I am trying to build a midrange line array out of NEO8 drivers. This is replacing the midrange of a Tympani IV.
The speed of the NEO8 drivers and their imaging was a jaw dropping experience for me. The transparency was just too great to ever go back to Maggie midranges.
I am currently using 4 per side, and expect to increase this to either 6 per side or 8 per side.
Crossover points are 300 hz and 5 khz (active crossover).
I distinctly avoided the RD series planars because of their power handling/SPL limitations as well as their cost.
Equalizing them, however, seems to be a serious problem. I expected the baffle (tympani bass panels on one side and the ribbon tweeter on the other - about 10" of wood and tweeter) to support flatening of large rise from 300 hz upwards, but this did not really happen.
I tried various crossover points and found that the benefit of having the crossover that low vs. 500-800 hz or above is too great, in terms of clarity and transparency, to forgo. Even nasty inductors are not as bad sounding as having the crossover up higher. The Tympani bass panels are very good matches to the NEO8, but they sound so thick in the lower midrange (500-1000 hz) relative to them, that I just couldn't accept them there - I compared this with and without crossover using woodwinds, strings and precussion recordings.
I measured a rough 6 db/octave rise up from 600 hz to 6 khz on the line array. Comb filtering seems to eat much of the resonance peak at 12 khz, but since this was outside the design range anyway, I didn't care about it anyway. I attempted to cure this with a 600 hz (-3 db point) first order low pass, but still encounter problems with "highlighting" of particular frequencies in the upper midband (2 khz range).
Does anyone have far field (say 10-12 ft) frequency response measurements for NEO 8 line arrays?
Will increasing the number of drivers solve some of this problem as comb filtering effects eat some of the "honky" sounding FR irregularities?
Would some sort of wings be helpful?
If anyone has some experience with NEO8's as midrange drivers, it would be helpful too.
The speed of the NEO8 drivers and their imaging was a jaw dropping experience for me. The transparency was just too great to ever go back to Maggie midranges.
I am currently using 4 per side, and expect to increase this to either 6 per side or 8 per side.
Crossover points are 300 hz and 5 khz (active crossover).
I distinctly avoided the RD series planars because of their power handling/SPL limitations as well as their cost.
Equalizing them, however, seems to be a serious problem. I expected the baffle (tympani bass panels on one side and the ribbon tweeter on the other - about 10" of wood and tweeter) to support flatening of large rise from 300 hz upwards, but this did not really happen.
I tried various crossover points and found that the benefit of having the crossover that low vs. 500-800 hz or above is too great, in terms of clarity and transparency, to forgo. Even nasty inductors are not as bad sounding as having the crossover up higher. The Tympani bass panels are very good matches to the NEO8, but they sound so thick in the lower midrange (500-1000 hz) relative to them, that I just couldn't accept them there - I compared this with and without crossover using woodwinds, strings and precussion recordings.
I measured a rough 6 db/octave rise up from 600 hz to 6 khz on the line array. Comb filtering seems to eat much of the resonance peak at 12 khz, but since this was outside the design range anyway, I didn't care about it anyway. I attempted to cure this with a 600 hz (-3 db point) first order low pass, but still encounter problems with "highlighting" of particular frequencies in the upper midband (2 khz range).
Does anyone have far field (say 10-12 ft) frequency response measurements for NEO 8 line arrays?
Will increasing the number of drivers solve some of this problem as comb filtering effects eat some of the "honky" sounding FR irregularities?
Would some sort of wings be helpful?
If anyone has some experience with NEO8's as midrange drivers, it would be helpful too.
Before you thrash about too much on the EQ, try the array with 8 (or more) Neo8's in the line. As you increase the length of the line, you increase the "acoustic tilt-down" of the array frequency response. This is due to differing coupling/comb filtering at different frequencies... you will usually get, like, a 3 dB/oct downward tilt to the curve, down to a certain frequency determined by the length of the line. Don't remember what the critical frequency for a 5-foot-something line (which is what 8 Neo8s would be), but IIRC, it's in the 400-500 Hz territory. Don't take this as gospel... measure for yourself, in YOUR baffle... but don't be surprised, if the amount of EQ you need to apply, decreases significantly with the increase in line length...
Regards,
Gordon.
Regards,
Gordon.
As already mentioned, build and measure first. Design later.
I have built and measured prototypes with an array of 6 neo8's. The far field measured response looks good without equalization of the falloff you mention, though for me it sounds better with an 11khz notch to tame the peak there. Apparently the falloff in response from 5khz on down is actually desirable to achieve flat response in an array configuration.
You really need to build and measure prototypes. Your response will be different than mine. Listening is also important, since some imperfections are more important than others. I found the peak at 11khz very irritating, despite the fact that it was above the crossover point (6 khz).
I have built and measured prototypes with an array of 6 neo8's. The far field measured response looks good without equalization of the falloff you mention, though for me it sounds better with an 11khz notch to tame the peak there. Apparently the falloff in response from 5khz on down is actually desirable to achieve flat response in an array configuration.
You really need to build and measure prototypes. Your response will be different than mine. Listening is also important, since some imperfections are more important than others. I found the peak at 11khz very irritating, despite the fact that it was above the crossover point (6 khz).
Yeah, sometimes you have to get "agressive" in taking out those pesky resonant peaks. 11KHz is a BAD place for a peak, IMHO... sibilance and metallic hell waiting to happen. Sounds like the place for a shunt notch filter... just CLAMP DOWN on the driver feed at 11Khz. Should be far enough out of the crossover region, to not have impedence issues, with "shorting" the input to the ribbon there, I'd think... and if there is, you can always use a series notch filter and THEN the shunt filter...
Regards,
Gordon.
Regards,
Gordon.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/264-713.pdf
Figure 2 illustrates rather well what you'll get with an increase in baffle width - note that this is for a "multi-element array" (presumably 4+ drivers in-line). Also notice that Figure 1 is for one "element". Compare the two and you will see very little difference (beyond baffle width) for the two graphs. Unlike most array's (i.e. a combination of point-source drivers like a bunch of 4 inch drivers), the neo 8's sum like a line source because vertical spl radiation is very limited and as such there is no significant array sumation (and because of this comb filtering is quite limited).
(why an inductor isn't enough for the 4 driver line..)
Now then the freq. deviation is further compounded (made worse) by the length of the line in relation to the distance the listener. Both graphs (Figures 1 & 2) are in relation to one meter. Few people listen within this distance. This does present a problem as freq.s decrease until you hit the "magic" "infinite line" number via ceiling/floor bounce.
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf
Dr. Griffen's paper explains this fairly well graphically on what length is required relative to distance and freq. with Figure 5 on page 8 (contined with prose on page 9, 10, and 11). The figure 5 graph more or less is an "ideal" - but still it demostrates the need for a long line as freq.s decrease, otherwise you will have an additional theoretical 3 db drop per meter. (i.e. as a line source you have 3db per meter of spl reduction vs. 6 db per meter of spl reduction for a point-source - if the line isn't long enough for the given freq. for a particular distance then the "line" behaves like a point source resulting in 6db of loss vs. 3 db of loss = an additional 3db of loss per meter).
For instance lets look at 500Hz relative to distance on Dr. Giffen's figure 5 (page 8). The base vertical line is the distance measure with "1" = to 1 meter distance. If we go up the vertical line 2 marks we are at 3 meters (or about 10 feet which is a fairly average listening distance for maggies). To maintain a line-source characteristic (as opposed to a point-source) we travel right (horizontally) on the graph from the 3'rd vertical mark. Looking down at the horizontal line we will see that the intersection point for 500 Hz is on the diagonal 2 meter mark - meaning that in order to attain a linesource characteristic at 500 Hz 3 meters away we will need a line length of 2 meters (as represented on the diagonal lines). At 600 Hz you will need less length (and it continues to decrease as you go higher in freq.).
("Pluging" this into your 4 driver line..)
The Neo 8 does have some vertical radiation but very little - so for our illustration here we will presume that the driver has an 8 inch length (even though the diaphram is only about 6 inches). So then 4 drivers with an 8 inch length = 32 inches (which is about .8 meters). Moving horizontally from the 3 meter mark on the graph nets us linesource character from about 2.5 kHz up. Again though, the graph is ideal, chances are line charcteristics would extend down to around 2 kHz at a 3 meter distance. This would mean then that the further away you are from the line the more depressed it would be from 500 Hz to 2 kHz relative to freq.s above 2 kHz and below 500 Hz. The "ideal" solution then to this problem is to more than double the length of the line (i.e. purchase at least 5 more drivers per speaker). After you have done this then you will only have to contend with the natural ("high-pass") dip in response that an inductor could take care of.
Figure 2 illustrates rather well what you'll get with an increase in baffle width - note that this is for a "multi-element array" (presumably 4+ drivers in-line). Also notice that Figure 1 is for one "element". Compare the two and you will see very little difference (beyond baffle width) for the two graphs. Unlike most array's (i.e. a combination of point-source drivers like a bunch of 4 inch drivers), the neo 8's sum like a line source because vertical spl radiation is very limited and as such there is no significant array sumation (and because of this comb filtering is quite limited).
(why an inductor isn't enough for the 4 driver line..)
Now then the freq. deviation is further compounded (made worse) by the length of the line in relation to the distance the listener. Both graphs (Figures 1 & 2) are in relation to one meter. Few people listen within this distance. This does present a problem as freq.s decrease until you hit the "magic" "infinite line" number via ceiling/floor bounce.
http://www.audiodiycentral.com/resource/pdf/nflawp.pdf
Dr. Griffen's paper explains this fairly well graphically on what length is required relative to distance and freq. with Figure 5 on page 8 (contined with prose on page 9, 10, and 11). The figure 5 graph more or less is an "ideal" - but still it demostrates the need for a long line as freq.s decrease, otherwise you will have an additional theoretical 3 db drop per meter. (i.e. as a line source you have 3db per meter of spl reduction vs. 6 db per meter of spl reduction for a point-source - if the line isn't long enough for the given freq. for a particular distance then the "line" behaves like a point source resulting in 6db of loss vs. 3 db of loss = an additional 3db of loss per meter).
For instance lets look at 500Hz relative to distance on Dr. Giffen's figure 5 (page 8). The base vertical line is the distance measure with "1" = to 1 meter distance. If we go up the vertical line 2 marks we are at 3 meters (or about 10 feet which is a fairly average listening distance for maggies). To maintain a line-source characteristic (as opposed to a point-source) we travel right (horizontally) on the graph from the 3'rd vertical mark. Looking down at the horizontal line we will see that the intersection point for 500 Hz is on the diagonal 2 meter mark - meaning that in order to attain a linesource characteristic at 500 Hz 3 meters away we will need a line length of 2 meters (as represented on the diagonal lines). At 600 Hz you will need less length (and it continues to decrease as you go higher in freq.).
("Pluging" this into your 4 driver line..)
The Neo 8 does have some vertical radiation but very little - so for our illustration here we will presume that the driver has an 8 inch length (even though the diaphram is only about 6 inches). So then 4 drivers with an 8 inch length = 32 inches (which is about .8 meters). Moving horizontally from the 3 meter mark on the graph nets us linesource character from about 2.5 kHz up. Again though, the graph is ideal, chances are line charcteristics would extend down to around 2 kHz at a 3 meter distance. This would mean then that the further away you are from the line the more depressed it would be from 500 Hz to 2 kHz relative to freq.s above 2 kHz and below 500 Hz. The "ideal" solution then to this problem is to more than double the length of the line (i.e. purchase at least 5 more drivers per speaker). After you have done this then you will only have to contend with the natural ("high-pass") dip in response that an inductor could take care of.
Thanks ScottG - very informative. If you don't mind, here is my thinking on this issue.
My ceiling is fairly low, since I put up an acoustic tile ceiling in a fairly low basement ceiling. (The floor is also acoustically absorbent with two layers of carpeting on the concrete floor.)
The distance from the speakers is 3.5 m.
Bottom line, I can't practically fit more than 8 units. Besides which, close seating positions (under 2 m) are terrible because of non-integration of the speaker drivers- the bass panels, with the rest.
The transition would be at 600 hz with a 3.5 m seating position and a nearly 2 m 8 piece line. Meaning that at the 3.5 m seating position I would be at a relative attenuation of 6-7 db between frequencies above and below the transition (6 db attenuation above 600 hz, 11-12 db well below - say 300hz). However, the drivers have a 4 db dip between 300hz and 1 khz, where FR is falling (see open air measurement below). Thus only a 3 db dip would be noticeable. But one that would still not be "fixable" by a phase neutral first order device.
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Projects/BG/images/JC_NE08_Freq.gif
The baffle effect I was hoping for because of the measurements done by Justus Verhagen (see URL) isn't entirely there although I have a wider baffle (he had 25cm on either side, I have 30 and 100+ cm).
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Projects/BG/justus.php3
Note in the waterfall plot that Justus did a rather high output measurent with the top cavity resonance peak at 110 db, and the NEO8 bottoming out at 700 hz and below - though still producing 100 db output at 300 hz (94-5 db at 600-1000 hz). The 200 hz resonance argues against using the NEO8 for the lower midrange (because the artifacts continue at high volumes into the 600 hz range), but power handling tests burried at Bohlender Graebener's pro-audio technical papers website show that their RD75 distorts even more at these output levels.
What do you think?
My ceiling is fairly low, since I put up an acoustic tile ceiling in a fairly low basement ceiling. (The floor is also acoustically absorbent with two layers of carpeting on the concrete floor.)
The distance from the speakers is 3.5 m.
Bottom line, I can't practically fit more than 8 units. Besides which, close seating positions (under 2 m) are terrible because of non-integration of the speaker drivers- the bass panels, with the rest.
The transition would be at 600 hz with a 3.5 m seating position and a nearly 2 m 8 piece line. Meaning that at the 3.5 m seating position I would be at a relative attenuation of 6-7 db between frequencies above and below the transition (6 db attenuation above 600 hz, 11-12 db well below - say 300hz). However, the drivers have a 4 db dip between 300hz and 1 khz, where FR is falling (see open air measurement below). Thus only a 3 db dip would be noticeable. But one that would still not be "fixable" by a phase neutral first order device.
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Projects/BG/images/JC_NE08_Freq.gif
The baffle effect I was hoping for because of the measurements done by Justus Verhagen (see URL) isn't entirely there although I have a wider baffle (he had 25cm on either side, I have 30 and 100+ cm).
http://www.diyspeakers.net/Projects/BG/justus.php3
Note in the waterfall plot that Justus did a rather high output measurent with the top cavity resonance peak at 110 db, and the NEO8 bottoming out at 700 hz and below - though still producing 100 db output at 300 hz (94-5 db at 600-1000 hz). The 200 hz resonance argues against using the NEO8 for the lower midrange (because the artifacts continue at high volumes into the 600 hz range), but power handling tests burried at Bohlender Graebener's pro-audio technical papers website show that their RD75 distorts even more at these output levels.
What do you think?
You are welcome!
hmm (this is where your better off measuring, but with that caveat..),
well an 8 driver line is aprox. 64 inches or about 1.6 meters.. so looking at the graph from about the 3.5 meter position we have about a 900 Hz "ideal" linesource capability. So with a 3.5 meter distance we have about 8 or 9 db of loss starting below the theoretical 900 Hz we have calculated. This however isn't the "end" of the "line" (pardon the pun).
(actual loss?)
Though I'm not certain of this, I'd wager that the spl loss below our line is not "abrupt" - i.e. that the loss doesn't just drop 9 db from the calculated 900 Hz at 3.5 meters, but rather that it gradually looses spl level as freq. decreases. The question then is what is the loss like? I don't know, but I would think that the situation is not so "dire" as the calculated 8-9 db would suggest..
(boundry gain?)
lets now look at the length of wavelengths..
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-wavelength.htm
at 900 Hz you have wavelength of about 1.25 feet. IF your line is located to one boundry within this length then you'll have another 3 db of gain for this freq. and freq.s below it. So you need to determine what your ceiling height will be releative to the top of your line to see if this will apply to your line. If you remove the carpet (with concrete or a hard surface floor) you will have another 3 db of gain. (Note.. Keep the drivers away from side walls). Of course because of the position of line near the floor (assuming you make it a boundry) chances are the 3 db of gain will extend higher in freq. (this may or may not be advantageous to your design..).
I personally would NOT consider the room's addition of reflective (RT60) sound (except much higher and lower in freq.) as it pertains to overall spl's. (..because of the nature of our hearing with direct sound vs. reflected sound.)
(what I'd do considering your restraints..)
Looking at the graphs Justus provides (particularly the spl graph) - you have a driver spl loss starting from 2-2.5 kHz. At around 2.2kHz you have a wavelength that is about 6 inches. I'd have the line about that distance from the floor and remove the carpet (and when funds permit paint, stain, or cover the floor with a DIY hard wood or laminate). This will not only give you the 3db gain you want lower in level (that the carpet will absorb), but also give you the spl driver fill you need above 900 Hz to the 2-2.5 kHz. Next (considering your contemplation for lowering the ceiling), I'd drop the ceiling to less than the theoretical 900 Hz wavelength distance of 1.25 feet - i.e. to around 2 feet (1.5-2 feet) from the top of the line, or around the 600-700 Hz wave length distance. This should give you another 3 db of gain up to the 900 Hz while NOT providing much if any gain beyond this. This means you should have accumulated 6 db of gain below 900 Hz to off-set most of the loss from the pointsource character while providing an additional 3 db to fill in the driver void between 900 and 2.5 kHz. Any additional loss (calculated at around 2-3 db below 900 Hz) could be provided with eq. OR with some support from the bass panels - which should provide a better transition between the line and the panels.
Good Luck!
also..
as to the use of the driver down to 250 Hz - I'd say no problem. First the driver is routinely used this way for a 2 element configuration. Second you will be using 8 elements so you are far better off than the those designs. As to baffle width go back to the ref. designs I posted. Justus's graphs are valid down to around 400 Hz NOT below that..
hmm (this is where your better off measuring, but with that caveat..),
well an 8 driver line is aprox. 64 inches or about 1.6 meters.. so looking at the graph from about the 3.5 meter position we have about a 900 Hz "ideal" linesource capability. So with a 3.5 meter distance we have about 8 or 9 db of loss starting below the theoretical 900 Hz we have calculated. This however isn't the "end" of the "line" (pardon the pun).
(actual loss?)
Though I'm not certain of this, I'd wager that the spl loss below our line is not "abrupt" - i.e. that the loss doesn't just drop 9 db from the calculated 900 Hz at 3.5 meters, but rather that it gradually looses spl level as freq. decreases. The question then is what is the loss like? I don't know, but I would think that the situation is not so "dire" as the calculated 8-9 db would suggest..
(boundry gain?)
lets now look at the length of wavelengths..
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-wavelength.htm
at 900 Hz you have wavelength of about 1.25 feet. IF your line is located to one boundry within this length then you'll have another 3 db of gain for this freq. and freq.s below it. So you need to determine what your ceiling height will be releative to the top of your line to see if this will apply to your line. If you remove the carpet (with concrete or a hard surface floor) you will have another 3 db of gain. (Note.. Keep the drivers away from side walls). Of course because of the position of line near the floor (assuming you make it a boundry) chances are the 3 db of gain will extend higher in freq. (this may or may not be advantageous to your design..).
I personally would NOT consider the room's addition of reflective (RT60) sound (except much higher and lower in freq.) as it pertains to overall spl's. (..because of the nature of our hearing with direct sound vs. reflected sound.)
(what I'd do considering your restraints..)
Looking at the graphs Justus provides (particularly the spl graph) - you have a driver spl loss starting from 2-2.5 kHz. At around 2.2kHz you have a wavelength that is about 6 inches. I'd have the line about that distance from the floor and remove the carpet (and when funds permit paint, stain, or cover the floor with a DIY hard wood or laminate). This will not only give you the 3db gain you want lower in level (that the carpet will absorb), but also give you the spl driver fill you need above 900 Hz to the 2-2.5 kHz. Next (considering your contemplation for lowering the ceiling), I'd drop the ceiling to less than the theoretical 900 Hz wavelength distance of 1.25 feet - i.e. to around 2 feet (1.5-2 feet) from the top of the line, or around the 600-700 Hz wave length distance. This should give you another 3 db of gain up to the 900 Hz while NOT providing much if any gain beyond this. This means you should have accumulated 6 db of gain below 900 Hz to off-set most of the loss from the pointsource character while providing an additional 3 db to fill in the driver void between 900 and 2.5 kHz. Any additional loss (calculated at around 2-3 db below 900 Hz) could be provided with eq. OR with some support from the bass panels - which should provide a better transition between the line and the panels.
Good Luck!
also..
as to the use of the driver down to 250 Hz - I'd say no problem. First the driver is routinely used this way for a 2 element configuration. Second you will be using 8 elements so you are far better off than the those designs. As to baffle width go back to the ref. designs I posted. Justus's graphs are valid down to around 400 Hz NOT below that..
Thanks ScottW, GordonW and qouday
The room, by the way, has loaded book cases on all nearly all walls, including behind the speakers, and it has nearly no ring to it. There is a 5-6 dip at about 100 hz and a 5-6 db hump at 50 hz, which is quite a treat in actual play, since it reintroduces the "physicality" of low frequency instruments that pressurize a room, vibrate you and the furniture, or punch you in the gut. This is normally lost in the recording process.
Back to the issue at hand...
I see that the first practical issue would be to extend the line to 8 units per side, then do a better measurement. I'll put in an order with PE later this week.
From prior experience, I know I don't want floor reflections, no matter how well they work to fill in frequency response dips. The "smearing" is too great, and tonal characteristics of instruments get distorted, as do transients. Despite my FR quandaries here, I do recognize that our sensitivity to frequency respnse is way lower than our sensitivity to transients and time effects (like tone decay) that change the character and texture of an instrument's sound more substantially than even 5 db holes or peaks in frequency response.
I was thinking of using a DEQ2496 for measurement more so than for room correction, so that I could see what it is correcting and then change room placements and angles so as to minimize those corrections then take it out of the system or use it only at the bass where it would be most effective and beneficial and have the least detriment in compression of dynamics and swallowing detail.
Your thoughts?
The room, by the way, has loaded book cases on all nearly all walls, including behind the speakers, and it has nearly no ring to it. There is a 5-6 dip at about 100 hz and a 5-6 db hump at 50 hz, which is quite a treat in actual play, since it reintroduces the "physicality" of low frequency instruments that pressurize a room, vibrate you and the furniture, or punch you in the gut. This is normally lost in the recording process.
Back to the issue at hand...
I see that the first practical issue would be to extend the line to 8 units per side, then do a better measurement. I'll put in an order with PE later this week.
From prior experience, I know I don't want floor reflections, no matter how well they work to fill in frequency response dips. The "smearing" is too great, and tonal characteristics of instruments get distorted, as do transients. Despite my FR quandaries here, I do recognize that our sensitivity to frequency respnse is way lower than our sensitivity to transients and time effects (like tone decay) that change the character and texture of an instrument's sound more substantially than even 5 db holes or peaks in frequency response.
I was thinking of using a DEQ2496 for measurement more so than for room correction, so that I could see what it is correcting and then change room placements and angles so as to minimize those corrections then take it out of the system or use it only at the bass where it would be most effective and beneficial and have the least detriment in compression of dynamics and swallowing detail.
Your thoughts?
Schussor said:
If you don't like floor reflections then you'll not like ceiling reflections either. (personally I don't object to them in a line source config. as long as there is some absorption between me and the line - like an area rug near but not next to the line.)
I have the older version of the Ultra Curve Pro - it is good (in system) as long as you don't use the dac (though I've also heard that upgrading/modifying the analog output stage achieves the same purpose). So you could use it with the spdif out and a good dac.
Alternativly you could get a good pc audio system up with Foobar and the various digital correction programs that integrate with it (all free and reported to be better than any other solution including products from TACT and SigTech). Good USB dacs are available and you'll still need a good calibrated mic and mic amp. Serch here for more info.:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/bbs.html
http://drc.wildgooses.com/index.php/Main_Page
Pure loudspeaker analysis could be acomplished cheaply or for free with software from:
http://www.speakerworkshop.com/
http://www.audiotester.de/
(also note the link for the DIY mic and mic amp on the speakerworkshop page if your into that sort of thing..)
(I use loudspeakerlab but frankly its a little pricey now when compared to audiotester..)
For what it's worth I have done polars on the Neo-8 on LMS with a turntable. The best I could get at 2k was about 12 degrees. It started beaming seriously, until at 10k the beam height was the equivalent of that of the element.
I'm more interested in the high-pass recommendations for a reasonable service life...
I'm more interested in the high-pass recommendations for a reasonable service life...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.