|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.226.120.51
So if I were to build 105db+ watt meter speaker, FR +-2db 30hz-25kc how would you go about it? Wider bandwidth is ok too :)
This is THE challenge
Lawrence
Edits: 04/21/17Follow Ups:
though they may not even realise themselves.
91.
"Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems to characterise our age." Albert Einstein
Why not horns?, they are the obvious way to get that sensitivity level, can produce more sound and can produce a larger near field.
Some folks just can't tolerate the HONK HONK SQUAWK of horns.
I've tried SO hard. I LOVE so much of what some of those super-efficient designs can do.
NO horn design that I have actually heard, from ANY form of Klipsch, to CAR (Classic Audio Reproductions), to Avantgarde Acoustics has been acceptable to me. MANY of them get the dynamics right, but every damn one has me running from the room post haste. :(
p.s.? A heavily modified CAR T1 was the closest I ever got to a sound I could live with...
Hard to imagine anyone liking horn honk but generally this "sound" is not the fault of the horn but rather the crossover.
Well a better description is that in the old days, there was no way to design a crossover other than to look up values on a table or calculation.
While the calculations are correct, they are only correct IF one has a resistor as the termination and loudspeakers, especially compression drivers are not much like a resistor.
Usually one finds that there is a peak in the response related to the impedance peak at least on older horn systems and to me, it doesn't look like there is a lot going on now scientifically with horns except for some proponents like myself.
If the problem is indeed the crossover, how about going to multiple amps and a Line Level crossover like MiniDSP?
You can impliment nearly anything you can think of AND if you are willing to wade thru the math, even an FIR filter which has NO phase shift thru the passband. That's gotta sound interesting?
Depending on the crossover removed, you might even ADD a db or so to the overall sensitivity of the system.
Too much is never enough
My thought about "why" is this: Most horns with a single source at the apex are just too damn small. The bigger the horn, the better the horn. Unless you are Tom Danley and know hot to miniaturize them properly with multiple holes in the right places NOT in the apex.
"in the old days,"Ha!
"in the old days,", horns were often horrible. That's what I said. Don't blame it on the crossover, although, they were often iffy, too.
:)
Edits: 05/02/17
This is exactly 100% correct. I know, I have been through it !
Edits: 05/02/17
Tried a good amplifier yet?My experience nearly always traces those "honks" and "shouts"
to amplifiers, not something else.Some listeners also dismiss silver wire for the same reasons.
Just like the horn-loaded speakers, the superior silver wiring is
trying it's darndest to tell you something.....Ever used a Spectral solid-state amp? No?
Quit blaming horns! Start looking for the source of
the troubles, nearly all amplifiers.-Dennis-
Edits: 04/26/17
My IN-HOME experiences?
Solid state? Yep - Spectral DMA-50 (didn't own it)
Tube? VTL Deluxe 120 (DO still own it).
Horn speakers in question? My Ex's Klipsch KG5.5s (which I "rope caulked" the horn drivers). Still honking.
NO, not the best example of horns, but what I had at home.
Other examples are what I heard at dealers and/or shows - and I'm pretty sure the dealers and/or manufacturers thought those amp/speaker pairings were at least "reasonable" matches.
Hi Dennis, good name BTW my fathers name :)Anyways it is of my years of knowledge that IMO and amplifier cannot fix a bad nasty shouting speaker, nor would i want too this tells me it is somehow covering up its inhearent problems (horns speakers)
now I wont re-write everything here but I will provide a link that will show exactly what i really think about horn speakers and why they are NO GOOD for audio IN THE HOME.
I am shuffleskater
Edits: 04/28/17
Hi
Don't get me wrong, horns are very hard to implement let alone design from the driver up and that is why much of the home and DIY area consists of horns and drivers developed by engineer artisan's long before good measurements and computer modeling and design existed, proven designs (and often available used).
A creative and observant person can go a very long way without the technical help available now but it makes more sense to me to use every tool and aid you can get your hands on and to build on the library of understanding by doing tests on your own where there are a lot of blank pages.
supposed to explain what is about horn speakers you don't like? The posts I read - before the thread repeated itself ad nauseam and the generalisations, personal insults, and general willy waving became tedious - was that horns don't resemble live music because they distort and present music in an upfront way.
You are not really explicit enough in your descriptions for people to help... though if you are seeking help, you approach is counter-productive. I could be wrong, but your approach resembles trolling, though that may not be your motivation.
91.
"Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems to characterise our age." Albert Einstein
"Ever used a Spectral solid-state amp?"When I was in Beserkeley a few months ago, my friend and I went to Music Lovers Audio (again), where we heard a Spectral CD player with a Spectral preamp and Spectral monoblocks driving a pair of Wilson Alexia speakers (which, btw, I liked more than the Alexandria's). We put on a couple of recordings which I made many years ago, and, seriously, they sounded great (and I was quite pleased with myself). My friend commented that he has a lot of respect for Keith Johnson, saying (paraphrasing here) that he's one of the few guys who really does work at trying to "get it right".
:)
Edits: 04/27/17
I sure love my Berkeley Dacs!
-Dennis-
Seems to me that I saw one of their products at Music Lovers - I vaguely remember a component that had their logo on the top of the case, I think. I'll check them out next time I'm in town.Anyway, my experience with horns is that, at least in the past (say, the 1940's to 1970's designs), manufacturers tried to squeeze too much performance out of a horn. Throat size (air distortion), mouth-to-world interface (impedance matching), metal horn ringing, internal reflections, were some of the problems. The first horns which I heard that actually sounded pretty decent were the Electro-Voice CD horns - the white horns, in about '73 or '74. They blew the Altecs and JBLs away. When I was doing the sound for a little rock band in '75/'76, we had some JBL radial exponential horns which were awful, and one of my first goals was to replace them with the new E-V horns. The band was ecstatic.
Somewhere around that time period, John Meyer decided to go one step farther, and built electronics to "pre-distort" the input signal, so that the horn distortion itself would actually compliment the pre-distorted signal and result in a cleaner output. I don't remember offhand if John Curl was involved in that research or design, and I don't know what the current status of the concept is.
Anyway, horn design has come a long way since the legacy days of "traditional" exponential horns, thank goodness!
:)
Edits: 04/28/17
David S., I feel your pain! You need to try some generously sized conical flare (straight sided) horns, which as Bill Woods has long asserted, sound "the least like horns." I ignored his wise counsel for several years, much to my detriment. Honk be gone!
I have heard something similar. Those horns which are designed more for pattern control (i.e, waveguides) as opposed to high efficiency seem to have less of that "honk."
There was a peer review study conducted for different speakers such as conventional monkey coffins and different horns. The shorter horns (less than 1 foot deep if I remember right) had a sound characteristic very similar to conventional monkey coffins.
Maybe the cause, or a contributing cause, are the HOMs which horns can produce. You can read all about HOMs elsewhere (I even forgot what the acronym stands for - ask Earle Geddes).
Retsel
Not all who wander are lost.
Not all who are horny honk.
Just sayin'.
all the best,
mrh
Just looking at the picture of the JBL driver. I'm sure you know, but I would point out that the poles on the JBL drivers are reversed, and red is negative.
I have a pair of 2482s with the paint knocked off the back just like yours. Did you ever try to remove the bug screen? I know people hate that subject, but man that screen is like a sieve from the 1940s. It looks like it would require a big spanner key to unscrew the phase plug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
and the phase was indeed reversed when that photo was taken, I am chagrined to admit.
Long story -- bottom line: at the advice of a hifi sage of my ken, I bought myself a Cricket. It's an invaluable tool for all issues of phase!
all the best,
mrh
Oh I know. I did the same thing myself.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
I can only comment on those horn systems that I have been exposed to.
I would CERTAINLY hope there is a horn speaker system I could live with. I'd just love to hear such a thing.
David S, if you ever get the chance to hear TomServo's (a.k.a. Tom Danley) synergy horn designs, take it. Unfortunately Danley Labs doesn't design for or market to the consumer market, so it would likely have to be a DIY design based on the idea or someone (not many out there) who is using the huge pro audio horns in a house. Doesn't sound like a horn, or like a speaker much either.
_
Make easy high performance diffusors:-->http://www.libinst.com/diffusers/Depot_Diffuser.html
Horn Design Spreadsheet:--> http://libinst.com/SynergyCalc/
SmallSyns:-->http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/292379-s
and I do ;-)
De gustibus non est disputandum, of course.
all the best,
mrh
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
may take some input impedance cheating (and EQ)pick 4-15's !ts ~0.3 and hot, vented box tuned to low 30's - EQ = Q=2 at ~Fb (traditional underdamped 2nd order electrical high-pass)
two "big" midrange per channel in parallel file:///C:/Users/Fenix/Downloads/MR10N301%20spec%20sheet.pdf
- not sure about a non-horn tweeter - could be compression driver on a baffle - might get 101dB from one over a limited range (?)
two paralleled Pyle pym1298 (~ same as Kappa12a) sim to 102dB in a Karlson bandpass - but do not go low
Karlson Evangelist
Edits: 04/23/17 04/23/17
Impossible.
For a source with no directivity, the 106dB 1w 1m sensitivity would imply about a 25% efficiency which is quite high.
An array of sources where the radiators are all less than ¼ wavelength from each other does benefit from mutual coupling however the limit is somewhere around 25%.
I don't know of a way to do this with direct radiators above low frequencies, above that arrays of driver are individual sources and while one can form a beam, the energy time envelope also shows individual arrivals in time a "time distortion" of the input impulse.
Even with a horn this is not an easy task
The Fostex FW305 is 1.4% efficient and 12" diameter, and could give 30Hz with a ported box, if you use an SET with a damping factor of 2-3.
To get 20% efficiency would need 14 of them. With close packing, you might make an array as small as 4 feet diameter, which is 1/4 wave at 70Hz - a reasonable maximum for the crossover. A hair more than an octave bandwidth. The box would be somewhere around 100-200 cubic feet.
A similar array of 6" 96dB drivers (there are some) could cover 70Hz to 160Hz.
I don't know any direct radiators with 96dB sensitivity and 3"diameter, so I think you would be in trouble without horns.
Yes this is a tough challenge and why i said "I don't know of a way to do this with direct radiators above low frequencies, above that arrays of driver are individual sources and while one can form a beam, the energy time envelope also shows individual arrivals in time a "time distortion" of the input impulse."
The problem is seen most clearly at the other end where say at 10Khz, even a great compression driver on a horn has very low efficiency and 105dB 1w 1m only achieved by a very narrow pattern up high.
If I'm reading this spec sheet right, it is > 105dB from 9-30kHz.
That seems so high that I suspect I'm misinterpreting something.
I see "recommended frequency range is 3kHz to 50kHz with an sensitivity of 96dB. " Or do you mean from their weird response curve?
And it's weird how they say it's a dead short to the amp (which is why some ribbons have transformers, or used to)
Yeah, the response curve: it looks like 97dB at 2kHz rising to 110dB at 15kHz.
Maybe the rise is real, but goes away if you move 1cm off axis.
You have imposed constraints (efficiency and no horns). It would help to know what are you trying to achieve sonically and practically so we can understand whether the constraints are relevant and help suggest suitable solutions.Sure, you might have comprehensively thought through all the options and done your research, but perhaps not.
Cheers,
91.
"Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems to characterise our age." Albert Einstein
Edits: 04/24/17
That JBL is only 95.5 dB, 1W ,1m according to the spec sheet.
You are right, David. Sloppy of me.
Multiple drivers for each pass band. It's not a particularly difficult task, you'll just end up with a very large box.
-unless you are going by sensitivity spec only.
That spec does not tell the full story. Efficiency (1 watt/1 meter) tells more.
In the case of paralleling multiple drivers, the total system efficiency remains exactly the same. This is because the one watt gets distributed over the multiple drivers. So if there are 8 drivers, each gets 1/8th watt.
In a nutshell, by using multiple drivers you can increase the sensitivity (if they are in parallel; if in series the sensitivity goes down with each added driver) but the actual efficiency is the same as if you had one driver only.
Radiating efficiency does go up as the number of drivers is increased. However, the upper -3dB frequency goes down by a factor of 0.7 with each doubling of drivers, so the law of diminishing returns is in effect, and eventually you reach a maximum system efficiency of some 25% with direct radiators. This was long ago quantified by Don Keele in his AES preprint on the efficiency of moving coil drivers. Were this not the case with sufficient drivers you could exceed 100% efficiency, and then you wouldn't need a cold fusion reactor to provide the power for the system.
"then you wouldn't need a cold fusion reactor to provide the power for the system. "
Hahahahahahaha! THAT was funny!
:)
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Lobing isn't an issue with a vertical line array.
"There are cases such as line arrays where lobing is actually a desirable effect by placing many identical drivers in a column which deliberately provokes lobing. This is done to convert a spherical waveform of a single driver into a cylindrical one, with a narrow, vertical direction. The main reason people started building such line arrays was to be able to intelligibly transmit human speech in highly reverberant spaces like churches by avoiding sound being projected onto ceilings and floors.
This only works in a narrow frequency band and line arrays tend to be highly collared when listened to off axis."
"Line arrays have uneven sound quality and response in the middle and high frequencies, despite what their manufacturers would want you to hear. That's because they usually have discontinuities at the edges of each driver unit, and because they don't go from floor to ceiling. All this results in interferences that cloud up the sound quality. It's simple to hear: just play some pink noise on the speaker, and listen up and down from the middle of the line array. You will notice a swishing in the sound, proving that the spectrum changes. Problem is that depending on which row you sit in a tiered theaters, you will get a different experience, none if which is probably right in the first place."
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Lobing resolves into a coherent wave front with distance, so it's not an issue other than at close listening distances. This shows how it occurs:
[url]http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/feschools/waves/diffract4.htm[/url]
The other issues you quoted also occur close in to the array, not at appropriate listening distances. My assumption is that your quoted source is a manufacturer that does not make line arrays.
Edits: 04/22/17
"Note however that once we get to a reasonable distance from the grating, towards the right of the simulation window, the waves from each slit have added back up into a large plane wave by Huygen's principle. "
What constitutes (and how do you calculate it) a "reasonable distance"?
Don't we all listen at "close distances" in our living rooms?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
> What constitutes (and how do you calculate it) a "reasonable distance"?
That depends on the frequency and the driver spacing. If it was a major issue Don Keele's CBT array wouldn't work. It does, but to function at typical living room distances there's an awful lot of very small drivers for the requisite CTC distance.
Yes, Huygens rule does show a final summation however, each source radiates independently and in the array each radiates with its own dispersion angle just as it would operating alone.
Also, the longer or more curved you make a line, the more energy is radiated to the sides.
No one here is going to buy any of our stuff at work so i will link a paper that deals with multiple sources etc with systems on a larger scale than a living room. Some of it uses a modeling program called Direct which is free and has some theoretically perfect examples one can play with as shown here.
Tom,
I know that article is about 5 years old, but it says a lot for the line array vs. point source argument. I actually recommend that someone at your shop revisit that article for grammar/spelling and reducing a little wordiness, condensing it down a bit further--but keeping the excellent figures and their textual explanations. I think that might induce more people to read it. I found it most convincing, but I had to keep myself reading it to get to the end.
I know many others have mentioned the line array problem and how bad they actually sound in real life. A bunch of guys that I know have been looking for the reasons "why not line arrays" and "why point sources" to help focus on point source horn designs. That article has the meat for the big venue commercial sound crowd.
What's less known is why the point source design works so well in small rooms. I'm not sure that I've seen you clearly enumerate why point source loudspeakers designed for the large venues also do so well in small rooms. That would be an interesting discussion. There's a story there. Perhaps I'll break tradition and start a thread on that subject.
JMTC.
Chris
"As far as the ear can tell, consistently clean and spacious bass can be reproduced only by a driver unit coupled to a horn-type acoustic transformer..."; Jack Dinsdale, May 1974
Hi
I believe there are a number of things which enter into this. Instead of the most obvious things, the most "un-obvious" thing is that our hearing system is VERY different in several ways than a measurement system and here is one thing invisible to a single microphone but clearly audible to the ear.
For example it is possible to have two sets of loudspeakers, eq' to have the same magnitude and phase and if you listen to one, they both sound VERY similar yet when you have pairs, they produce very different results with stereo images. In one case with such recording that has a strong mono phantom (same signal to both speakers) you get a strong phantom image and are unaware of a right and left speaker while the other case, you still hear a phantom image but you can also clearly hear the right and left speakers.
In this case, you are hearing elements of "how" the loudspeaker radiates and when there is sufficient difference between what reaches the right and left ear when facing the 1 speaker, your hearing system can localize it's position. Lacking those contradicting spatial cues, the hearing system instead hears a source coming from directly in front of you in stereo or with just one, it is hard to tell how far away the speaker is when your eyes are closed, your ears choose the depth sound in the recording instead of the speakers location. This is the area I am fascinated with, so is co-worker Doug Jones and I have tried to apply what I see to our large scale loudspeakers at work.
If you have headphones handy, try the link below for a speaker I was testing on Friday which "acts like" a single driver simple source (taken at 100 meters).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tjs1mvmy451xcw/20170428113326.mts?dl=0
Secondly, reflections from close by the speakers also impart a spatial signature on everything the speaker produces and these also conflict with the signal you want, giving you cues that weaken or conflict with the image in the recording. Often putting absorption on the side walls where the strongest reflections would be from has a marked improvement in image. One can easily hear how much or if the room has a strong effect by setting the stereo up outside at approximately the same geometry as indoors and spend some time listening, normally the stereo image is vastly better outdoors although typically the bass is less. Fwiw, this is a great excuse to have a BBQ or picnic get together.
The point is, if you have speakers large enough to have significant and consistent forward directivity, then much less energy is going to hit the side walls and the near field where the direct sound is louder than the reflected sound is larger (good juju). This factor is critical in larger scale sound where the cubic volume works against absorptive surface area and the Hopkins Stryker equation shows intelligibility goes down with increasing number of sources and up with increasing source directivity. This is why essentially all of our products at work are large horns to maximize directivity to specific angles.
The cool part of constant directivity, one can move off axis and the spectral balance doesn't change just the spl.
It has been possible to use this combination of aim angle and height in stadiums where speakers are in the scoreboard and have only a + - 2dB variation in loudness over the entire stadium and as the consultant said "it sounds the same everywhere".
The reason high output systems can work very well in the home is because nearly all of the things loudspeakers do wrong or add to the signal increase faster with level than the input signal's portion does. Loudspeakers are more like tube amplifiers than SS, here the distortion and non linearity are nearly all related to level. It has long been said "headroom is your friend" and it's especially true if/when dynamics are a concern. The success also depends on if it sounds good to begin with etc..
Hope that make sense
Tom
if its as easy as you say why has there not any built?
can you be more specific more on the design exact drivers etc...
Line arrays with that kind of sensitivity have been built since the 1940s, when they were referred to as column speakers.
Kidding, but that's the most recent "big name" line array I remember & have heard.
That's what I remember about those-the gentleman promoting it kept saying that over and over. Actually more like THUNderous bass.
Only a little horn:
Sorry it's 10db short of the 105db mark
You know, used-hifi, Bill Fitzmaurice gave you the correct and quite practical to implement answer to your question right off. You might have said thank you instead of continuing to act as though you had asked the unanswerable question.
Sorry don to not live up to your expecstions and no he didn't answer my question!
like already said Multiple drivers for each pass band.
If one driver has 87dB/2.83 volt sensitivity two will have 93dB, four will have 99dB sensitivity, eight will have 105dB sensitivity, so it's as simple as that...if your amp will drive a 1 ohm load. Assuming it won't then you have to use a combination of series and parallel wiring to keep the impedance within a useful range, and that means even more drivers.
OTOH with a large enough horn you can reach 30Hz with 105dB sensitivity with one driver.
I've always been confused by that.
2.83 volts across 8 ohms is one watt.
2.83 volts across 4 ohms is two watts.
2.83 volts across 2 ohms is four watts.
If you have a speaker that will give 87db from one watt and you add another in parallel you get 90db from one watt. Add three (for a total of 4) and you get 93db from one watt, not 99db.
What am I mis-understanding?
I am going to guess that it's because I think in terms of tube amplifiers.
I think of using the 8 ohms tap for one speaker and the 4 ohms tap for two speakers and the 2 ohm tap for four speakers so the amplifier does not output twice the power just because the load impedance has decreased every time the load impedance is halved. In fact it stays the same because the load seen by the output devices stays the same.
Now that leads me to the idea of series/parallel.
The power output of a transistor amplifier only doubles when the load impedance halves so if the speakers are wired series/parallel, to keep the load impedance at 8 ohms, then four speakers vs. one would be 93db vs. 87db even for a SS amp. You would only get to 99db if all four were in parallel.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I am like Tre' in being a bit (a great big bit?) confused on this subject. I accepted the idea that doubling the number of drivers increases efficiency by 6 dB decades ago When Dr. Joe d'Appolito was writing for Speaker Builder. He always stated that doubling the number of drivers increased efficiency by 6dB. I assume he knew what he was talking about. Am I confusing efficiency and sensitivity.If Bill Fitzmaurice or someone else who has a good understanding of this subject could offer a more comprehensive explanation it would be very much appreciated.
Edits: 04/24/17
Hi Don
When two equal sources are about ¼ wavelength apart or less, they "feel" each other's radiation pressure (aka mutual coupling) and add coherently into one new source. In that process, you have doubled power handling (having two drivers now) AND increased radiation efficiency because with coherent addition comes an effectively larger radiator.
BUT when two sources are more than ¼ wl apart, they begin to radiate independently and by ½ wl separation they are independent sources and now when you go from one to two, you go up 3 dB because you no longer have mutual coupling that had raised the efficiency previously.
That increase in sensitivity has a practical upper limit at around 25% efficiency which would be about 106dB 1w1m. O
ne can see a difference between independent radiation and coherent coupling by inverting one of the drivers in each temporarily.
In the close coupled case where they add to become one source, the two sources nearly completely cancel each other out, with more than ¼ wl spacing, only the radiation pattern changes when you invert one because they are two independent sources, not one.
Doubling the driver count parallel wired increases voltage sensitivity by 6dB, not efficiency. It doubles efficiency, which is 3dB of the sensitivity increase. It halves the impedance, giving the other 3dB voltage sensitivity increase. If you double the driver count series wired the double radiation efficiency still gives you an additional 3dB of sensitivity, but the doubled impedance takes that 3dB away, for a net unity gain. But you don't keep getting a doubling of efficiency with every doubling of drivers. 25% efficiency is about it with direct radiators, usually reached with between 16 and 32 drivers.
Here is how I look at it.Doubling the number of drivers (in and of itself) increases the driver sensitivity by 3db.
Now take into account that when the drivers are wired in parallel then the impedance is halved.
With a transistor amplifier (at least in theory) the output power will double when the load impedance is halved.
So with twice an many drivers (wired in parallel) the total increase in system sensitivity is 6db.
To say all of that a different way,
When you double the number of drivers (from one to two) it increases the sensitivity by 6db (twice the power gives 3db and twice the cone area gives another 3db).
BUT if you only provide one watt the net increase is only 3db because each driver is only getting 1/2 watt (twice the cone area gives 3db but we're not providing twice the power so 3db is the net increase).
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 04/24/17 04/24/17
Answers on line array sensitivity can be found in my Near Field Line Array white paper.
SPL calculations are on page 17-18.
Jim
"For example, two speakers connected in
parallel and mounted within a wavelength center-to-center spacing would yield up to a 6dB increase in SPL. 3dB from the increase in acoustical energy and 3 dB from the reduction in impedance."That's what I said and what Bill said.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 04/25/17
Well with two sources a half wl apart, you get +6dB over one on axis only.
Think about a polar plot, the diameter is level vs angle and the area within the polar circle summed is the total acoustic power.
Two sources that far apart produce a figure 8 pattern who's peak value is +6dB on axis but the area enclosed by the polar circle is only 3 dB more than each source individually.
Move those sources to less than 1/4 wl apart and now you have a circle who's diameter is +6dB and the total energy is now 6dB greater than one was.
acoustic power
1+1=2
or
1+1=4
depends on the spacing and location
nt
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: