultrasonic record cleaner you can get a little over $100 that works well. It cleans 4 to 8 albums at a time depending on which model is used. I purchased to clean about 150 albums and it worked well. I'll use it to re-clean the albums I use more.
Vevor makes an Ultrasonic record cleaner you can get a little over $100 that works well. It cleans 4 to 8 albums at a time depending on which model is used. I purchased to clean about 150 albums and it worked well. I'll use it to re-clean the albums I use more.
I use a Spin Clean with Tergikleen (Amazon) about 20 to 25 drops per gallon of distilled water. I rinse over the sink using a pump up plastic pressure sprayer (inexpensive, Mac Master Carr, Amazon...) again, distilled water. I use a Record Doctor machine to dry and vacuum. Then the records air dry in a bamboo dish rack for at least 15 minutes. I also purchased label protectors from Amazon, I like the long handle version. I use a soft stylus brush to give the stylus a single swipe, back to front for every play. I also use a carbon fiber anti static brush on the vinyl, usually three revolutions, don't press hard, let the fibers do their thing, and I draw the brush off of the record edge as I finish. I do not use cleaning formulae on the vinyl or the stylus, I think the possibility of residue is too great. Tergikleen is like Kodak Foto Flow, a wetting and flow aid, non detergent. When dry the records go into an anti static inner sleeve, and I use a record album outer sleeve. I personally store my records out side of the cardboard sleeve, inside the album's outer sleeve, which is simply my preference. I tend to use three revolutions in both directions with the Spin Clean, and what ever it takes on the Record Doctor to remove most of the water. You will, no doubt, experiment with your technique. I have found this record cleaning method effective and economical. But, I would still like an ultrasonic some day.
Tergikleen is like Kodak Foto Flow, a wetting and flow aid, non detergent.
Actually, both are nonionic surfactants which at low concentration reduce the surface tension of water ergo wetting. But at higher concentrations, nonionic surfactants act as emulsifying agents (breakup oil); ergo a form of detergency. Tergikleen at the manufacturers recommended concentration will acts as both a wetting agent and as a detergent (oil emulsification). But these are nothing like Dawn which is very different and is most people's perspective of a detergent.
I’ve been using just 8 drops per gallon of Tergikleen in my current US cleaner setup. Then I take the lp from the cleaner to my sink and pour distilled over it then back on my (spinning) Vinyl Stack to dry. No visible residue
An excellent alternative to a Zerostat is a Ronxs lighter. While lit just wave above the record, usually about 12 inches. It works by creating an ozone layer above the LP which eliminates static. The ozone layer will not damage the vinyl. Learned about this from Neil Antin, btw.
@billstevenson "wallowing in delusions caused by sniffing the fumes of his misbegotten alchemy" is the quote of the year, IMO!
As far as the diamond creating "static" as you people like to call it, last I heard diamonds are made of carbon which is the most conductive material known to man.
You must still be a few years short of getting a degree in materials science!
Carbon has four valence electrons and exists as several allotropes with enormously varying characteristics. Even in this modern world of false facts, I still find Wikipedia to be reliable, see Carbon - Wikipedia
Diamond is the hardest naturally occurring substance on earth, while another allotrope, graphite, is one of the softest. What makes diamond so hard is that all its electrons are fully occupied forming covalent bonds. There are no free electrons, making diamond an excellent electrical insulator. Perversely, it is the best thermal conductor.
From Wikipedia:
The system of carbon allotropes spans a range of extremes:
It works by creating an ozone layer above the LP which eliminates static.
Just to clarify, what neutralizes the static on the record is the ionized air that the device produces when it creates the blue-arc. The same concept of ionizing the air is how the Milty Zerostat™ 3 Anti-static Gun works. When air is ionized, there is a chance of producing ozone, but in this case very little ozone is generated. Industry uses ionizers to remove/prevent static in small and large scales with bench top units readily available such as TB-3043__tmp68163ca4.pdf, but note that the ozone produced is <0.05-ppm.
My LP collection is about 20 albums, all dating from the 70s or earlier. I found it most effective to pay a guy who has an Ultrasound cleaner $5 bucks an album. The effect has been noticeable. Since US cleaning should only need to be done once, and since I don’t anticipate adding many additional LPs, this is cost effective.
As far as the diamond creating "static" as you people like to call it, last I heard diamonds are made of carbon which is the most conductive material known to man.
You must still be a few years short of getting a degree in materials science!
Carbon has four valence electrons and exists as several allotropes with enormously varying characteristics. Even in this modern world of false facts, I still find Wikipedia to be reliable, see Carbon - Wikipedia
Diamond is the hardest naturally occurring substance on earth, while another allotrope, graphite, is one of the softest. What makes diamond so hard is that all its electrons are fully occupied forming covalent bonds. There are no free electrons, making diamond an excellent electrical insulator. Perversely, it is the best thermal conductor.
From Wikipedia:
The system of carbon allotropes spans a range of extremes:
First, no fluids touch my records. Other than desperate measures, no liquid, Keep it simple. Used for every record, every time I use an Audio Technica Sonic Broom (AT-6012). It’s been around for years. While most cleaners of this type push dirt around the record, this actually picks it up. It picks up dust going one direction and releases it going the opposite. I have a zero-stat but seldom use it as we have few problems with static.
I’ve been in the audio and record business for decades. My friends say I own more speakers that some women have shoes. While that’s not completely true I do have a collection. Records potentially usually have one or two problems: scratches and dirt. Scratches can’t be fixed. Live with it or find another copy. Dirt often can be lifted. It may take time and patience and multiple cleanings. I use a vacuum device found on ebay (Vinyl Vac 33 for $29.97) and an old rim drive turntable w a 3lb platter as a workstation. It uses my vacuum cleaners suction, so I’m not spending money on some whimpey vacuum built into a cute little box that spins my record. Take the time to understand where the problem areas are and focus your work on those areas. I’ve cleaned disastrous recordings to near perfect condition many times.
Again, skip the fluids. I’ve never found a fluid that in some way altered the sound. Some leave more noise than before I started. Others may seem like vinyl noise is reduced but so are subtle dynamics and sound stage. I sold LAST in my store for years, but over time regretted using it. Sure, those records have held their own, but the before mention changes are permanent.
If kept clean, none of these problems should occur. I’m talking about fixing problems. Mostly 2nd hand but sometimes new records had issues too. Brand new records in modern times seldom have issues. Good and bad are the 180-gram reproductions of older records. At first, I thought these were awesome, and in some cases, you’d never find the original. Often, these are overproduced lifeless copies of something that once sounded real. But that’s another story.
Tonearm / cartridge combination will determine record wear (which comes back to noise and sound quality). And why someone would spend serious money on a turntable with no dustcover is beyond me. I bought a collection of Microacoutics cartridges (just to have backup) and have been running the same 382 for more than 25 years at 1.25 grams. 100’s and 100’s of hours of use and neither it nor the records show any signs of wear. Some of my favorite demo discs used in the 80’s still demo very well and have been played more time than anyone would care to know.
have been running the same 382 for more than 25 years at 1.25 grams
I think the Micro Acoustics 382 is a moving magnet cartridge, I suspect with removable stylus. How many playing hours do you estimate you get from one stylus, and what is its tip profile? Just interested ...
@richardbrand Roger Russell called it "electret" or piezo with a beryllium cantilever and fine line stylus.
"I think the Micro Acoustics 382 is a moving magnet cartridge, I suspect with removable stylus. How many playing hours do you estimate you get from one stylus, and what is its tip profile? Just interested ..."
Yes, following up on your lead I discovered that the 382 uses the piezo electrostatic effect with a passive network to make it electrically like a moving magnet system. Another 40-year-old design! The stylus shape is patented but similar to line contact designs.
This thread is an excellent case study of what is good and bad about the internet and forums like this one. As it meanders along the impetus has been perpetuated by a series of excellent questions. There is a lot of good information, but unfortunately along with it there is a lot of conflicting information that is cause for confusion. My purpose in adding this note is to try and stabilize the course and minimize the confusion. I am not the world's foremost authority of vinyl care, Neil Antin is. Neil Anitin has contributed here and once again I urge anyone who is interested in this subject to download his book. It is free. Advice that you might find in this thread that conflicts with his should be considered very carefully. Ask for the science and the statistical evidence to support any conclusions, procedures or recommendations that seem contrary to the known data as outlined in his writings. This is an evolving topic, but there is sound science available to support taking reasonable steps to care for your records. Do no let wild imagination and anecdotal evidence deflect you from what to do. Do not worry about things that cannot occur such as diamond tracing vinyl producing electrostatic energy. And heaven forbid you should refrain from washing your dirty records following carefully developed and tested procedures because of the longstanding prejudice of one or two well meaning, but otherwise collectors without documented science to support their conclusions. There is more than one way to clean a dirty record, but follow the proven scientific methods.
Thank-you for the acknowledgement but let us not forget the contribution that @whart(Bill Hart) made in publishing the book and making it available for free through his site The Vinyl Press -.
Otherwise, please remember what the book says in the Forward: All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. In the final analysis, the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you. All methods/procedures specified here present opportunity for experimenting with different cleaning agents, different cleaning brushes, different drying cloths, and different cleaning equipment.
If you are curious, here is the patent for LAST - 1499067499117143667-05389281. It’s nothing more than a perfluorinated oil dissolved in a perfluorinated solvent. The fluid is applied, and the solvent evaporates leaving behind an oil film. However, it does not ’bond’ with the record. Perfluorinated products are some of the most stable products known, which is why they are now also known as "forever chemicals". However, there should be no health concerns with using LAST provided you do not drink it. The oil definitely plates out on the record, and it does not evaporate (perfluorinated oils are used in satellites) and once on the surface, as you have experienced, is not easily removed. Forget ultrasonics, multiple applications of a fairly aggressive detergent and vigorous brushing are what it takes to remove.
I believe we are in agreement. My concluding sentence "There is more than one way to clean a dirty record, but follow the proven scientific methods."
With respect to Last I have shared this story on this forum before. I was working at a high end stereo shop in San Diego when Last was first introduced. I believe ~1977 or 1978 (?). Anyway the sales rep demonstrated the product as follows: We set up two identical Dual 1229 Turntables, on one a fresh copy of Thelma Houston's Direct To Disc was treated with Last; on the the second an identical copy of same was left untreated. Both were played back and forth to verify that they sounded the same. This was all done in front of a room full of interested customers. The two turntables were left on auto-repeat and left to play for one week. Everyone reconvened and the two were compared again. The stylus on each was checked and cleaned. The untreated record had noticeably deteriorated, but the Last treated record sounded fine. Next it was compared with a third fresh copy of the same record and there was no noticeable difference. The store sold a lot of Last on that day and ever after. I still use it on my best records to this day.
"If you are curious, here is the patent for LAST - 1499067499117143667-05389281. It’s nothing more than a perfluorinated oil dissolved in a perfluorinated solvent. The fluid is applied, and the solvent evaporates leaving behind an oil film. However, it does not ’bond’ with the record. Perfluorinated products are some of the most stable products known, which is why they are now also known as "forever chemicals". However, there should be no health concerns with using LAST provided you do not drink it. The oil definitely plates out on the record, and it does not evaporate (perfluorinated oils are used in satellites) and once on the surface, as you have experienced, is not easily removed. Forget ultrasonics, multiple applications of a fairly aggressive detergent and vigorous brushing are what it takes to remove. "
@richardbrandJust like the ceramic cartridges with the flip-over sapphire stylus with a plastic cantilever you would get on those crappy BSR turntables in the 60s and 70s. Longines Symphonette anyone!
As for the proprietary stylus geometry, it's just a variation of the length and width of the contact patch. Shibata's and line contacts were developed in the era of quadrophonic because they could resolve the ultra-sonic information encoded on the LP during the lacquering process used to steer the surround effects from speaker to speaker when they were decoded in the preamp. It was also a milestone improvement in faceting the microscopic diamond tip and the resulting advantages in playback quality for stereo LPs.
"Yes, following up on your lead I discovered that the 382 uses the piezo electrostatic effect with a passive network to make it electrically like a moving magnet system. Another 40-year-old design! The stylus shape is patented but similar to line contact designs."
I am new to this forum and this is actually my first post! I too have always had a vintage disc washer brush at least, and would sometimes wet clean with it but usually a dry brushing. Then I bought a spin clean and while it yielded decent enough results it was very time consuming and always worried about getting the labels wet. When I had a windfall a few years ago I purchased a VPI 16.5 and I am never going back. I have tried the Tergikleen and others but bottom line for cleaning recently purchased used vinyl this is amazingly effective for a deep cleaning. Get yourself a Milty static gun as well!
No, GruvGlide is nothing like LAST. If this is still the ingredients of GruvGlide - Gruv Glide Ingredients Revealed- Vinyl Engine, it's an antistatic spray. Quaternary ammonium compounds (QUATs for short) are cationic surfactants which are very hygroscopic. When the solution evaporates, a film (residue) of QUATs is left behind, and being very hygroscopic pulls moisture from the air and the ionic solution neutralizes any static. They have limits and tend not work very well below about 30% relative humidity. QUATs are used in every hair conditioning product to prevent hair frizz. QUATs are also anti-bacterial and with the right amount of solution and residence time can kill bacteria and viruses. Most of your home anti-bacterial cleaners have QUATs; although as cleaning agents, cationic surfactants are poor.
Thanks, Neil. Looks like it's been changed since then and the cans no longer mention the QA compounds. I'll save my old cans in case I ever fancy taking up solvent sniffing.
Do not worry about things that cannot occur such as diamond tracing vinyl producing electrostatic energy
What a very strange approach you have to science, and the scientific method!
Perhaps you would care, in your spirit of keeping this thread on the straight and narrow, to explain what you mean by this statement, and how you know it cannot occur?
By the way, I do not think anyone has claimed that "diamond tracing vinyl" produces electrostatic energy. Apart from anything else, as far as we know in our universe, energy (as defined by physics) is always conserved.
Friction between two insulators does cause some electrons to be displaced from the insulator with the lower electron affinity to the one with the higher affinity. Polyvinyl chloride has one of the highest known electron affinities. Once again, I trust Wikipedia: Triboelectric effect - Wikipedia. I quote
It is ubiquitous, and occurs with differing amounts of charge transfer (tribocharge) for all solid materials
Next I would invite you to consider what the consequences of such charges, adhering to the vinyl groove wall, might be?
I have been ridiculed in this forum for pointing out that electromagnetic forces exceed gravitational forces by about 36 orders of magnitude, according to the Standard Model of particle physics: see Standard Model - Wikipedia
Strength at the scale of
protons/neutrons
(relative to electromagnetism)
10−36 (predicted)
I hypothesise that these stray electrons will attract any positively charged dust mites and clamp them to the groove wall with tremendous force, where they will cause clicks and pops when traced by the diamond stylus. Neil’s book shows electron microscope images which would tend to support this hypothesis.
Interestingly, we all (hopefully) know that diamond stylii wear on their contact facets during play. The bits of diamond that are abraded away are likely to be positively charged (in our universe charge is conserved and the diamond has donated electrons to the vinyl) and will add to the material locked in place in the groove. And diamond is the best abrasive known to man.
Neil’s book reports an astonishing proportion of diamond dust in the detritus picked up by stylii:
An analysis of the “dust” removed from a number of stylus tips, which had been used on dirty records, showed that it consisted of approximately: 12% jagged silica particles, 35% diamond dust, 40% miscellaneous particles, including soot, grit and particles worn from the record groove itself. The remaining 13% consisted of fibers and lint.
My belief is a hypothesis, but seems to be supported by empirical evidence. If I were smart enough, I should make some predictions that others could test but experimental physics at small scales is both difficult and expensive!
The quote from book is from THE WEAR AND CARE OF RECORDS AND STYLI, by Harold D. Weiler, 1954.
The diamond dust is of no consequence - it is very fine sub-micron that really has no impact to record playback. As I say in the book (Chapter VI). This has to exist as a very, very fine powder and the finest diamond powder you can buy is 100,000 grit which is 0.25 micron. So, the diamond wear powder on the record is probably less which in the end becomes inconsequential so long as there is no cleaner residue.
If whatever wear byproduct powder that is produced by the diamond and the record is kept dry and free of oily and sticky residue, the stylus should move through this without any effect – not unlike a light coating of very dry powder-snow, it just blows around.
Now the jagged silica particles are something else, and its origins are likely natural aerosols that the book addresses in Chapter IV and can be very fine Sahara Desert sand - you can read further about aerosols at NASA.
Fundamentally, the electrical resistance of PVC is report as about 10^16 Electrical Resistivity of Polymers and Plastics - Table while diamond is reported as 10^16 to 10^18 Resistivity of Carbon, Diamond - The Physics Factbook. This similarity would tend to minimize any triboelectric effect and support the reports that the diamond does not cause static on the record. Otherwise, if you carefully read Chapter VI, Table IV, you will see where the triboelectric series is better quantified. Standard HDPE record sleeves are close to PVC which is why they are used, but they are far enough apart that if you quickly pull the record from the sleeve, there is some risk of developing a static charge on the record.
RB evidently persists in his conviction that the friction between stylus and groove is a cause (certainly even he would not say it is the only cause) of static electric charge on the vinyl surface. This despite the fact that months ago when this question came up, already for the Nth time, it was made known to RB that Shure Corporation studied this phenomenon in the context of their white paper on the subject of static charge, which is available on line, and Shure investigators failed to find evidence to support the thesis. RB was dissatisfied with the Shure report, because they failed to provide much in the way of experimental detail. Fair enough, but why would they make it up? Anyway, I and at least one other Forum member have done the experiment in a controlled fashion, using a static electric charge meter to measure charge on the vinyl surface before and after play. We both, independently, find no evidence to support the "stylus/vinyl friction theory" for the genesis of static charge. However, the idea is evidently so appealing to RB that he wants to bring it up again.
On how charge can be removed from the LP surface, the "ozone theory" (the notion that an ozone cloud over the LP neutralize static charge) is ridiculous, although it is true that some of the gear sold to remove or prevent static charge build up does in passing produce low amounts of ozone. If your gadget has an element that needs periodic replacement or cleaning, it is probably one of those that does produce ozone. To the best of my ability to find out, other types of ion generators do not produce ozone. The deal is that vinyl accumulates negative ions on its surface; that is the nature of the static charge. Flooding the surface with positive ions will neutralize the charge. Static electricity is a fascinating subject, and much about it is still not well understood.
Ben Franklin advises us to say all of the positive things we can, but none of the negative. You seem determined to obfuscate the value of this discussion with unproveable conjecture. The following is my response....
I mitigate static largely by how I handle LPs. I work in bare feet (as opposed to socks and/or shoes on a carpet). After the record has been cleaned, it does not exhibit a charge. Pulling a record from a tight paper sleeve can charge it, as can resleeving. I’ve found that those round bottom Japanese inners are some of the best for leaving little residue or particulate matter from the liner.
Sure, I have had a Milty type gun forever, but rarely if ever use it. When I resleeve, I put the record in an outer jacket cover with some protection on the back side, rather than shoving it back in the jacket, which also mitigates friction and static in my experience. The rug in my listening room is a huge old Persian that is almost threadbare- we’ve had it for decades and it was very old when we bought it. It does not contribute to a charge the way a deeper pile plush rug would.
On occasion, I’ll see dust flecks that come from the room-- though I use a pretty powerful Hepa air scrubber when the system isn’t powered up. Those I can remove through a combination of air puffer and Kinetronics Tiger Cloth that Neil @antinn turned me onto. I used to use silk for this purpose. The Tiger cloth works better and is cheap- you can find it at Amazon.
The Miltys I’ve owned where not user friendly and not that effective. My Furutech Destat II is works great and gets a workout before and after each side.
As far as I know, Ben Franklin was the last US president to have been an experimental scientist?
He was interested in electrostatic forces, and was renowned for flying a kite into active thunderstorms. A presidential precedence I would like to see continued today ...
I was rather hoping for a scientific approach to static on vinyl records - how it is caused, what its effects are, and how it is mitigated.
@lewm comes closest by attempting to use a static charge meter, and detecting no change. But this a gross measurement tool bought to measure electrostatic panel speakers. The charge of an electron is tiny, at 1.60217663 × 10-19 coulombs. Moreover in our universe, as far as we know, charge is always conserved. If the material donating an electron sticks to the vinyl, there would be no net change of charge on the vinyl for any meter to detect.
As the great US physicist Richard Feynman amusingly explains, science can never prove a theory right, but it can prove it wrong.
@antinn "Just to clarify, what neutralizes the static on the record is the ionized air that the device produces when it creates the blue-arc. The same concept of ionizing the air is how the Milty Zerostat™ 3 Anti-static Gun works. When air is ionized, there is a chance of producing ozone, but in this case very little ozone is generated."
Thanks for setting me straight, Neil. I knew the answer, but got the 2 parts of the equation jumbled.
@lewmForgive my ignorance. The result is the same, though. I've used the Zerostat and have a Furustat deStat II. The Ronxs lighter is far better than both of them, in my experience. And a lot less expensive. Thank you for that suggestion, Neil.
@whartI also use the Tigercloth instead of a fiber brush, also thanks to Neil's suggestion. I tried washing them, but under UV light, there was still a bunch of detritus on the cloth. So I replace it every 4 months or so.I also have found that the bare foot approach works best to minimize static charge as I too have several rugs I must traverse from record rack to turntable.
Benjamin Franklin will be most surprised to discover that he was US president....
(Though he was President of Pennsylvania prior to the formation of the US).
My mistake! I remembered from my schooldays that he was a US politician and a president, plus US ambassador to France. And one of the five founding fathers, I believe?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
