The Smith Cell sounds like it could be a Bybee in series with a Dakiom Feedback Stabilizer
Well, I wonder if active feedback could null the differences in cables.
And the second law of thermodynamics. And would also send Shannon to the history dumpster. Jack Bybee vs. Claude Shannon, what a game
Gentlemen,
I would like to clarify some things regarding my views on audio in general so that you have a better understanding of where I’m coming from on the cable issue. From here on out I’m taking the high road and anybody else that wishes to do otherwise will not receive a response. If you were to do a little research regarding my views on life and relationships over at AudioCircle, you’d come to find that I hold them in the highest regard and that I value people more than any pet theory or ideological position – particularly those of science and the material world. In fact (just to give some of you more to scoff at) I see the material world as a type of "illusion" with Planck Time possibly representing the lower limit of fine grain resolution. Ha!… But what do I know? Regardless, I'm not one to take being bullied either... so now you know. I offer my apologies for my previous post and will interpret silence in return as the equivalence of the same in return. Now... can we all be friends? 🙂
Having said that, I feel it's important for you all to know that I am fully committed to the scientific process as much as is practical and/or possible. Just check out my Technology and Theory pages on our website if you need more evidence. Having not heard them for yourselves you aren’t likely to be aware, but I have designed and delivered loudspeakers that represent some of the highest resolution systems developed anywhere and at any price. This is not to boast, it's simply a matter of fact. In Denmark we have my top design incorporated in a system costing approximately $40K, that has been claimed by a Danish reviewer to outperform another $500K system comprising the biggest names in audio. That in itself doesn’t necessarily prove anything definitively as we all know hearing and sound preferences are highly subjective. Nevertheless, when you add that to our many other OWNER reviews of similar viewpoint, it does demonstrate a significant trend.
To be specific, I am in full agreement with those here that have previously scoffed at my Sub-Debye Phase distortion paper regarding the significance of distortion. To be sure, the only path to true fidelity is to reduce EVERY source of distortion as much as possible. Contrary to a common audiophile view that distortion isn’t as significant as much as us engineering types often claim it to be, I do not subscribe to such euphonic based philosophies. The re-engineering of the signals in a given recording by selecting distortion generating components in order to achieve some form of satisfying musical presentation may work to some degree, but in the long run it is only a Band-Aid approach to solving the problem. We do sympathize though and understand why this has become so popular; it’s simply a desperate attempt to juggle the variables in order to compensate for the deficiencies of the weakest link in the system – which 90% of the time is the loudspeaker. As most of you know, in the area of distortion even the best loudspeaker is a terrible device when it comes to comparing such with any other typical piece of electronic equipment.
In fact, in the development of our products we have found that if system accuracy is high enough/distortion is low enough, a musical presentation results that cannot be had by any other means and unlike virtually all others, does not grow old with time. That’s why you seldom see our products on the used market… our customers keep their speakers and then use them as tools to refine the rest of their system. We have found that if accuracy is truly high enough, the old axiom of an accurate speaker (a.k.a., studio monitors, etc.) being harsh and/or fatiguing simply does not hold true… and in fact quite the opposite.
OK… sorry for the shill. The point is though that none of this would have been possible had I followed the typical "audiophile as designer" philosophy. Science is and always will be the guiding principle in whatever I design or pursue. Nevertheless, I remain open to the idea that science is no more perfect than the people attempting to perfect it. As such there always remains the possibility of some overlooked aspect in any area of technology. The preponderance of anecdotal claims regarding audio cables would suggest this is one of those areas.
To dismiss so many observations and attribute them to nothing more than psychoacoustics or delusional hearing seems to be the zenith of vanity – double-blind studies or otherwise. It has been suggested that due to the need for various associations to take place in order for the human mind to properly process auditory data, that double-blind studies may be inherently flawed in some aspects. Succinctly, just as musicians can train their hearing process in order to develop perfect pitch, so too can listener hearing be trained to become highly refined.
The one requirement of perfect pitch is to have etched in the mind several reference points and often this involves sensory-synesthesia wherein musical notes are both stored in memory and experienced as colors. A similar process may be required for the trained listener wherein some secondary form of information, possibly in the form of a mental picture regarding the operating parameters of the audio system, are known. Without this information then (as in double-blind studies) the brain cannot fully process the auditory information with the desired level of resolution. Seeing that it is well known that auditory memory is very short, some other such form information is very likely to be required.
While the development of perfect pitch is not generally considered to be an easy task, it is based on a single parameter of frequency and intervals thereof. In contrast, due to the infinitely greater complex nature of reproduced music taken as a whole, the development of highly refined listening abilities would appear to represent many more orders of difficulty. In consideration of this, even though one’s listening acuity may be highly refined, such mental imagery cues would seem to most certainly be necessary in order to engage it. In summery then it appears the very nature of double-blind studies and their application to such high level resolution hearing tests is inherently flawed and ultimately of little value as a scientific gauge of device performance. But then again… we could be wrong 🙂
Regardless of one’s views regarding the above, we ask that a cursory review of our model claims be once again examined. They are outlined below and we invite any and all evidence to the contrary:
1) The Debye temperature defines a border wherein phonon vibrational frequencies transition from optical to acoustic wavelengths.
EVIDENCE: Debye model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) That 1/f or flicker noise is at least partially the result of phonon vibration and it manifests as phase noise in AC systems
EVIDENCE: Advances in electronics and electron ... - Google Books
I was in error… it is known that 1/f noise affects AC signals directly. Pardon my oversight. Interestingly enough it has been detected as a function of 1/Delta F and generates two sidebands. – See page 244.
Interesting again is that Clark & Voss used a carrier test method similar in concept to (but distinctly different from) the method I had suggested. Sure enough they looked for and found phase errors. – See page 247.
Now we connect these with my Debye temperature relationship. Hmm…whaddaya know? It turns out Copper was measured and found to exhibit higher 1/f noise (by 2 orders of magnitude!) than that of tin, silver and gold. These exactly follow their Debye temperatures except that Tin is higher than Silver (not by much though) and they should be reversed. This can easily be explained by the fact that Silver is a far better conductor than Tin, which implies that phonon contribution in Tin would be greater regardless of the vibrational mode profile – acoustic or otherwise. Gosh… if I’m wrong, the universe seems to have conspired to deceive me!!! – See page 250.
Handel then proposes a bit of quantum interference effect. Hmm… this looks interesting too. Whaddaya know again… he suggests that beat frequencies will develop. Awe heck, a little inter-modulation distortion never hurt anybody. – See page 291.
3) Issues such as grain boundaries of the crystalline lattice, cross sectional area and/or volume of the conductor, charge carrier density, signal current and frequency can all have an effect. If that’s not true, somebody really should tell these guys, as they seem pretty convinced.
Phys. Rev. B 22 (1980): B. Pellegrini - New theory of flicker...
Granted, the paper below is about quartz crystal oscillators, but still… what do virtually all metals form? Yep… crystals. 🙂
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/22/17/20/PDF/ajp-jphyscol198142C825.pdf
Finally we have the issue of metal temperature coefficients. Did you know that most metals exhibit very small variations from their otherwise relatively linear temp-co curves? In fact, highly sensitive resistance measuring equipment has to be adjusted to compensate for this effect. Obviously it occurs at room temperatures as most such apparatus is used by humans, and we don’t do well at temperature extremes. Apparently the effect is one of small sigmoidal variations above and below the mean curve and over the temperature range of device operation. Hmm… I wonder what gives rise to this little artifact? Could it be some form of interval spacing of acoustic phonon modes? Nah… according to Pauli, that’s just not even wrong. If not though, then what is the source? If it were due to ambient temperature fluctuations, it wouldn’t be stable such that it could be compensated for. I have to admit that this one is just a guess on my part, but I think it’s a pretty good one considering the other facts.
So finally it all comes down to a matter of audibility. Are such effects too low to be heard? Maybe… but double blind testing is not likely able to tell us either way. So I suppose it all comes down to a matter of belief in the end… at least until we do find a way to test for it. In the mean time I think the facts above speak for themselves, but if I am wrong, I highly encourage someone to set me straight. Please though, simple dismissals will not convince me or anyone else to the contrary… just as apparently the observations I’ve made can convince those that refuse to accept them. So… let’s all hear from someone that has solid, scientific facts to support their argument. That way we can all be the better for it. At that point I will gladly withdraw my paper and thank you for enlightening us all.
-Bob
PS. I haven’t submitted this paper to the AES or elsewhere for peer review, as I really don’t have the time it would take to develop the rigorous form and analysis it would take. Besides, after my divorce from my first wife of 19 years over 13 years ago, I was in such a mess I let my membership lapse and have never gotten around to renewing it. I should have done that a long time ago I guess, but running a business takes all of my time… and then some.
PSS. I really wish there wasn't a difference in cable metallurgy (if there really is after all), because my main business is building speakers. Now how can I build them and claim superior resolution and detail if say... I'm using "ordinary" copper wire in them? This is gonna cost me as I can't raise prices right now to make up for it. Oh well, I guess the truth is more important for now and I'll figure out the rest later.
I would like to clarify some things regarding my views on audio in general so that you have a better understanding of where I’m coming from on the cable issue. From here on out I’m taking the high road and anybody else that wishes to do otherwise will not receive a response. If you were to do a little research regarding my views on life and relationships over at AudioCircle, you’d come to find that I hold them in the highest regard and that I value people more than any pet theory or ideological position – particularly those of science and the material world. In fact (just to give some of you more to scoff at) I see the material world as a type of "illusion" with Planck Time possibly representing the lower limit of fine grain resolution. Ha!… But what do I know? Regardless, I'm not one to take being bullied either... so now you know. I offer my apologies for my previous post and will interpret silence in return as the equivalence of the same in return. Now... can we all be friends? 🙂
Having said that, I feel it's important for you all to know that I am fully committed to the scientific process as much as is practical and/or possible. Just check out my Technology and Theory pages on our website if you need more evidence. Having not heard them for yourselves you aren’t likely to be aware, but I have designed and delivered loudspeakers that represent some of the highest resolution systems developed anywhere and at any price. This is not to boast, it's simply a matter of fact. In Denmark we have my top design incorporated in a system costing approximately $40K, that has been claimed by a Danish reviewer to outperform another $500K system comprising the biggest names in audio. That in itself doesn’t necessarily prove anything definitively as we all know hearing and sound preferences are highly subjective. Nevertheless, when you add that to our many other OWNER reviews of similar viewpoint, it does demonstrate a significant trend.
To be specific, I am in full agreement with those here that have previously scoffed at my Sub-Debye Phase distortion paper regarding the significance of distortion. To be sure, the only path to true fidelity is to reduce EVERY source of distortion as much as possible. Contrary to a common audiophile view that distortion isn’t as significant as much as us engineering types often claim it to be, I do not subscribe to such euphonic based philosophies. The re-engineering of the signals in a given recording by selecting distortion generating components in order to achieve some form of satisfying musical presentation may work to some degree, but in the long run it is only a Band-Aid approach to solving the problem. We do sympathize though and understand why this has become so popular; it’s simply a desperate attempt to juggle the variables in order to compensate for the deficiencies of the weakest link in the system – which 90% of the time is the loudspeaker. As most of you know, in the area of distortion even the best loudspeaker is a terrible device when it comes to comparing such with any other typical piece of electronic equipment.
In fact, in the development of our products we have found that if system accuracy is high enough/distortion is low enough, a musical presentation results that cannot be had by any other means and unlike virtually all others, does not grow old with time. That’s why you seldom see our products on the used market… our customers keep their speakers and then use them as tools to refine the rest of their system. We have found that if accuracy is truly high enough, the old axiom of an accurate speaker (a.k.a., studio monitors, etc.) being harsh and/or fatiguing simply does not hold true… and in fact quite the opposite.
OK… sorry for the shill. The point is though that none of this would have been possible had I followed the typical "audiophile as designer" philosophy. Science is and always will be the guiding principle in whatever I design or pursue. Nevertheless, I remain open to the idea that science is no more perfect than the people attempting to perfect it. As such there always remains the possibility of some overlooked aspect in any area of technology. The preponderance of anecdotal claims regarding audio cables would suggest this is one of those areas.
To dismiss so many observations and attribute them to nothing more than psychoacoustics or delusional hearing seems to be the zenith of vanity – double-blind studies or otherwise. It has been suggested that due to the need for various associations to take place in order for the human mind to properly process auditory data, that double-blind studies may be inherently flawed in some aspects. Succinctly, just as musicians can train their hearing process in order to develop perfect pitch, so too can listener hearing be trained to become highly refined.
The one requirement of perfect pitch is to have etched in the mind several reference points and often this involves sensory-synesthesia wherein musical notes are both stored in memory and experienced as colors. A similar process may be required for the trained listener wherein some secondary form of information, possibly in the form of a mental picture regarding the operating parameters of the audio system, are known. Without this information then (as in double-blind studies) the brain cannot fully process the auditory information with the desired level of resolution. Seeing that it is well known that auditory memory is very short, some other such form information is very likely to be required.
While the development of perfect pitch is not generally considered to be an easy task, it is based on a single parameter of frequency and intervals thereof. In contrast, due to the infinitely greater complex nature of reproduced music taken as a whole, the development of highly refined listening abilities would appear to represent many more orders of difficulty. In consideration of this, even though one’s listening acuity may be highly refined, such mental imagery cues would seem to most certainly be necessary in order to engage it. In summery then it appears the very nature of double-blind studies and their application to such high level resolution hearing tests is inherently flawed and ultimately of little value as a scientific gauge of device performance. But then again… we could be wrong 🙂
Regardless of one’s views regarding the above, we ask that a cursory review of our model claims be once again examined. They are outlined below and we invite any and all evidence to the contrary:
1) The Debye temperature defines a border wherein phonon vibrational frequencies transition from optical to acoustic wavelengths.
EVIDENCE: Debye model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) That 1/f or flicker noise is at least partially the result of phonon vibration and it manifests as phase noise in AC systems
EVIDENCE: Advances in electronics and electron ... - Google Books
I was in error… it is known that 1/f noise affects AC signals directly. Pardon my oversight. Interestingly enough it has been detected as a function of 1/Delta F and generates two sidebands. – See page 244.
Interesting again is that Clark & Voss used a carrier test method similar in concept to (but distinctly different from) the method I had suggested. Sure enough they looked for and found phase errors. – See page 247.
Now we connect these with my Debye temperature relationship. Hmm…whaddaya know? It turns out Copper was measured and found to exhibit higher 1/f noise (by 2 orders of magnitude!) than that of tin, silver and gold. These exactly follow their Debye temperatures except that Tin is higher than Silver (not by much though) and they should be reversed. This can easily be explained by the fact that Silver is a far better conductor than Tin, which implies that phonon contribution in Tin would be greater regardless of the vibrational mode profile – acoustic or otherwise. Gosh… if I’m wrong, the universe seems to have conspired to deceive me!!! – See page 250.
Handel then proposes a bit of quantum interference effect. Hmm… this looks interesting too. Whaddaya know again… he suggests that beat frequencies will develop. Awe heck, a little inter-modulation distortion never hurt anybody. – See page 291.
3) Issues such as grain boundaries of the crystalline lattice, cross sectional area and/or volume of the conductor, charge carrier density, signal current and frequency can all have an effect. If that’s not true, somebody really should tell these guys, as they seem pretty convinced.
Phys. Rev. B 22 (1980): B. Pellegrini - New theory of flicker...
Granted, the paper below is about quartz crystal oscillators, but still… what do virtually all metals form? Yep… crystals. 🙂
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/22/17/20/PDF/ajp-jphyscol198142C825.pdf
Finally we have the issue of metal temperature coefficients. Did you know that most metals exhibit very small variations from their otherwise relatively linear temp-co curves? In fact, highly sensitive resistance measuring equipment has to be adjusted to compensate for this effect. Obviously it occurs at room temperatures as most such apparatus is used by humans, and we don’t do well at temperature extremes. Apparently the effect is one of small sigmoidal variations above and below the mean curve and over the temperature range of device operation. Hmm… I wonder what gives rise to this little artifact? Could it be some form of interval spacing of acoustic phonon modes? Nah… according to Pauli, that’s just not even wrong. If not though, then what is the source? If it were due to ambient temperature fluctuations, it wouldn’t be stable such that it could be compensated for. I have to admit that this one is just a guess on my part, but I think it’s a pretty good one considering the other facts.
So finally it all comes down to a matter of audibility. Are such effects too low to be heard? Maybe… but double blind testing is not likely able to tell us either way. So I suppose it all comes down to a matter of belief in the end… at least until we do find a way to test for it. In the mean time I think the facts above speak for themselves, but if I am wrong, I highly encourage someone to set me straight. Please though, simple dismissals will not convince me or anyone else to the contrary… just as apparently the observations I’ve made can convince those that refuse to accept them. So… let’s all hear from someone that has solid, scientific facts to support their argument. That way we can all be the better for it. At that point I will gladly withdraw my paper and thank you for enlightening us all.
-Bob
PS. I haven’t submitted this paper to the AES or elsewhere for peer review, as I really don’t have the time it would take to develop the rigorous form and analysis it would take. Besides, after my divorce from my first wife of 19 years over 13 years ago, I was in such a mess I let my membership lapse and have never gotten around to renewing it. I should have done that a long time ago I guess, but running a business takes all of my time… and then some.
PSS. I really wish there wasn't a difference in cable metallurgy (if there really is after all), because my main business is building speakers. Now how can I build them and claim superior resolution and detail if say... I'm using "ordinary" copper wire in them? This is gonna cost me as I can't raise prices right now to make up for it. Oh well, I guess the truth is more important for now and I'll figure out the rest later.
so you admitt that it is all about making money huh? thank you very much, this is very enlightening....
Nothing wrong with making money. His speakers might be quite good, and should be judged on their own merits, irrespective of the pataphysical mishmash about conduction of AC through wires.
Dear Bob,
obviously we have different definitions of 'evidence'.
Just show us your measured 1/f noises of different cables, and second...prove that those are not generated by some microphonic effects which are known probably since the beginning of audio recording.
Regards
obviously we have different definitions of 'evidence'.
Just show us your measured 1/f noises of different cables, and second...prove that those are not generated by some microphonic effects which are known probably since the beginning of audio recording.
Regards
Yes, I remember that scene well. Great fun! So there is such a thing, sort of? Sorry for the OT.
Could we make speaker cables from it? Back on topic. =)
Tony,
No man... you have me all wrong! I study real hard to learn as much as I can, spend 60+ hours a week working 2 jobs, have lived in an old house with no plaster on the ceilings of 2 rooms that I can't find the time to finish remodeling and that has a leaking roof I can't afford to have repaired, have lived on unemployment for the better part of the last year, have no savings or retirement at 51 years of age, have had no health insurance for the last 4 years until my wife got a job that provided it last December, drive an old junker... and you name it... just to build speakers and audio gear for the welfare of others!!!
Would it be OK with you if I can at least eat regularly and keep from loosing my piece of crap home?
Thanks for understanding!🙂
-Bob
PS. If you don't believe the above, just ask the guys on AudioCircle that know me... they'll tell ya.
No man... you have me all wrong! I study real hard to learn as much as I can, spend 60+ hours a week working 2 jobs, have lived in an old house with no plaster on the ceilings of 2 rooms that I can't find the time to finish remodeling and that has a leaking roof I can't afford to have repaired, have lived on unemployment for the better part of the last year, have no savings or retirement at 51 years of age, have had no health insurance for the last 4 years until my wife got a job that provided it last December, drive an old junker... and you name it... just to build speakers and audio gear for the welfare of others!!!
Would it be OK with you if I can at least eat regularly and keep from loosing my piece of crap home?Thanks for understanding!🙂
-Bob
PS. If you don't believe the above, just ask the guys on AudioCircle that know me... they'll tell ya.
3) Issues such as grain boundaries of the crystalline lattice, cross sectional area and/or volume of the conductor, charge carrier density, signal current and frequency can all have an effect. If that’s not true, somebody really should tell these guys, as they seem pretty convinced.
Phys. Rev. B 22 (1980): B. Pellegrini - New theory of flicker...
Who ever said anything of the sort? Keep reading, I could sent you several dozen survey articles on 1/f noise and not one of them claims any violation of first principles in fact they mostly base their theories FIRMLY on all the ones syn08 and I mentioned. It remains dangerous to pick random results out of experiments done at the few atom/quantum level and often at environmental extremes and apply them to the macroscopic properties of ordinary materials.
Phys. Rev. B 22 (1980): B. Pellegrini - New theory of flicker...
Who ever said anything of the sort? Keep reading, I could sent you several dozen survey articles on 1/f noise and not one of them claims any violation of first principles in fact they mostly base their theories FIRMLY on all the ones syn08 and I mentioned. It remains dangerous to pick random results out of experiments done at the few atom/quantum level and often at environmental extremes and apply them to the macroscopic properties of ordinary materials.
Last edited:
I see Bob found of what I spoke. I would suggest a bridge of 4 "resistors" made out of non-inductively wound copper wire. If you null out the excitation you "might" find the noise sidebands mentioned in that book. You could use balanced drive to eliminate the common mode. This is a good use for syn08's .32nV amp. 😀
No arrow flies perfectly, Scott. Sooner or later corrections end up being needed. In the same vein, science itself needs to be corrected.
In the same way that the stalwarts and malcontents (negative life/negative view) do help keep the system in shape via braking..they are also the foolishness that kills innovation. The capacity of the given individual to recognize when they are either the sensible brake or 'check' vs that of dogmatic insanity and inability to look outside of the confines of the model for noted and unexplained observations...THAT is the issue that is confronted here.
I've said it before, that the more difficult the problem to solve, the more basic the mistake.
We also run into the issue of the stalwarts and malcontents not doing their proper depth of homework with regard to recognizing the subtleties of the issues at hand. This effect being principally due to their lack of mental and physiological capacity for depth of view or complexity of view. This can and does tend to arise out of a lack of depth of actual character with regard to the contrary individual.
This becomes quite clear via the observation of the derisiveness, the sheer violence and insanity of their attacks on anyone or anything that may attempt to go up against their 'precious models' -or in this case- go up against their dogmatic defense of a subject for which their awareness is so incomplete so as to make their vantage and defensive points in the given argument--utterly ridiculous and immature.
Granted, from their vantage point, their arguments are correct, but from a more universal and open vantage point, which is the point of science, their vantage point and argument runs askew and falls/wanders in a misdirected way... into the 'ditch of insanity'. Their viewpoint is incomplete so they cannot see the error of their position, and they have no mental duress or desire to expand it - a case of the linear aspects of intellect being driven wholesale by emotional positioning. A long story there, but we (you and I) have been down this road before. I do not count you among that group.
If one were to surmise that I was comparing such a mentality as being equivalent to the 'ditchpigs of scientific dogma', you might be right.
These naysayers reach out and attack, like an out of control animal, anything that does not fit their world view. I should have nothing in me but derision and pity for such fools. And I do. Like wild dogs, I am wary of their bite, for it is delivered without thought or depth - it is delivered through sheer reaction - nothing more. They cannot see the depth or shape of their errors, so they attack blindly. Thus the danger of being anywhere near them...as has been illustrated by the case of some people who may attempt to post reason and debate -in this thread.
Last edited:
maybe I miss something, but imho he hasn't 'found' anything. He seems just to guess around, looking for explanations for effects he might be able to hear, but he hasn't any proofed (=measured) evidence for the existence of those effects at all. 🙄
Regards
KBK and the rest of the gang,
I'm not asking you to read and understand specific, abstract and ultimately difficult to digest aspects of quantum physics, thermodynamics or signal theory. But can you at least understand that dropping the second law of thermodynamics means that the entire univers, starting with your car and ending with the processes in the sun, as we know them today, could not function?
If anybody has any doubt that a Bybee device functionality is in a direct contradiction with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, let me know. There's a pretty elementary theoretical proof of that, by reductio ad absurdum.
BTW, a Bybee device, if functioning as assumed, could sucessfuly play the role of a Maxwell's Demon. Hence, it could also be at the core of a perpetuum mobile device.
His posted book links suggest exactly the test I proposed yesterday. I just added bridge techniques to give a huge SNR advantage (-160dB) really is achievable in the lab. To clarify there is a way to measure the macroscopic excess noise of a metal "as a resistor" (we can do it Jim!). The papers usually explore thin metal films since the expected noise will be higher.
The 1/f model as a uniform distribution of trap activation energies is not new. BTW if the traps are due to a specific cause (interstitial gold, etc.). Their activation energies and hence time constants will concentrate at single values and you will get generation-recombination noise instead with its own peculiar spectrum.
I am sure any metal used as a resistor will exhibit excess noise at some level, but please do the math. 0.1 Ohms of metal, we start at .04nV/rt-Hz now lets get a couple of amps going and compare this to the SPL on our speaker.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.