Round object is a ships clock. Sharp thing my grandfathers army saber used to cut my mothers wedding cake. Keyboard is an Underwood 1894. My father found it in his uncles insurance company attic. Got him and myself through college. Types well but that "z" takes some real pounding! Box is a Meng 6P1 half way to becoming a RLD. Got it as a cheap way to learn about tubes. A cheap amp and copy of Jones goes a long way.
Man cave. My stuff.
Yes, environmental conditions are valid constraints. Explain how everyone seems to need a 14 inch box to hold a 5 inch disk. Ego, mine is bigger, bigger box must sound better etc. Open them up and they are empty. When I built the shelves I was running a Creek intigrated, Kenwood, tuner and Denon CD that were all less than 10 deep. Advantage to the DH-120 as it sits on a lower shelf under the amps with the remote sequencer, crossover, and lines filters. Sub is in the next bay. So I could buy a big empty box, cut it in half and weld it back together ( thinking about a matching Nak actually) or tweak the NAD, go external DAC, or modify the speakers a bit more. I need more projects like a hole in the head.
Man cave. My stuff.
Yes, environmental conditions are valid constraints. Explain how everyone seems to need a 14 inch box to hold a 5 inch disk. Ego, mine is bigger, bigger box must sound better etc. Open them up and they are empty. When I built the shelves I was running a Creek intigrated, Kenwood, tuner and Denon CD that were all less than 10 deep. Advantage to the DH-120 as it sits on a lower shelf under the amps with the remote sequencer, crossover, and lines filters. Sub is in the next bay. So I could buy a big empty box, cut it in half and weld it back together ( thinking about a matching Nak actually) or tweak the NAD, go external DAC, or modify the speakers a bit more. I need more projects like a hole in the head.
@tvrgeek
I was kidding, of course, but seriously, size was never even a consideration with me. True, I never considered any case that was outlandishly high, wide, deep or all of it to cause any concern. The number of stored devices is a concenr, by now they are overflowing, but that's entirely my fault since most of them are of very reasonable, even modest propotions.
Depending on where you live, space may well be a valid, even critical importance, agreed. Nevertheless, it still seems a bit odd to me that your choice of CD players seems to be dictated by size, probably because I never had that problem myself.
On the subject of typewriters, I also have an old one, I think my dad bought it in 1956 or so, which is the root of much of my well being. I used it throughout my studies for seminars, papers and eventually graduation paper, then to earn my first honest dollar, and eventually it generated enough income for me to buy my very first computer, an IBM PC, in 1984. I don't use it any more, but I am extremely attached to it, and it's not going anywhere from my room until I am dead and gone, period. Mine is a locally manufactured unit, based on a German Olympia licence, it's called Pearl, and to me, it really was a pearl.
I was kidding, of course, but seriously, size was never even a consideration with me. True, I never considered any case that was outlandishly high, wide, deep or all of it to cause any concern. The number of stored devices is a concenr, by now they are overflowing, but that's entirely my fault since most of them are of very reasonable, even modest propotions.
Depending on where you live, space may well be a valid, even critical importance, agreed. Nevertheless, it still seems a bit odd to me that your choice of CD players seems to be dictated by size, probably because I never had that problem myself.
On the subject of typewriters, I also have an old one, I think my dad bought it in 1956 or so, which is the root of much of my well being. I used it throughout my studies for seminars, papers and eventually graduation paper, then to earn my first honest dollar, and eventually it generated enough income for me to buy my very first computer, an IBM PC, in 1984. I don't use it any more, but I am extremely attached to it, and it's not going anywhere from my room until I am dead and gone, period. Mine is a locally manufactured unit, based on a German Olympia licence, it's called Pearl, and to me, it really was a pearl.
Last edited:
I think I remember the Olympia. Before the Smithsonian took half the "stuff" off display in the History and Technology building to make it the American History and Technology building, they had a great display with dozens of typewriters ( including one just like mine). I think I remember one. I like machines.
My first business computer was a Kaypro 4 because it came with Word Star and The Word spelling checker. Life changed. I held out in the CPM world until I bought a 386 running Windows. As I sit in front of what would have been a multi-million dollar supercomputer, I am not sure I am any more productive. Well OK, Spice in text was not fun. My first computer was a wire-wrap 6502, Hex pad, and 7 segment LED's. I had 4K!
See, my trolling works, Nigel recommends a CD I would never have looked for. I bet they are rare on this side of the pond. I'll look around.
On the subject of this thread (originally), I was playing with constant current sources again. Limiting myself to two devices. I also have been thinking about what I am modeling and why. This goes with a comment I heard about "measures well, but sounds bad". Anyway, I have this big sheet with a dozen or so common designs. Basically a conventional LTP input stage, current mirror etc. So the only thing changing is the current source in the tail. It is easy to see the differences in the current, ripple, and how constant it is over frequency. But does this matter? If I look at the voltage across the resistor that simulates the load, and look at the distortion there, is that not really what I am concerned with? If a simple resistor tail does no different that a FET-cascode on the output, is all this a moot point? I should be looking at PSRR not ripple or impedance over frequency of the tail? Is the consistency with frequency not more important that the ripple? Aren't I trying to get a difference in the input pair, not some absolute total value?
My first business computer was a Kaypro 4 because it came with Word Star and The Word spelling checker. Life changed. I held out in the CPM world until I bought a 386 running Windows. As I sit in front of what would have been a multi-million dollar supercomputer, I am not sure I am any more productive. Well OK, Spice in text was not fun. My first computer was a wire-wrap 6502, Hex pad, and 7 segment LED's. I had 4K!
See, my trolling works, Nigel recommends a CD I would never have looked for. I bet they are rare on this side of the pond. I'll look around.
On the subject of this thread (originally), I was playing with constant current sources again. Limiting myself to two devices. I also have been thinking about what I am modeling and why. This goes with a comment I heard about "measures well, but sounds bad". Anyway, I have this big sheet with a dozen or so common designs. Basically a conventional LTP input stage, current mirror etc. So the only thing changing is the current source in the tail. It is easy to see the differences in the current, ripple, and how constant it is over frequency. But does this matter? If I look at the voltage across the resistor that simulates the load, and look at the distortion there, is that not really what I am concerned with? If a simple resistor tail does no different that a FET-cascode on the output, is all this a moot point? I should be looking at PSRR not ripple or impedance over frequency of the tail? Is the consistency with frequency not more important that the ripple? Aren't I trying to get a difference in the input pair, not some absolute total value?
I have played with CCS and no CCS with LTP . DVV tells me I go too far when being a minimalist sometimes . I like to use as few pieces as possible especially if an active device . However a CCS or current mirror must be the most benign active device use ? I have used a voltage doubler and filter to provide a cheap low current supply to LTP . That is the capacitor input Cockroft-Walton type as used in colour TV . I would guess a very high voltage supply to be very interesting and safe enough . The LTP will never swing to the rail in typical application ( op amp power amp ) .
The CD 67 was the first CD I heard with a vertical quality to the sound stage . In Oxford the local orchestra practiced in the Old Fire station next door . I became very aware of the vertical quality baroque music has . The CD67 had it . It used Crystal 20 bit Delta Sigma chip . CD 67 has I think 5 clean PSU lines for various sections . he also designed the Naim CDI etc . The Quad had more detail , the Naim more blood and thunder . I don't know the exact size of the Rega ? It looks small ( I didn't read all the text , it might say ) . Read it now , too wide .
http://www.rega.co.uk/html/Isis.htm
The CD 67 was the first CD I heard with a vertical quality to the sound stage . In Oxford the local orchestra practiced in the Old Fire station next door . I became very aware of the vertical quality baroque music has . The CD67 had it . It used Crystal 20 bit Delta Sigma chip . CD 67 has I think 5 clean PSU lines for various sections . he also designed the Naim CDI etc . The Quad had more detail , the Naim more blood and thunder . I don't know the exact size of the Rega ? It looks small ( I didn't read all the text , it might say ) . Read it now , too wide .
http://www.rega.co.uk/html/Isis.htm
Last edited:
DANGER! Naive modeling results:
Modeled 9 simple ( no more than two pieces of silicone) constant current sources.
In a traditional LTP with current mirror. 2 mA, only the CCS changing. No optimizing for a topology. No thermal tracking, no testing PSRR, just within my limited comprehension.
Values are reference to diviation from the DC operating point, standard LTSpice AC analysis of current thriugh the CCS.
Resistor -97 dB
A single self biased JFET as -127 dB.
BJT and Red LED -147 dB,
BJT current feedback pair -159 dB,
FET/FET cascode at -184 dB. Humph, getting pretty silly.
BJT/FET cascode, -214 dB. Sorry, looking sideways at a part is 1000 times worse than this.
Conclusion, no wonder I was not seeing effects on the overall amplifier simulation. For an IPS, just get a nice fast JFET. I guess the CFP could be helpful in the VAS, which is where I see it sometimes used.
Modeled 9 simple ( no more than two pieces of silicone) constant current sources.
In a traditional LTP with current mirror. 2 mA, only the CCS changing. No optimizing for a topology. No thermal tracking, no testing PSRR, just within my limited comprehension.
Values are reference to diviation from the DC operating point, standard LTSpice AC analysis of current thriugh the CCS.
Resistor -97 dB
A single self biased JFET as -127 dB.
BJT and Red LED -147 dB,
BJT current feedback pair -159 dB,
FET/FET cascode at -184 dB. Humph, getting pretty silly.
BJT/FET cascode, -214 dB. Sorry, looking sideways at a part is 1000 times worse than this.
Conclusion, no wonder I was not seeing effects on the overall amplifier simulation. For an IPS, just get a nice fast JFET. I guess the CFP could be helpful in the VAS, which is where I see it sometimes used.
Last edited:
I need to add that to the one correct answer to anything: "It depends"
and the answer to everything: "42", and of course the ultimate question: "Why"
I have a pair of clone MX50 boards that I can bugger with different versions and do A/B tests. It will have to wait until I finish my SEAS project. I started putting them together just now. They should be breaking in tomorrow.
As I march through my CD collection, on the better CD's I am hearing things I never heard before. Actual intentional music things. Bad recordings are still really bad. I am not brave enough to try my old Telark set of the 9 symphonies. Those were really early.
and the answer to everything: "42", and of course the ultimate question: "Why"
I have a pair of clone MX50 boards that I can bugger with different versions and do A/B tests. It will have to wait until I finish my SEAS project. I started putting them together just now. They should be breaking in tomorrow.
As I march through my CD collection, on the better CD's I am hearing things I never heard before. Actual intentional music things. Bad recordings are still really bad. I am not brave enough to try my old Telark set of the 9 symphonies. Those were really early.
Nige is right, I do criticise his far too simplistic approach on occasion, when I feel he has overdone it. Like using a simple resistor for a CCS in the input stage.
Some years ago, I played quite a bit with input stage configurations. It has become a standard of sorts to use a cascode; I know most of its benefits in theory, but life is practice, not theory. My experience is that assuming a well matched pair of tranistors is used, and that the gain stage is 20 dB or less, I cannot hear the difference between a cascode and a straight differential pair. I should note here that I take great pains to match the diff pair and in final form, always use 0.5% resistors all around it, so in general, it's as well matched as it's reasonable to expect. Typically, my input stage gain, a diff amp, has a gain of 15 to 18 dB, no more. Since each tranny is biased with 1 - 1.4 mA, the slew rate is usually rather good,
For current sources, typically a transistor, MPSA 56/06 being my all time favorites for the job, has two simple 1N4148 diodes on ts base, but I do throw in a parallel capacitor, just in case. Or two joint back to back transistors, with thermal compund joining them. Since full regaulation of the voltage gain stage is a given with me, this is not a problem for me.
On the other hand, I've "discovered" that it is MOST opportune to use a buffer or decoupling stage between the say input differential pair and the say cascode second and final voltage gain stage; these transistors I typically bias at 2 mA or so, because by that value, most of them have already reached at least 80% of their absolute peak performance. Favorite devices are 2N5551/2N5401 or BF 422/423, which have an uncommonly low output capacitance factor (max. 3 pF, typically < 2 pF) and are 250V devices to boot.
I find this makes the sound rather easy, unforced, free, so to speak. The downside is that in a fully complementary ciruit, this is another pair which needs to be closely matched, meaning more work for me. But that's the standard bugbear of such topologies anyway, you really need to have it closely matched from input to output if you want the best from it.
Lastly, I save 0% on the output stage and its power supply; in my mind, these two are joined into one, and only together can they do their very best. Skimp on either and your chances of missing the mark increase exponentially. My simple rule of the thumb is that the theoreticakl (nominal) power capability of the output stage must be such that its 8 Ohm rating falls below the 10% mark of its theoretical capabilities. So, if I want say a 100W/8 Ohm power amp, the nominal power handling of my output stage must be at least 1 kW. More would be better. Currently, the said 100W/8 Ohm stage has four pairs of 200W devices, theoretically 1,600 Watt power capability.
I realize that this is a very pessimistic outlook which does cost money, time and effort, but I am spared the economic outlook as I do this for myself, not commercially. On the other hand, if that stage should run into a really evil load, it will cope better than another stage which uses half that many transistors in its output, and rated at 150 Watts rather than 200 W, as used in the industry.
I realize that the industry has used 4 150W devices to squeeze 150W/8 Ohms from their amps, but that was at a time when power devices were very expensive and of course, price was a high importance factor with them. Today, power devices have never been better and were never cheaper, even in retail, let alone bulk purchases.
Some years ago, I played quite a bit with input stage configurations. It has become a standard of sorts to use a cascode; I know most of its benefits in theory, but life is practice, not theory. My experience is that assuming a well matched pair of tranistors is used, and that the gain stage is 20 dB or less, I cannot hear the difference between a cascode and a straight differential pair. I should note here that I take great pains to match the diff pair and in final form, always use 0.5% resistors all around it, so in general, it's as well matched as it's reasonable to expect. Typically, my input stage gain, a diff amp, has a gain of 15 to 18 dB, no more. Since each tranny is biased with 1 - 1.4 mA, the slew rate is usually rather good,
For current sources, typically a transistor, MPSA 56/06 being my all time favorites for the job, has two simple 1N4148 diodes on ts base, but I do throw in a parallel capacitor, just in case. Or two joint back to back transistors, with thermal compund joining them. Since full regaulation of the voltage gain stage is a given with me, this is not a problem for me.
On the other hand, I've "discovered" that it is MOST opportune to use a buffer or decoupling stage between the say input differential pair and the say cascode second and final voltage gain stage; these transistors I typically bias at 2 mA or so, because by that value, most of them have already reached at least 80% of their absolute peak performance. Favorite devices are 2N5551/2N5401 or BF 422/423, which have an uncommonly low output capacitance factor (max. 3 pF, typically < 2 pF) and are 250V devices to boot.
I find this makes the sound rather easy, unforced, free, so to speak. The downside is that in a fully complementary ciruit, this is another pair which needs to be closely matched, meaning more work for me. But that's the standard bugbear of such topologies anyway, you really need to have it closely matched from input to output if you want the best from it.
Lastly, I save 0% on the output stage and its power supply; in my mind, these two are joined into one, and only together can they do their very best. Skimp on either and your chances of missing the mark increase exponentially. My simple rule of the thumb is that the theoreticakl (nominal) power capability of the output stage must be such that its 8 Ohm rating falls below the 10% mark of its theoretical capabilities. So, if I want say a 100W/8 Ohm power amp, the nominal power handling of my output stage must be at least 1 kW. More would be better. Currently, the said 100W/8 Ohm stage has four pairs of 200W devices, theoretically 1,600 Watt power capability.
I realize that this is a very pessimistic outlook which does cost money, time and effort, but I am spared the economic outlook as I do this for myself, not commercially. On the other hand, if that stage should run into a really evil load, it will cope better than another stage which uses half that many transistors in its output, and rated at 150 Watts rather than 200 W, as used in the industry.
I realize that the industry has used 4 150W devices to squeeze 150W/8 Ohms from their amps, but that was at a time when power devices were very expensive and of course, price was a high importance factor with them. Today, power devices have never been better and were never cheaper, even in retail, let alone bulk purchases.
My interest in LTP came from double EF86 used in Quad valve power amps . From memory these had 91K and 100 K to approximate balance in the anode/collectors . Needless to say balance is not great . My brother said a LTP should have a tail going to infinity , the Quad is very finite . He advocated an additional supply to facilitate that . He also said it would help as the supply would be clean .
If we wanted to we could use 1000 V for transistor tail . 470K 3 W @ 2 mA .
Simple JFET and clean supply seems best . I also use 2 x 1N4148 and MPSA42/92 CCS .
I would say the Dynaco/RCA 7199 phase splitter is better for this reason alone ( DC coupled concertina ) . Both it and Quad are elegant .
I am no valve expert I hasten to say .
If we wanted to we could use 1000 V for transistor tail . 470K 3 W @ 2 mA .
Simple JFET and clean supply seems best . I also use 2 x 1N4148 and MPSA42/92 CCS .
I would say the Dynaco/RCA 7199 phase splitter is better for this reason alone ( DC coupled concertina ) . Both it and Quad are elegant .
I am no valve expert I hasten to say .
Fortunately, there is a tube forum with very knolegable folks. That is what got me started on the first few mods to my 6P1. It still stinks, but heck, it was a $100 Chinese wonder. At least it does not stink quite as much.
I am liking my Seas. It should be no surprise, but I don't intend to plug the Paradigms in ever again.
I am liking my Seas. It should be no surprise, but I don't intend to plug the Paradigms in ever again.
Chapter one can now come to a close. The new Seas speakers driven by the HCA 1200II, PASS the Harry James horns. And the Osawa version of the 5th, Julian Bream, etc. I need to deal with a tad of voicing to get Joni Mitchel right. The wife reported " The piano sounds like a piano". Let me tell you, she won't hold back!
So I can conclude:
The Rotels were masking the speakers problems.
Better speakers allow better amps.
It took much better speakers. OK none of my store bought speakers were great, but they weren't bad either. Celestion, Kef, B&W, Paradigm, Warfdale, Boston.
Not a cheap hobby. The cost was several grand, all the nights studying amplifier design, all the friendly abuse from members of this forum to get said theory pounded into my skull, experimenting with a dozen tweeters, a shelf of books, better measurement hardware and I still need to build a center channel, another pair for my office and darn, should I be watching for an A23 as I need to but the 1200 back on the subs? In all, it sure is cheaper than the Morgan and TVR. A lot safer too.
If I am allowed to brag just a little, I think I am getting better at this speaker stuff. Ah, Clapton Unplugged. I thank you one and all.
So I can conclude:
The Rotels were masking the speakers problems.
Better speakers allow better amps.
It took much better speakers. OK none of my store bought speakers were great, but they weren't bad either. Celestion, Kef, B&W, Paradigm, Warfdale, Boston.
Not a cheap hobby. The cost was several grand, all the nights studying amplifier design, all the friendly abuse from members of this forum to get said theory pounded into my skull, experimenting with a dozen tweeters, a shelf of books, better measurement hardware and I still need to build a center channel, another pair for my office and darn, should I be watching for an A23 as I need to but the 1200 back on the subs? In all, it sure is cheaper than the Morgan and TVR. A lot safer too.
If I am allowed to brag just a little, I think I am getting better at this speaker stuff. Ah, Clapton Unplugged. I thank you one and all.
TVR, try to get an A21, if you can. The A-23 might not be that much different from the 1200. They all work OK, but I find the A21 to be the minimum standard (at least for me) today. I am now using an HCA-2500, (super 2200 prototype), and it is also OK. I have done better, but it is too much hassle to get one up and running. There really is an audio difference (unfortunately) even in my Parasound designs. For home theatre, they are all perfectly acceptable, but for SERIOUS hi fi, the A21 is the minimum, with the JC-1 being my best reference amp, and of course, other people make even more exotic stuff.
We showed the new Constellation power amp, (not my design) and even I can't even consider ever getting one, even at a 'family' price. Jack Bybee, however, just noted how good it sounded at the audio show this weekend, AND he politely sold off the JC-1 power amps that I sold him my own personal units, (needed the money at the time), and he was slightly disappointed even in them, and he bought something else. So it is all relative.
However, I get VERY NERVOUS when people use my cheaper designs for SERIOUS LISTENING. Just to let you know. (I use an HCA-1000 for my home theatre system, and it's OK for that, but not perfect).
We showed the new Constellation power amp, (not my design) and even I can't even consider ever getting one, even at a 'family' price. Jack Bybee, however, just noted how good it sounded at the audio show this weekend, AND he politely sold off the JC-1 power amps that I sold him my own personal units, (needed the money at the time), and he was slightly disappointed even in them, and he bought something else. So it is all relative.
However, I get VERY NERVOUS when people use my cheaper designs for SERIOUS LISTENING. Just to let you know. (I use an HCA-1000 for my home theatre system, and it's OK for that, but not perfect).
Much thanks John. Have to admit, there is a big range in serious listening, as well as gaps at every level of how serious we can afford to be. The sweep spot is when it is good enough to "forget" but you still have enough left over for the wine.
I could just find an excuse for a used A23 as I talked myself out of an old PA-5 without having to sleep on the couch.
I'll keep my eyes open for a 21. Never know. An ST-7 tuner was sitting there for $9.95
I could just find an excuse for a used A23 as I talked myself out of an old PA-5 without having to sleep on the couch.
I'll keep my eyes open for a 21. Never know. An ST-7 tuner was sitting there for $9.95John, you are nit picking now. The only above mentioned unit I have heard is the HCA-1200, which I just narrowly missed buying. And I am not in the habit of buying things I don't like a lot, while I heard quite a few of them, trust me on this.
Mind you, I am not arguing your own taste and lineup priorities, but you have to take a broader view here. On your own, the above list is perfectly fine, but what you class as all right should be viewed in comparison with similar units by others. Then the picture changes, and not by a little either. It will blow away quite a few well known commercial units formally in its class, trust me on this. True, it does cost more that those units, but these days, costing more on its own means literally nothing.
The point is, their true worth is fully exposed only when put in a general market context, not limited to the maker's own product lineup.
No worries folks. We are not the general market; we have to be cracked to be here in the first place. I have no problem putting John's views into perspective. I can easily understand that halving the power to get marginally better execution may not be optimum. It was a good point. I get it. A used A21 is out of range, where I could just squeak a used A23. But I could easily get another used 1200 and live to tell about it. Even new, the A23 is just a little more expensive than the Parasound equivalent power where the A21 has more room to work with. So, where is the money best spent for sound? Probably on another 1200 for the subs, pile of new caps, and get to work on a better active crossover. But that Halo sure looks sexy......
TVR, I hope that you understand that I am not AGAINST you buying an A-23, just that I do not think it much of an improvement over a 1200.
I had a 1200 from the beginning, and used it for a variety of things. However, I also had a 2200 almost 20 years ago, so I used it as my 'first' amp. Later I got the 2500 as a single prototype, essentially a 2200 with a bigger heatsink and more output devices, and kept it for years. Yet later, I got a 3500, BUT I found the 3500 sounded worse than the 2500, so what to do? That is when my associate Bob Crump and I decided to tweak and mod the 3500, until it sang. This was a very successful effort, AND a real sonic improvement, even over the 2500, BUT I accidently dropped a cup of coffee on the unit while it was running and I blew it up. Even Parasound could not fix it for me, so I went back to the 2500, which I still use today (near perfect, but not as good as the modified 3500).
I could have gone with the JC-1's which are really a highly modified 3500 on a dual mono chassis, but I felt I just might blow up my WATT's with the added peak power, and I could NOT afford to do that. Now, I live with my 2500 and wonder if I will ever make a REAL improvement in this range, at least better than the 2500, in future.
In any case, that is what I am trying to convey to you. Sometimes, within a product range, newer is not necessarily better. The 1200 was a successful design, and a number were made. It was made at a time when we could LAVISH parts on a particular design. IF you find another, I would recommend that you buy it, as it is a real bargain.
I had a 1200 from the beginning, and used it for a variety of things. However, I also had a 2200 almost 20 years ago, so I used it as my 'first' amp. Later I got the 2500 as a single prototype, essentially a 2200 with a bigger heatsink and more output devices, and kept it for years. Yet later, I got a 3500, BUT I found the 3500 sounded worse than the 2500, so what to do? That is when my associate Bob Crump and I decided to tweak and mod the 3500, until it sang. This was a very successful effort, AND a real sonic improvement, even over the 2500, BUT I accidently dropped a cup of coffee on the unit while it was running and I blew it up. Even Parasound could not fix it for me, so I went back to the 2500, which I still use today (near perfect, but not as good as the modified 3500).
I could have gone with the JC-1's which are really a highly modified 3500 on a dual mono chassis, but I felt I just might blow up my WATT's with the added peak power, and I could NOT afford to do that. Now, I live with my 2500 and wonder if I will ever make a REAL improvement in this range, at least better than the 2500, in future.
In any case, that is what I am trying to convey to you. Sometimes, within a product range, newer is not necessarily better. The 1200 was a successful design, and a number were made. It was made at a time when we could LAVISH parts on a particular design. IF you find another, I would recommend that you buy it, as it is a real bargain.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.