2. analog
  3. 163955-129831

Back To Static!

We had a long discussion on the possible causes of static electrical charges on records in another thread. We just had a real good cold snap in New England dropping the humidity to under 20% so I was able to run a set of qualitative experiments documenting some surprising results that I hope will clear up a lot of the mystery and help people contro static charge and the accumulation of dust on their record. 
Static field meters are expensive.  The cheapest one I could find cost $260. I had to find a more sensitive way to measure static as it became apparent that using your own hair is very insensitive. Studying the Triboelectric series I noted that polypropylene is at the opposite end to PVS.  I have polypropylene in the form of suture material, the blue thread that many of you have seen. I tied a length of 6-0 Prolene  to a wood dowel and it worked beautifully. The PVC attracts it like a magnet and the Label repels it. It will pick up very small charges that otherwise go undetected. I can now define four conditions; No charge, Light charge, Charged and Heavily charged. It turns out that completely discharging a record is not easy. The label will actually donate electrons to the vinyl over time reaching an equilibrium point. Totally discharging a record required using a Pro-Ject conductive record brush wired to ground. If I suspend a discharged record (no thread activity) by it's hole within 30 minutes it will develop a slight charge (vinyl attracts the thread, label repels it). This will appear to us as an uncharged record. 
Does playing a record increase the static charge?  Yes absolutely, and the charge is additive. Playing the record over and over again progressively increases the charge from slightly to heavily charged. 
Does how you store the record effect charge? Yes absolutely. Records stored in MoFi antistatic sleeves come out with the baseline small charge. Records stored in paper come out with a noticeably higher charge. These are records that have been totally discharged prior to storage. A record that is charged when you put it away will come out at least as charged even if you are using anti static sleeves. Do conductive sweep arms work? Sort of. If the sweep arm leads the stylus charge will still accumulate. The brush has to track with the stylus. 
Unfortunately, I could not get hold of a Zerostat to test it's effectiveness. Regardless, a charge will accumulate with play.
The single best way to totally discharge a record is a conductive brush wired to ground. Just holding it will not work as well. The impedance of your tissue is in the megaohms. You want a dead short. Even so, a small charge will accumulate over a short period of time. The safest assumption is that there is always a charge on the record attracting dust. So, don't leave records out for any period of time. In regards to the hot topic of dust covers, a properly designed Dust cover does not affect sound quality. If your dust cover does effect sound quality in a negative way then you have a choice between sound quality and dirtier records. Your records, your choice. 
I would love to be able to stage voltages. If in the future I manage to come up with a static field meter I will repeat all of this in a quantitative way. Humidity is a huge factor. Those living in more humid environments have less trouble with static accumulation. I suspect everything occurs in like fashion just the voltages are lower. Lower to the point that they do not need any device to lower the charge?  I don't know. 

128x128mijostyn
antinn
408 posts
 
@mijostyn,

 None of these brushes will get deep down into the groove.

Here is the approximate diameter of the three conductive bristle materials used for records:  For reference the V-shaped groove has ‘nominal’ dimensions of 56 microns (0.0022") wide at the top, a radius of 6 microns (0.00025") at the bottom, and a ‘nominal’ depth of 28 microns (0.0011").

Carbon Fiber:  0.00028" (~7 microns).  This can penetrate deeply into the groove almost to the very bottom.

COREBRID™ B (Analog Reflex):  0.0012” (~30 microns).  This can penetrate only partially into the groove. 

THUNDERON: 0.0028" (~70 microns).  This will not penetrate the groove.
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn OP
8,570 posts
 
Thanks antinn, you mentioned that you were worried about the carbon fibers breaking leaving debris in the groove. The carbon fiber brushes I have had over the years have only broken the fibers at the attachment point leaving a long solitary fiber that sits on the surface of the record. But I think there is more to it than just fiber diameter. With the record spinning the fibers are going to surf on the surface of the record and it is unlikely that any of the fibers will even get 1/2 way down. The groove will just kick them out. It would be an interesting thing to film close in and watch. The brushes would probably be more effective slowly turning the record with your left hand while holding the brush in your right.  Brushes are for removal of surface dust and discharging the record. If the record is so dirty you are worried about stuff deep in the groove (because your needle comes away with gunk on it after just one side) I think a popper washing would be in order. Check out antinn's method. It is anal-retentive to the max but it also probably cleans records better than anything else. I shudder to think what cleaning 3000 records that way would be like. Trust me, you want to get paid by the hour.
antinn
408 posts
 
@mijostyn,

Are you sure the tips of the CF brush have not fractured?  Pieces 5 microns in length and 7 microns wide would not be visible but could be audible.  

Come-come now, my manual cleaning procedure is not that bad, I can clean/dry/re-sleeve six records/hour. BUT, the manual labor involved to some will be sheer agony. For me I find the deliberate repetition somewhat relaxing (the low cost notwithstanding) - as others I suspect find knitting that would drive me crazy.  Each to our own, but as I wrote in the book:

It’s important to consider that machines are generally developed for two primary reasons – reduce labor and improve process efficiency. Process efficiency can mean faster (higher throughput) and/or higher probability of achieving quality or achieving a quality that manual labor cannot produce. Manual cleaning in the appropriate environment with appropriate controls can achieve impressive levels of cleanliness, but the labor, skill, time and probability of success generally make it impractical for manufacturing environments. But for the home audio enthusiast; depending on your attention to details, adopting machine assisted cleaning may or may not yield a cleaner record. However, the ease of use and convenience provided by machines can be very enticing and cannot be denied.
pindac's avatar
pindac
2,864 posts
 
I use the Neil Antin Aqueous Cleaning Guidance.
The Idea of Cleaning a vast collection is daunting using any cleaning method.
The Bulk of my Vinyl has been cleaned on previous occasions and I am without any doubts that the New Manual Cleaning Method in use from Aqueous Cleaning has shown how inadequate the Vinyl LP's were cleaned.
I can't prove this but I am sure the residuals that were left from the old methods have been thoroughly deep clean removed from the vinyl along with whatever contaminants were captured in the residuals.
The LP's sound clean now, which is  very difficult to explain unless heard.
30 - 40 Years owned Vinyl when cleaned is spookily too good, but not perfect. 

I use a Bread Loaf cutting Guide as a Rack, the crumb collection with a tissue layer collects drips from the pre-clean, and the Rack also is used for the drying.

I can now organise my self to treat approx' 10 - 15 Lp's in an Hour.
By the time the session is over the earlier cleaned LP's are ready to be given a placed into a new sheath and put onto the 'to be played pile'.
That is plenty of listening to be had before other Albums are selected to be listened to, with a prior to use cleaning undertaken.

This method does not cause to much impact on ones time and is not different to any type of experience undertaken with vinyl. The offset is that the Source is extremely well prepared to receive the Stylus, and where the little extra attention is offering very valuable reward.    
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn OP
8,570 posts
 
@antinn, For the occasional record  your method is fine from all angles. But, If I bought an estate collection which had been managed in the standard fashion, cleaning that many perhaps thousands of records would be daunting at best. I would definitely buy a machine probably a Degritter. 
As for Carbon brushes. There was one particular sweep arm I used for 20 years. I would lose an occasional bristle but I assume nothing else. If fibers were breaking leaving very small fragments in the grooves I would expect that over 20 years the bristles would have gotten noticeably shorter. That did not happen. I went to a different arm because I liked the design better.   
More to discover