FWIW 8 woofers in 2.5 cubic feet is .31 cubic feet per woofer, that's tiny even by today's automotive subwoofer standards.
Playing through the resonant frequency of the box system at ~65hz is likely not good for sound quality. Isn't it true this will basically ring? There is nothing the EQ can fix here is there?
The frequency response is great as it is so I don't see how the rolloff is important. With cabin gain the FR is much better than what most folks can achieve in a home. So I don't see the need to EQ at all. If someone looked at the frequency response I posted in-car they wouldn't be able to know whether the box Q is high. The output in the 20s is fine as it is. I boosted it a few db to see if my dissatisfaction is due to the roll off and that's not it. The same Q alignments people prefer in a home will give you an exaggerated bottom response in this car. This is why I was not a fan of the LT. I don't want to change the FR at all.
With isobaric the output is the same in the 20s but lower everywhere else. At 60hz the output is down 4db. Isobaric will result in a loss of SPL, not a gain. That is with the same 8 subs I have.
I've found two posts on this forum which do a better job explaining my issues with the LT in the time domain. I hope this makes it easier to understand my doubts:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...nsform-reduce-size-enclosure.html#post2415867
"According to winISD, you'll still get phase shift around resonance. Anyway, in terms of level, you're right, but won't the system tend to ring at that frequency? This would show up on things like impulse measurements. Isn't a too-small box the cause of boomy bass, with lots of "overhang"? Even when eq is applied, the problem doesn't disappear.
Chris"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...nsform-reduce-size-enclosure.html#post2415885
"Hi,
One version of the LT has poles and zeros that entirely cancel
the real poles and zeros and then adds lower poles and zeros.
Though I do admit you have a point. The above is small signal, the
reality is large, and that fact might become apparent sometimes,
though the actual differences will still be relatively small to most.
It will be the real resonance affecting large signal behaviour, and that's
probably why some extreme active speakers never sounded that good.
rgds, sreten."
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...nsform-reduce-size-enclosure.html#post2415867
"According to winISD, you'll still get phase shift around resonance. Anyway, in terms of level, you're right, but won't the system tend to ring at that frequency? This would show up on things like impulse measurements. Isn't a too-small box the cause of boomy bass, with lots of "overhang"? Even when eq is applied, the problem doesn't disappear.
Chris"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...nsform-reduce-size-enclosure.html#post2415885
"Hi,
One version of the LT has poles and zeros that entirely cancel
the real poles and zeros and then adds lower poles and zeros.
Though I do admit you have a point. The above is small signal, the
reality is large, and that fact might become apparent sometimes,
though the actual differences will still be relatively small to most.
It will be the real resonance affecting large signal behaviour, and that's
probably why some extreme active speakers never sounded that good.
rgds, sreten."
An engineer once told me " a problem isn't a problem unless you male it a problem." while trying to create a workaround for a flaw he had designed into a structure. Everything my team suggested as an improvement got explained away and dismissed. In the end, we just put band-aids on the original design. The structure ended up failing on site, and was replaced with a completely different design.
If you are hell bent on your original design, that's ok. Learn to love it. Shine it up real nice. After all, a gaggle of speakers has visual impact.
If you are hell bent on your original design, that's ok. Learn to love it. Shine it up real nice. After all, a gaggle of speakers has visual impact.
Hah! I was going to say "a problem isn't a problem unless you make it one...or until it collapses under it's own weight". =)
But agreed with your assessment, OP can either continue to experiment including attempting a LT or continue to try to argue away and rationalize any solution proposed to him.
The Lro4ys are here.
Side by side comparison with the incumbent:
Based on the input I received thus far, this solution seemed like the best remedy.
*predicted QTC=.56 (not taking into account any polyfill), a decrease from 1.07 (as tested with Vifas in the box)
*predicted SPL change: increase of 3db @ 20hz, equal output @35hz, lower output above that.
*lowers the resonant frequency of the system as a whole
*6 times increase in suspension stiffness to deal with small box air pressure
*30% increase in motor strength to deal with small box air pressure
*half the drivers but with a substantial increase in Xmax, xmech, and higher thermal resistance, allowing a doubling of airspace per speaker with no loss of large signal performance
My initial inspection of the Seas drivers shows a stout driver indeed! Applying a bit of pressure on the cone edge does not result in visible cone deformation. The Seas have various ribs to increase geometrical stiffness, and a very pronounced cone lip to increase strength. The spider is also noticeably stiffer to the touch, and seems to get progressively stiffer with distance from the coil. Most of the stiffness increase vs. Vifa seems to be from the considerably stiffer surround. The amount of magnet mass/volume is shocking. Equally impressive is the basket to SD ratio, Seas squeezes in a larger cone for nearly the same footprint.
Side by side comparison with the incumbent:
Based on the input I received thus far, this solution seemed like the best remedy.
*predicted QTC=.56 (not taking into account any polyfill), a decrease from 1.07 (as tested with Vifas in the box)
*predicted SPL change: increase of 3db @ 20hz, equal output @35hz, lower output above that.
*lowers the resonant frequency of the system as a whole
*6 times increase in suspension stiffness to deal with small box air pressure
*30% increase in motor strength to deal with small box air pressure
*half the drivers but with a substantial increase in Xmax, xmech, and higher thermal resistance, allowing a doubling of airspace per speaker with no loss of large signal performance
My initial inspection of the Seas drivers shows a stout driver indeed! Applying a bit of pressure on the cone edge does not result in visible cone deformation. The Seas have various ribs to increase geometrical stiffness, and a very pronounced cone lip to increase strength. The spider is also noticeably stiffer to the touch, and seems to get progressively stiffer with distance from the coil. Most of the stiffness increase vs. Vifa seems to be from the considerably stiffer surround. The amount of magnet mass/volume is shocking. Equally impressive is the basket to SD ratio, Seas squeezes in a larger cone for nearly the same footprint.
Last edited:
Those elroys are tough stuff. If you can't get enough subsonic noise out of 4 (or 3 or 2) of those in a corvette, the problem isn't the speakers. Beefy.
I believe this is a better starting point. Since someone mentioned the LT in this thread the first time I've been pulling up as much information as I could to understand it. I've concluded there are two divergent opinions on the topic. One side believes reducing Q by LT will sound the same as reducing Q via hardware. The other believes the sonic signature will remain largely unchanged with an LT. I erred on the safe side. At the worst, I replaced drivers when I didn't have to. At best, I saved myself a lot of trouble and reduced Q while making several other worthwhile improvements.
When the disease audiophilia sets in at an old age one seeks only the quality in audio reproduction. When audiophilia sets in at a young age one seeks SPL in addition to quality in audio reproduction. 😀 All other options required a substantial drop in SPL. I will forgo SPL to improve the quality of the reproduction but not if I don't have to.
I agree completely. As far as SQ, it is always a good idea to get your enclosure and subs near where you want them to be before you start adding passive or active signal shaping. That's what I meant by "eq your way to heaven". The guys at Bose and Autosound 2000 have proven that with enough signal-altering, a mediocre alignment can be made to perform with distinction. With a well-performing speaker/enclosure combo, any filters or functions added will have a more dramatic effect.
I also get where you are coming from regarding raw SPL. It is just like any other drug: with repeated exposure, your body builds up tolerance and immunity. If you want to continue to get that thrill into your 40's and 50's and beyond, don't overdo it while you are young. Ask any aging stage crew professional (or artist) about this one. That's why Brian Johnson retired out of AC/DC: he couldn't even hear himself singing. That sensitivity goes away quickly if you let it.
I also get where you are coming from regarding raw SPL. It is just like any other drug: with repeated exposure, your body builds up tolerance and immunity. If you want to continue to get that thrill into your 40's and 50's and beyond, don't overdo it while you are young. Ask any aging stage crew professional (or artist) about this one. That's why Brian Johnson retired out of AC/DC: he couldn't even hear himself singing. That sensitivity goes away quickly if you let it.
8 Vifa NE 10" vs. 4 Seas LROY 10" subwoofer death match first impressions
The unanimous one person jury decision is that the Seas dual opposed combo of 4 is the new king. I only needed a minute of auditioning to figure this one out. It combines all the qualities of my favorite subwoofer installations I've done: the output of 3 12" Idmax in infinite baffle, the vibration free operation of the Tymphany LAT700, the profound low octave output of the 12" Vifa NEs in infinite baffle, and the dead-quiet excusion that we've come to expect of proper HI FI drivers.
First, some photos. Techshop was missing some parts from their hand held router. It turns out that they are giving up on finding replacement parts and they are decommissioning it! Crazy. That's the only tool I know how to use to make speaker baffles proper, so I turned to the jigsaw and made some temporary block off plates while I figure out what to do tool wise.
While the Seas have a cutout only 1 mm larger than the Vifas, I had to chop off quite a bit of material to make them fit. Odd. The motors are massive, so I removed the magnet rubber booth to get more room and box space. I trimmed some of the bracing, and had to even remove vertical rods. Terminal plates were blocked off because the outer OD of the speaker was much too large to accept the previous location.
Front baffle with two of the holes plugged off and the terminal cup relocated. I prefer drywall screws to machine screws and t-nuts. They seem to hold well so I don't see the need for something stronger atm. The woofers weigh 22lbs each and offer 8 screw holes.
I made one big change on the back baffle. Instead of inverting the subwoofers I mounted them with the magnets inboard. The person to be blamed for the decision is t3sn4f2 (not sure of his username on this forum). 🙂 He rightly noted that if there are any suspension and motor asymetries that the acoustic push-pull rectifies, the force cancelling push-pull will not function to the degree of those nonlinearities. Basically, 2nd order distortion canceling came at the price of some vibration cancelling. I decided vibration canceling is more important to me. This time around the force cancelling is most effective, but there is no acoustic push-pull anymore. There is a second loss with this arrangement, smaller net box size. All 4 motors are now in the box taking up room and the motors are giant! So the final Q is going to be higher than the anticipated .56. There is also a second gain with this arrangement, less resonance and suspension noise, to the degree that there would be any with the Seas inverted. Linkwitz says they work noise free in dipole but who knows.
You can also see the finished amp rack cover on the left. Stealthy black metal cover with Ensolite padding on the inside.
Impressions
The box now sounds acoustically dead, except for the subsonic output. There is no apparent buzzing or resonance of a high frequency nature. Just what you'd expect from a stout subwoofer box and non-resonant drivers. The resonant frequency of the system showed at 48hz on the Woofer Tester 2, a large decrease from the 65hz I was previously getting with the Vifas. The QTC was much higher than the anticipated .56, at .65 but I believe these subwoofers need a lot of break-in. The TS parameters deviated quite a lot from the white sheets so I will test again after break-in. In either case, a massive improvement from the 1.07 QTC I was getting with the Vifas after break in.
The speaker linearity is vastly improved! This is what I was hoping for. Regardless of the frequency or SPL level the subwoofers play back the original signal with no sign of stress. I hold the belief that it is the stiff suspension structure of the subwoofer that it is to be thanked. So no more boxy sound or hints of re-radiation. I suppose we'll never be able to figure out whether it was the lower Q or the stiffer suspension that offers the large improvement over the Vifas, but in either case, mission achieved. Perhaps they are the same thing.
The low octave output is outstanding. My best guess is that it deviates from a flat FR, with a rising output towards 20hz side. To my ear it's definitely bottom heavy, but not at all unlikable. I might NOT EQ it down and enjoy the prodigious output down low.
I've tried 63hz low pass and 71 hz low pass. I like them both.
Now I have to figure out what to do with $2,000 worth of Vifa NEs I have laying around. 😱 But I am really happy I pulled the trigger on these Seas. I learned a valuable lesson working with small sealed subwoofer boxes. The low damping soft surrounds of woofers designed for large sealed/vented alignments do not work well in a small box. This is a despicable application where only purpose built monster subs like the Seas belong. So I might hang on to the Vifas for a dipole application in home theater or large sealed box, but I'll never throw then in a high Q alignment again. Lesson learned.
The unanimous one person jury decision is that the Seas dual opposed combo of 4 is the new king. I only needed a minute of auditioning to figure this one out. It combines all the qualities of my favorite subwoofer installations I've done: the output of 3 12" Idmax in infinite baffle, the vibration free operation of the Tymphany LAT700, the profound low octave output of the 12" Vifa NEs in infinite baffle, and the dead-quiet excusion that we've come to expect of proper HI FI drivers.
First, some photos. Techshop was missing some parts from their hand held router. It turns out that they are giving up on finding replacement parts and they are decommissioning it! Crazy. That's the only tool I know how to use to make speaker baffles proper, so I turned to the jigsaw and made some temporary block off plates while I figure out what to do tool wise.
While the Seas have a cutout only 1 mm larger than the Vifas, I had to chop off quite a bit of material to make them fit. Odd. The motors are massive, so I removed the magnet rubber booth to get more room and box space. I trimmed some of the bracing, and had to even remove vertical rods. Terminal plates were blocked off because the outer OD of the speaker was much too large to accept the previous location.
Front baffle with two of the holes plugged off and the terminal cup relocated. I prefer drywall screws to machine screws and t-nuts. They seem to hold well so I don't see the need for something stronger atm. The woofers weigh 22lbs each and offer 8 screw holes.
I made one big change on the back baffle. Instead of inverting the subwoofers I mounted them with the magnets inboard. The person to be blamed for the decision is t3sn4f2 (not sure of his username on this forum). 🙂 He rightly noted that if there are any suspension and motor asymetries that the acoustic push-pull rectifies, the force cancelling push-pull will not function to the degree of those nonlinearities. Basically, 2nd order distortion canceling came at the price of some vibration cancelling. I decided vibration canceling is more important to me. This time around the force cancelling is most effective, but there is no acoustic push-pull anymore. There is a second loss with this arrangement, smaller net box size. All 4 motors are now in the box taking up room and the motors are giant! So the final Q is going to be higher than the anticipated .56. There is also a second gain with this arrangement, less resonance and suspension noise, to the degree that there would be any with the Seas inverted. Linkwitz says they work noise free in dipole but who knows.
You can also see the finished amp rack cover on the left. Stealthy black metal cover with Ensolite padding on the inside.
Impressions
The box now sounds acoustically dead, except for the subsonic output. There is no apparent buzzing or resonance of a high frequency nature. Just what you'd expect from a stout subwoofer box and non-resonant drivers. The resonant frequency of the system showed at 48hz on the Woofer Tester 2, a large decrease from the 65hz I was previously getting with the Vifas. The QTC was much higher than the anticipated .56, at .65 but I believe these subwoofers need a lot of break-in. The TS parameters deviated quite a lot from the white sheets so I will test again after break-in. In either case, a massive improvement from the 1.07 QTC I was getting with the Vifas after break in.
The speaker linearity is vastly improved! This is what I was hoping for. Regardless of the frequency or SPL level the subwoofers play back the original signal with no sign of stress. I hold the belief that it is the stiff suspension structure of the subwoofer that it is to be thanked. So no more boxy sound or hints of re-radiation. I suppose we'll never be able to figure out whether it was the lower Q or the stiffer suspension that offers the large improvement over the Vifas, but in either case, mission achieved. Perhaps they are the same thing.
The low octave output is outstanding. My best guess is that it deviates from a flat FR, with a rising output towards 20hz side. To my ear it's definitely bottom heavy, but not at all unlikable. I might NOT EQ it down and enjoy the prodigious output down low.
I've tried 63hz low pass and 71 hz low pass. I like them both.
Now I have to figure out what to do with $2,000 worth of Vifa NEs I have laying around. 😱 But I am really happy I pulled the trigger on these Seas. I learned a valuable lesson working with small sealed subwoofer boxes. The low damping soft surrounds of woofers designed for large sealed/vented alignments do not work well in a small box. This is a despicable application where only purpose built monster subs like the Seas belong. So I might hang on to the Vifas for a dipole application in home theater or large sealed box, but I'll never throw then in a high Q alignment again. Lesson learned.
With a Qts of .3, I would not want to use them in a dipole or IB application. Large sealed or ported are where they would shine. Or you could always sell them and recoup the money you laid out for the SEAS woofers.
Yeah, I guess I'll try to sell them. If that doesn't work out I was thinking a dipole setup with a linkwitz transform would work well.
Do even multiples of the Vifas have sufficient X-max / power handling to endure the EQ and applied power that might be required by a LT?
Well, both Vifa and Seas use IEC ratings but it's tough to compare them.
Vifa with no heatsink 190 watts IEC 268-5 18.1 "rated noise power"
Vifa with heatsink 220 watts IEC 268-5 18.1 "rated noise power"
Seas 250 watts IEC 268-5 "long term power" 500 watts "short term power"
With 4 Seas drivers the total long term IEC rating is 1,000 watts. With 8 Vifa drivers that have a heatsink the total noise IEC rating is 1,760 watts. But I believe the IEC standards are different. I believe the Seas ratings are IEC 18.2 for short term and IEC 18.3 for long term.
I couldn't find one proper comparison that's available free online between the IEC standards. It's like hidden on purpose. We have standardized ratings but everyone used different standards.
From talking to the Seas engineers I got that both the 2 layer coils and 4 layer coils have largely the same long term power handling. The 4 layer has a slight advantage short term but not enough to be worth debating over.
From talking to the Vifa guys I got the NE 10" xmech at 16.8mm vs. the Seas at 28mm.
From comparing the Klippel tests I take the Vifa to have 11.9mm xmax and the Seas to have 14 mm xmax for the prescribed 20% distortion limit by inductance, CMS, and BL thresholds.
So comparing isobaric 8 Vifa with 4 Seas:
Seas has the edge in xmech: 28mm vs. 16.8mm
Seas has the edge in xmax: 14mm vs. 11.9mm
Power handling? Who knows. Maybe Vifa has the edge 1,760 vs. 1000 watts
In simulations the Seas shows 17mm max excursion at 2,500 watts and 20hz. I forget where the Vifa was showing in WinISD @ 2,500 watts and 20hz but certainly somewhere close to xmech. Yuck.
Vifa with no heatsink 190 watts IEC 268-5 18.1 "rated noise power"
Vifa with heatsink 220 watts IEC 268-5 18.1 "rated noise power"
Seas 250 watts IEC 268-5 "long term power" 500 watts "short term power"
With 4 Seas drivers the total long term IEC rating is 1,000 watts. With 8 Vifa drivers that have a heatsink the total noise IEC rating is 1,760 watts. But I believe the IEC standards are different. I believe the Seas ratings are IEC 18.2 for short term and IEC 18.3 for long term.
I couldn't find one proper comparison that's available free online between the IEC standards. It's like hidden on purpose. We have standardized ratings but everyone used different standards.
From talking to the Seas engineers I got that both the 2 layer coils and 4 layer coils have largely the same long term power handling. The 4 layer has a slight advantage short term but not enough to be worth debating over.
From talking to the Vifa guys I got the NE 10" xmech at 16.8mm vs. the Seas at 28mm.
From comparing the Klippel tests I take the Vifa to have 11.9mm xmax and the Seas to have 14 mm xmax for the prescribed 20% distortion limit by inductance, CMS, and BL thresholds.
So comparing isobaric 8 Vifa with 4 Seas:
Seas has the edge in xmech: 28mm vs. 16.8mm
Seas has the edge in xmax: 14mm vs. 11.9mm
Power handling? Who knows. Maybe Vifa has the edge 1,760 vs. 1000 watts
In simulations the Seas shows 17mm max excursion at 2,500 watts and 20hz. I forget where the Vifa was showing in WinISD @ 2,500 watts and 20hz but certainly somewhere close to xmech. Yuck.
8 vifas in isobaric would undergo 14mm of excursion at 20hz and 2,500 watts. Only 2.8 mm from xmech. The predicted Q is still higher than Seas 0.625 vs. 0.552 with both in 2.2 net cubic feet. In reality the Seas motors displace .2 cubic feet of space in the box more (estimate), which would bring the predicted QTC to .57.
In-car testing of Seas subs
By testing the frequency response and THD with the Omnimic I found a few interesting bits:
1. The FR is bottom heavy, with a pronounced peak in the 20hz-30hz range.
2. At high output the 25hz peak subsides, possibly because of higher QTC with excursion.
3. -3db point is now 14hz instead of 18hz with the Vifas.
4. Same output at 63hz as it is at 18hz. Compare this to Vifas where 63hz output was the same as 20hz.
5. Total harmonic distortion remains below 5% even at 110db, well below audible limits even at 20hz.
6. The sub has higher 2nd order than 3rd order distortion, which is typically accepted as a more pleasing distortion profile.
7. Usable bandwidth is large, at least 14hz to 150hz with minimal EQ.
8. No bothersome nulls or peaks in the response.
9. Window down response has lower SPL in the range up to 30hz, higher SPL up to 55hz, and the same over that. The impression that windows down is louder must be because we are more sensitive to 30hz-55hz range and there is usually more material there on tracks.
The graphs:
The black plot is a summed frequency response across multiple mic positions in the driver seat. This is the best guess as to the true response.
The blue plot is just one mic position in front of me. Windows are up.
The red plot is just one mic position in front of me. Windows are down. Compare this one to blue where the windows are up but the position is the same. Odd right? Same behavior showed up in my old car with the convertible top down. My guess is that windows down is easier for the subs to move air so the SPL goes up, but then at the lowest frequencies there is cancellation so the SPL drops sharply.
Harmonic distortion plots
Volume -22db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 100db fundamental, THD less than 1.75% throughout
Volume -17db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 104db fundamental, THD less than 1.75% throughout
Volume -12db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 104db fundamental, THD less than 2.5% throughout, lowered mic sensitivity because it was clipping, maybe that's why fundamental didn't change
Volume -9db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 108db fundamental, THD less than 3.5% throughout, kept low mic sensitivity
Volume -6db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 110db fundamental, THD less than 4.5% throughout, kept low mic sensitivity
The Vifas were showing a rather larger peak in THD around 50hz, the Seas do not. I was far more comfortable testing the Seas at high output. The results are very good. THD is well below audible thresholds even at outputs I never attempt with music and the FR is flat to well below 20hz. Most importantly they sound better to my ears on every material compared to the Vifas.
By testing the frequency response and THD with the Omnimic I found a few interesting bits:
1. The FR is bottom heavy, with a pronounced peak in the 20hz-30hz range.
2. At high output the 25hz peak subsides, possibly because of higher QTC with excursion.
3. -3db point is now 14hz instead of 18hz with the Vifas.
4. Same output at 63hz as it is at 18hz. Compare this to Vifas where 63hz output was the same as 20hz.
5. Total harmonic distortion remains below 5% even at 110db, well below audible limits even at 20hz.
6. The sub has higher 2nd order than 3rd order distortion, which is typically accepted as a more pleasing distortion profile.
7. Usable bandwidth is large, at least 14hz to 150hz with minimal EQ.
8. No bothersome nulls or peaks in the response.
9. Window down response has lower SPL in the range up to 30hz, higher SPL up to 55hz, and the same over that. The impression that windows down is louder must be because we are more sensitive to 30hz-55hz range and there is usually more material there on tracks.
The graphs:
The black plot is a summed frequency response across multiple mic positions in the driver seat. This is the best guess as to the true response.
The blue plot is just one mic position in front of me. Windows are up.
The red plot is just one mic position in front of me. Windows are down. Compare this one to blue where the windows are up but the position is the same. Odd right? Same behavior showed up in my old car with the convertible top down. My guess is that windows down is easier for the subs to move air so the SPL goes up, but then at the lowest frequencies there is cancellation so the SPL drops sharply.
Harmonic distortion plots
Volume -22db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 100db fundamental, THD less than 1.75% throughout
Volume -17db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 104db fundamental, THD less than 1.75% throughout
Volume -12db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 104db fundamental, THD less than 2.5% throughout, lowered mic sensitivity because it was clipping, maybe that's why fundamental didn't change
Volume -9db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 108db fundamental, THD less than 3.5% throughout, kept low mic sensitivity
Volume -6db on processor, amp gain 1/2, processor gain maxed out +15db, 110db fundamental, THD less than 4.5% throughout, kept low mic sensitivity
The Vifas were showing a rather larger peak in THD around 50hz, the Seas do not. I was far more comfortable testing the Seas at high output. The results are very good. THD is well below audible thresholds even at outputs I never attempt with music and the FR is flat to well below 20hz. Most importantly they sound better to my ears on every material compared to the Vifas.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.