Well, I got my soldering iron out and did it!
And even though I have only had very little time to listen so far, there is no doubt that there is an audible effect of this simple mod.
It is not what I would call a 'night and day' difference, but there is a definite improvement in soundstage precision and spaciousness 🙂
Not being a tech guy, I won't be offering any measurements - just wanted to chime in 😉
Joe, do you think cap quality would make a difference for this mod?
Cheers,
Jens
And even though I have only had very little time to listen so far, there is no doubt that there is an audible effect of this simple mod.
It is not what I would call a 'night and day' difference, but there is a definite improvement in soundstage precision and spaciousness 🙂
Not being a tech guy, I won't be offering any measurements - just wanted to chime in 😉
Joe, do you think cap quality would make a difference for this mod?
Cheers,
Jens
Thanks for report
Jens you don't need to report, but you need to make measurements else you end up believing listening high end and are actual listening to low end quality. See post #372 by Boris, measurements not good though he insist on HQ audio.
My own technical level is not high only hobbyist-diy, but from earlyer posts and simulation i see some rules. Some is that for current DAC's you need resistor 3ohm and up after the cap, else you don't get a voltage sving and therefor no filter. Other rules is that next stages easy can go oscilating if resistors after cap is not for the exact circuit the right choosen one, and this can course this stage to go nuts or bad electrical behavour both if it's a I/V converter or a voltage differential amp (these following inputs don't like a big cap across input without some isolation for example with resistense). Another reason you need take measurements, else why would you know that you are aprox -1.3dB at 20KHz after the modification.
Someone expert kindly pop if my words need correction, but i am worried if sound is degraded because of wrong electrical behavior and the new sound stage gets wrongly judged be listener to be improvement.
I think it is a little bit wrong to ask somebody to do measurements, when that somebody himself state that he do not have special technical skills to do so, or are not used with measurements.
This is one thing...
Another thing I can see is that often in this thread it is expressed a quite strange way of thinking: if something is not by the book, then it is not possible to be judge it or appreciated as improvements... This remember me very well to the inquisition era, when one could not pretend that the Earth is round, when the clerical established that is a flat thing…
I really wonder what one mean when can say that what another one hear is not an improvement, but what he may hear it is something wrong... Come on, what is this?
We are enough mature people, we have some years of experiences back us, and we are more or less qualified folk in this field. How can someone state it that what one or another appreciate as improvement there is not an improvement?
In my opinion, Jens`s simple contribution (thanks Jens for your report) here become quite symbolic. A person with no very special technical skills, who tried something out, and he gave his appreciation about the results he could hear it with his own ears.
He do not need of course to add any resistors in his experiment, to hear the improvements. He do not need to make measurements (which it may lead anyway to inconclusive results, if one do not know very well what about), to right appreciate what he is hearing.
He just "pressed" a “button”, his lamp it were lighting up, and he gave the message that he is not staying in the dark. Can we say that his appreciation that the light it were on after he pressed the button is not right? Can somebody state that this man is sating further in the dark, when he clearly see that the light is on in his room? He can take of course a picture to show us that is light in his room, but he had not camera… or he do not know how to use a camera...Can we doubt him in his very simple observation?
Come on, what is all this about?
Such approach it may looks like a little bit disrespectful for that person who has chosen freely and kindly to give his message to us, about his own appreciations/observations...
He for sure appreciate right that his sound stage become wider and better, after what he did in his experiment. This is reported now from enough many others. This is a very real improvement. This it cannot be negate, because he (one) did not added some more resistors, or because supposedly it have his system full of oscillations, distortions and so on.
We know very well (they who have enough experience in the field) that oscillations, distortions, or so, are very well to be heard. The human hearing is very sensible at such disturbances, which degrade the sound obviously. This is not happen in this case. In this case occurs IMPROVEMENTS.
In the same time with these IMPROVEMENTS, some measurements shows that something is not quite well. However, what is there wrong in the pictures, on the scope, etc. is not possible to negate the hearable improvement in the reproduced sound. This is a paradox, this is a contradiction, and we may find out what, why, and so on.
We may focus to find out what about this paradox, where it may be the fault, but for sure, we cannot determine others not to hear improvements, when others are obvious about that they hear improvements.
We may find out why, while improvements are report it, we can see not so well measurements… I think this is (it should be) the main point here.
This is one thing...
Another thing I can see is that often in this thread it is expressed a quite strange way of thinking: if something is not by the book, then it is not possible to be judge it or appreciated as improvements... This remember me very well to the inquisition era, when one could not pretend that the Earth is round, when the clerical established that is a flat thing…
I really wonder what one mean when can say that what another one hear is not an improvement, but what he may hear it is something wrong... Come on, what is this?
We are enough mature people, we have some years of experiences back us, and we are more or less qualified folk in this field. How can someone state it that what one or another appreciate as improvement there is not an improvement?
In my opinion, Jens`s simple contribution (thanks Jens for your report) here become quite symbolic. A person with no very special technical skills, who tried something out, and he gave his appreciation about the results he could hear it with his own ears.
He do not need of course to add any resistors in his experiment, to hear the improvements. He do not need to make measurements (which it may lead anyway to inconclusive results, if one do not know very well what about), to right appreciate what he is hearing.
He just "pressed" a “button”, his lamp it were lighting up, and he gave the message that he is not staying in the dark. Can we say that his appreciation that the light it were on after he pressed the button is not right? Can somebody state that this man is sating further in the dark, when he clearly see that the light is on in his room? He can take of course a picture to show us that is light in his room, but he had not camera… or he do not know how to use a camera...Can we doubt him in his very simple observation?
Come on, what is all this about?
Such approach it may looks like a little bit disrespectful for that person who has chosen freely and kindly to give his message to us, about his own appreciations/observations...
He for sure appreciate right that his sound stage become wider and better, after what he did in his experiment. This is reported now from enough many others. This is a very real improvement. This it cannot be negate, because he (one) did not added some more resistors, or because supposedly it have his system full of oscillations, distortions and so on.
We know very well (they who have enough experience in the field) that oscillations, distortions, or so, are very well to be heard. The human hearing is very sensible at such disturbances, which degrade the sound obviously. This is not happen in this case. In this case occurs IMPROVEMENTS.
In the same time with these IMPROVEMENTS, some measurements shows that something is not quite well. However, what is there wrong in the pictures, on the scope, etc. is not possible to negate the hearable improvement in the reproduced sound. This is a paradox, this is a contradiction, and we may find out what, why, and so on.
We may focus to find out what about this paradox, where it may be the fault, but for sure, we cannot determine others not to hear improvements, when others are obvious about that they hear improvements.
We may find out why, while improvements are report it, we can see not so well measurements… I think this is (it should be) the main point here.
Last edited:
Boris i am not against that an improvement is possible with the cap, but i am against that if the modification is not done right such as the actual circuit schematic demands which is different from product to product, then you get other malfunctions influencing the sound stage, which turns to wrong perception of what Joe's modification really sounds like.
So more guidance is needed for some of us with lower level skills or lack of measuring equipment before we turn to do the modifications to get it right as it was ment. Something like some circuit schematics for the different brand of I as V DACs.
Take a look at your own picture number 4 in post #372 there cap is on and your FR is ruler flat to 50-60KHz, this means that the 1nF cap is not filtering as Joe's trick is meant to be approx. -1,3dB at 20KHz. No voltage across cap and no filtering because resistors after cap is missing, cap is now only active at input to your I/V converters which do other trouble.
You right i shall not ask or demand somebody to do something about measurement, it was not ment that way. But ment that there is a doubt that he is filtering as Joe ment to be. To verify this one need to do measures or do the modification guided, or by a skilled technician which dimension the components and value to fit the actual circuit schematic so it does not malfunction in other areas.
Thanks for your post Boris with measures it's very good labor and good to learn from, but i am amazed you can't see your filter is not functioning as meant to be, 1audio also posted couple of times about resistor subject and input at I/V converter OPamps. Imagine you not made measurements and run that setup for years 😕 in good believe.
So more guidance is needed for some of us with lower level skills or lack of measuring equipment before we turn to do the modifications to get it right as it was ment. Something like some circuit schematics for the different brand of I as V DACs.
Take a look at your own picture number 4 in post #372 there cap is on and your FR is ruler flat to 50-60KHz, this means that the 1nF cap is not filtering as Joe's trick is meant to be approx. -1,3dB at 20KHz. No voltage across cap and no filtering because resistors after cap is missing, cap is now only active at input to your I/V converters which do other trouble.
You right i shall not ask or demand somebody to do something about measurement, it was not ment that way. But ment that there is a doubt that he is filtering as Joe ment to be. To verify this one need to do measures or do the modification guided, or by a skilled technician which dimension the components and value to fit the actual circuit schematic so it does not malfunction in other areas.
Thanks for your post Boris with measures it's very good labor and good to learn from, but i am amazed you can't see your filter is not functioning as meant to be, 1audio also posted couple of times about resistor subject and input at I/V converter OPamps. Imagine you not made measurements and run that setup for years 😕 in good believe.
My 'way' of getting decent sound out of S-D units in part is to hammer them hard, condition them by making them work flat out. A standard procedure I used on one setup was having a full level 18kHz sine wave on repeat for an hour or so, obviously at very low level through the speakers - this procedure achieved the quality changes talked about here.
It's possible that this cap trick is a shortcut for the same benefit - so one way of testing this would be to get 2 comparable quality DACs, mod one with the cap, and compare that cold with the other unit, which was heavily conditioned beforehand.
It's possible that this cap trick is a shortcut for the same benefit - so one way of testing this would be to get 2 comparable quality DACs, mod one with the cap, and compare that cold with the other unit, which was heavily conditioned beforehand.
Well, I knew this was going to happen!
Just for the record - I'm not a newbie in audio. It's been a hobby of mine for over 30 years. But I do not look at this from a tech angle - I look at it from a music angle and base my judgements on how close to real, unamplified music things sound. And I do listen to the real thing regularly!
Also, I'm not easily fooled. I have tried hundreds on snake oil 'mods' of all varieties in my time and have discarded the vast majority of these. But unlike some of the tech snobs here I am not afraid to try out something new, just because it shouldn't work in theory - no matter how sceptical I may be about the outcome (and I'm very sceptical!) 😉
Finally, I did the mod on a JLTI Oppo BDP-105 Level 3 and got exact specs from Joe on cap value and placement of caps, which I followed to the letter, so there is absolutely no electrical or circuit issues here.
And I still hear the improvement! 😀
Cheers,
Jens
Just for the record - I'm not a newbie in audio. It's been a hobby of mine for over 30 years. But I do not look at this from a tech angle - I look at it from a music angle and base my judgements on how close to real, unamplified music things sound. And I do listen to the real thing regularly!
Also, I'm not easily fooled. I have tried hundreds on snake oil 'mods' of all varieties in my time and have discarded the vast majority of these. But unlike some of the tech snobs here I am not afraid to try out something new, just because it shouldn't work in theory - no matter how sceptical I may be about the outcome (and I'm very sceptical!) 😉
Finally, I did the mod on a JLTI Oppo BDP-105 Level 3 and got exact specs from Joe on cap value and placement of caps, which I followed to the letter, so there is absolutely no electrical or circuit issues here.
And I still hear the improvement! 😀
Cheers,
Jens
Thanks for futher report about the mod Jens A. now i of course like to undo my post #402. And to explain what made me post see below, tech snob I ain't but prefer what we hear is what Joe intended.
Hehe reminds me off some new motorcycle engines we did burn in by full speed in dyno jet bench with non syntetic oil to have them settle, a little the same as your DAC.
Huh?
He is as welcome here as you are and can report anything he likes.
BYRTT... I don't think you have the complete picture here.
No, he doesn't!
In his case there is no need to.
He doesn't need test equipment to make sure it is -1.3dB 20KHz because it is. I should know. Perhaps, you don't realise that Jens is listening to something that I made for him and I told him the value of caps required (same values I am using here) and what he did is exactly what I asked him to do: He bought the correct value caps and fitted them.
So there is no need to measure where the response is, we already know.
That is condescending and I think you should apologise to Jens. He has as much right to have his opinion and express it as you do, without suggesting that he has flawed hearing? Come'on, I think that is just going a little too far - if I said that to my clients, soon I wouldn't have any and hence few friends.
At least he did something that you haven't done.
Did you find that he was reporting anything over the top - that this is better than sliced bread and the world of audio has been magically changed forever? No, nothing like that is being claimed here - but some are reacting as if... But the improvement he has reported is exactly in line to what others have reported, especially there is an improvement in the area of soundstage and image specificity. And that it is quite noticeable and enhances what you hear. No outlandish claims have been made.
Keep this in mind, and please have an open mind, it is not necessarily being down an arbitrary -1.3dB @ 20KHz that is important, perhaps a 2nd order filter that is much lower than usually employed and much flatter to 20KHz, may work equally as well - but will be harder to implement. So it is not just a matter of measurement but also a question of technique.
The best solution may yet come. For now we have a relatively simple one.
I have 42 years of experience in professional audio - have you?
I make a living at constantly being skeptic at what I hear and have to make judgement calls all the time and I only can pay the bills because I have the experience, the track record and reliability and honesty, that people pay me for my services. No results and if I get something wrong and I do not get paid, I also loose my reputation. I do a lot of things behind the scenes many of you guys are not aware off and some of Australia's top artists use equipment made or modified by me (yes, Terry, you probably don't know about that as I know you will be reading this) and some of them have overseas reputations. So I am used to being held in some respect for my considerable expertise and not used to have my generosity (and over the years on the DIY front, I can claim to have been very generous in my earnest support for DIY) so mistreated. I can just as well say nothing and it would be no skin of my nose, and as they say down here "bugger, they can just drown for all I care."
Last week I had a discussion with "TH" one of Australia's top recording engineers, and I have to tell you this guy is very knowledgeable and would put many of you guys to shame, decades of experience, incredibly analytical ears, but he is also a really humble guy and we do talk about things we can't explain - and what is on this thread re "DAC filtering" makes some of those minor beer. They have technical expertise all right, but want results more than anything else. Measurements? Sure. Fine. No problems... but results comes before anything and that is what pays the bills.
I made this six channel all-tube microphone preamp that they use. The output stage is unusual and is a form of "parafeed" coupling - the downside is that it has poor headroom and is a pain in some respects - but when it overloads just mildly it takes on a character they skill-fully use in most creative ways. We know we could fix the headroom limitation or at least try to. But by luck and design we ended up with an instrument they don't want to be changed in case we lose some of the 'magic'.
The "Tube Station" is a musical instrument in its own right.
How do you explain when "TH" describes it as "creamy" on vocals - and the distortion measurements etc doesn't explain nothing.
While it would be nice to know how measure everything, that is a Utopian World. That will never happen (but it doesn't mean we don't want a better world). Also, please keep in mind that some of us are not amateurs but professionals who make a living based on our ability to use our ears.
Cheers, Joe
PS: Lots of things digital I am not all that familiar with - and I am learning all the time, not too proud to admit it. But it shouldn't be taken as not knowing anything about digital, for one thing - at lot of things wrong with digital is due to analog problems, and the processing of digital signals is actually analog... ahh... think about it and you will realise that it is... 😀
Last edited:
Oh well, We all wish we could remove posts or parts of past posts. 😀
You guys must be near to each other, especially if you are in the KBH area.
You will excuse me if it is my turn to be skeptical? 😀
What if I singe the Sabre DAC with a blowtorch? Do you think that might assist in burning it in? 🙄
What part of NSW are you in - or is this deja vu as I may have asked before?
Cheers, Joe
That's why I used the word, "possible" ... 🙂
If you look at the circuitry of cheaper DAC units, there are plenty of cap's in the game, and of course the S-D is based on the concept of switching a single charge, a capacitor again. From experience, forcing capacitors to charge and discharge repeatedly improves their behaviour, in all audio areas - so the process I use logically followed.
I've never had a DAC component not improve by giving it a 'hard time' ... this is something that's very easy to test, if one has two of similar units ...
Already said, Blue Mtns, 🙂 ...
If you look at the circuitry of cheaper DAC units, there are plenty of cap's in the game, and of course the S-D is based on the concept of switching a single charge, a capacitor again. From experience, forcing capacitors to charge and discharge repeatedly improves their behaviour, in all audio areas - so the process I use logically followed.
I've never had a DAC component not improve by giving it a 'hard time' ... this is something that's very easy to test, if one has two of similar units ...
Already said, Blue Mtns, 🙂 ...
doing very very well at playing to your base
but if you want broader credibility you wouldn't point up/solicit yet another "I soldered the parts in and heard..." testimony as "evidence"
what's so hard about adding actual Psychoacoustic/Perceptual Science derived Controls to your "just listen" suggestions?
we are very certain that almost all of us will hear differences when we start to listen for them - the brain is very flexible in the processing applied to our sense inputs
the effects of focus/attention, familiarity, repetition, mood, boredom, expectation are all very significant in modifying our perception - the difference in perception is "real" - the difference in physical stimuli may or may not be
more well established Psychology Science says our memory is very suspect – surprisingly few bits of information highly embellished/filled in after the fact
to make useful, “real" progress in audio reproduction you should be educating everyone to skepticism of “just listen” and lay out the full Psychoacoustic standards for perceptual evaluation
high res digital audio, SW, like foobar ABX makes some of this comparing quite easy, other hypothesis can only really be tested with both the modded and unmodded hardware at hand – with a Blind switching protocol – with lots of attention to “leaks” - clues other than the tested variable
but if you want broader credibility you wouldn't point up/solicit yet another "I soldered the parts in and heard..." testimony as "evidence"
what's so hard about adding actual Psychoacoustic/Perceptual Science derived Controls to your "just listen" suggestions?
we are very certain that almost all of us will hear differences when we start to listen for them - the brain is very flexible in the processing applied to our sense inputs
the effects of focus/attention, familiarity, repetition, mood, boredom, expectation are all very significant in modifying our perception - the difference in perception is "real" - the difference in physical stimuli may or may not be
more well established Psychology Science says our memory is very suspect – surprisingly few bits of information highly embellished/filled in after the fact
to make useful, “real" progress in audio reproduction you should be educating everyone to skepticism of “just listen” and lay out the full Psychoacoustic standards for perceptual evaluation
high res digital audio, SW, like foobar ABX makes some of this comparing quite easy, other hypothesis can only really be tested with both the modded and unmodded hardware at hand – with a Blind switching protocol – with lots of attention to “leaks” - clues other than the tested variable
Last edited:
I have learned that I cannot trust my instincts either. I have a long history doing this stuff and have really learned not to trust my first impressions of my own work. Now other's work is a different story. . .
An extension of Foobar that would drive an external switch box would be great. Even better would be a Linux equivalent. However it could be a really effective ego destroyer.
An extension of Foobar that would drive an external switch box would be great. Even better would be a Linux equivalent. However it could be a really effective ego destroyer.
On this thread, this line keeps on getting regurgitated - so here I go pasting:
Yes, we do. And for all the pitfalls of human hearing, and those of us who have been around in developing things and recording studios, know how easily you can be fooled, even by yourself. But that also gives you experience that helps you to deal with it honestly.
But to suggest you are fooled every time is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. We do hear things - and ultimately, when late at night and you want to play a bit of music after a long day, when you are relaxed (and maybe even by yourself) and not doing any critical listening and zero pressure to perform, that is a test that cannot be replicated by a controlled test.
I note that the doyen of controlled listening tests for decades was Martin Colloms, who did heaps of them, way back into the 70's. These days he has changed his attitude towards those tests markedly. They don't replicate the way we listen naturally - when you are walking through an environment and taking in natural sounds, you brain is not in an analytical mode. There is no stress, only your brain is processing what it hears without additional stress loads or doing a task while listening.
What has been found is that controlled listening tests produce a load on the brain (not the ear but on the ear-brain, as you cannot separate them) that is not natural. It actually lessens your ability to discern what you are hearing. It impairs judgment. You are multi-tasking and that is affecting your ability to judge.
So we should not overly elevate controlled listening tests, neither should we totally abandon them, but surely we must also take into account that it has limitations, as much as off-the-cough listening has both good and bad points.
Remember what Heisenberg said - by merely testing something, we are affecting the outcome of the measurement, hence there will always be a some level of uncertainty. Hence we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
This totally, using a bit of lateral thinking, IMO, has proved true to auditory perception.
Controlled listening tests have as many pitfalls as it has advantages - but nothing will ever replace the hard earned ability of a seasoned listener with decades of experience.
Ergo... professionals who make a living doing it and earns every penny.
Cheers, Joe
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the easily available software, like foobar ABX, suffers from not being optimised sufficiently for SQ, at least as far as some machines are concerned. If the test instrument is too coarse in its mechanism then its usefulness, for some, is not that great.
I've been looking around for an alternative to the foobar ABX - and the cupboard is bare, it seems. There is an opportunity there for someone to create a tool to do the ABX which doesn't intrude so much into the picture, perhaps by modifying foobar so it does the processing with less negative impact ...
.
HAS ANYBODY EVER BEEN TO AN "AUDIO SHOOTOUT" ???
A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME... NO MORE THAN ENTERTAINMENT VALUE.
I just use the time to sit there and makes jokes while they do it - and just ignore what I am hearing.
They insist I vote between 1-10 - I just laugh and mark everything as FIVE!
.
HAS ANYBODY EVER BEEN TO AN "AUDIO SHOOTOUT" ???
A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME... NO MORE THAN ENTERTAINMENT VALUE.
I just use the time to sit there and makes jokes while they do it - and just ignore what I am hearing.
They insist I vote between 1-10 - I just laugh and mark everything as FIVE!
.
Last edited:
To exaggerate, getting good sound is like producing integrated circuits, in the sense that 'clean room' environments are needed. If there is a certain amount of 'crap' in the air then everything else that is done is useless, the defect rate will be "impossible". Jumping up and down, shouting that you don't need such clean conditions, won't change the facts one iota, you'll keep getting lousy yields from your factory until it's made clean enough.
And that's unfortunately how it works with sound, like it or not ...
And that's unfortunately how it works with sound, like it or not ...
Last edited:
agree about the "shootouts", many bad amateur efforts at applying scientific controls jump to unjustified conculsions
professional “mastery” has its points – and its blind spots – decades of bad practice can be worse than none
Audio Pros do develop skills, make discriminations few others can – and many rely on “superstitions”, may never examine conventions, and ultimately aren't graded on “accuracy” but rather artistic effect and sales to the "unwashed masses" by audiophile standards, listening to earbus while on the go, or <$1k "home theater in a box (speakers included)" systems
as an example “Science based Medicine” is still viewed by some as an innovation, gets universal positive lip service – until it debunks a common practice – then its “controversial”
we do learn, “mastery” requires practice, many initially difficult tasks can be mastered – so why is psychoacoustially controlled “ears only” listening hard to learn
and you really don't seem to be asking for credentials, how many hours of what level of audio experience from those who endorse your idea – why is that?
professional “mastery” has its points – and its blind spots – decades of bad practice can be worse than none
Audio Pros do develop skills, make discriminations few others can – and many rely on “superstitions”, may never examine conventions, and ultimately aren't graded on “accuracy” but rather artistic effect and sales to the "unwashed masses" by audiophile standards, listening to earbus while on the go, or <$1k "home theater in a box (speakers included)" systems
as an example “Science based Medicine” is still viewed by some as an innovation, gets universal positive lip service – until it debunks a common practice – then its “controversial”
we do learn, “mastery” requires practice, many initially difficult tasks can be mastered – so why is psychoacoustially controlled “ears only” listening hard to learn
and you really don't seem to be asking for credentials, how many hours of what level of audio experience from those who endorse your idea – why is that?
Last edited:
Really, let's not throw the baby out...
Not all audiophiles are audiophools.
I am confident in my abilities, to the extent I have seen both sides and even experienced both sides. But ultimately, there are going to be time when I am seriously asked questions and I will answer them. Those who know me will tell you I am very guarded, never too quick and very considered in my reply - and honest. If you are not, then in my business people will soon no longer trust you and they will often respect you more when you just tell the truth and that sometimes means a negative answer, such as "I am not able to give you an opinion about that" or just plain say "no" and don't sound like somebody who knows everything.
Those who know me (and I find that they read these threads) will tell you that I sometimes rail against "audiophiles" who seem to be "frustrated reviewers" and they are always in "review mode" and giving instant opinions when thet walk into a room and pretend they hear something "negative" - and why is it 90% always something "negative" - and why don't they come in and say "that music is interesting, what is it?"
Music? What's that? 😕
I tell people I am no reviewer !!!
Where does this come from? Reading magazine reviews and secretly want to become one? Is it a 'romantic' thing? Is this what they subconscientusly dream about becoming? I honestly don't know.
But at least I am not confused when it comes to that department. I am no reviewer.
And some of the things they say... are so embarrassing.
So you see, I work in this business, so I see it all.
Cheers, Joe
- Status
- Not open for further replies.