Help me choose components for my nude dipole build

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Hey!

I've been reading threads and posts started by Stig Eric, CharlieLaub, mige0, Jihazzi and other very inspiring people and got sick with the idea of building a nude (well, almost) dipole speaker.

Two configs are in my mind right now.

First:
Beyma 15G40 or 18Sound 15LW1401 in an H-Frame (60-200)
Beyma 12G40 as midbass/lower midrange (200-700)
BG Neo8 midrage (700-3200)
BG Neo3 HF driver (3200 and up)

Second:
Beyma 15G40 or 18Sound 15LW1401 in an H-Frame (60-200)
Beyma 12G40 as midbass/lower midrange (200-500)
Beyma 6MI100 midrange (500-2000)
Beyma TPL-150 HF driver (2000 and up)

Both sets will be eventually assisted with a single long throw monopole sub to cover 20-60 range. Both 15G40 and 15LW1401 model in Hornresp wuite nicely, promissing about 106db at 60Hz which is a good sound level (i think). I won't be listenning to a very high volume music all the time, i just want some headroom.

It will be an active system, of course. PC-XO with a FireWire audio interface. DSP in Reaper of JRiver - not decided yet.

Still not decided on a frame. I am thinking between wood or metal frame. Have a few ideas on making a frame and after everything is setup covering the front with an acoustically trasparent grille, so that the room doesn't get severely uglified :)

As for the room - 4mx6mx3m. (13x19x10 feet).

The first setup is almost a copy of what Juhazzi did with his AINOGRADIENT speaker aside from a bit different lower end. It has been tested and i bet i will sound good. The problem with this setup is that BG Neo planars are hard to come by. Well, Parts Express do sell them, although it has been posted several times that the product quality has become severely lower. I found a guy who is selling Neo8 made in Denmark, but can't find such an offer for Neo3. Are those recent Neos so bad, really?


The second config is a bit harder on the pocket, but still doable. If i decide to go this route, is Beyma 6MI100 a good choice as a midrange? What would you guys recommend as an xover freq for the TPL-150? Am i really going to feel significant difference in SQ by switching to second setup? I like dynamics, realism, precedence and all those thing that fancy words usually used to describe. Is the TPL-150 really worth it?
 
..there is the Radian LT2 dipole version (Thomann special order in EU.) Remember though that the shown spl is with the waveguide (on an "IB").. However because you would pair it with the Neo8 AND are doing an active crossover: you can use this thing a bit higher in freq. and with a "steeper" crossover slope between the two drivers.

LT2 Planar ribbon - Radian Audio

-still, similar vertical directivity to the Neo 3..


If it were me on the "low-end" (rather than the larger single Beyma or BMS driver, and continuing all the way to 20 Hz), I'd go with at least a pair of GR-based Rythmik Audio 12" drivers (in parallel - net "4 ohm average") for each loudspeaker (along with one of their higher power *servo plate-amps):
GR SW-12-08FR
Rythmik Audio • GR servo driver

Rythmik Audio • Subwoofer plate amplifiers

*and yes, there is a specific reason for this combo: the "servo" system here with drivers shouldn't need much "eq." because of the way their "servo" works.

I'd probably also take the 12" down to about 120 Hz.. (..still dsp active low-pass for the Rythmik driver/plate-amp, NOT using the plate-amp's low-pass.)
 
Last edited:
Hey Scott!

Thanks for suggestions.

There are two dispersion plots on LT2 page:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


and

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


Second graph shows some significant roughness on 30 degrees. Kinda not desirable attribute for a dipole driver, no? Maybe, one is vertical, i don't know.

Another option for me is Mundorf AMT17D2.2 Any thoughts on this driver in combination with Neo8 (this one i have ordered).

BTW, 12G40 is also ordered for midbass - lower midrange duties.

18Sound 15LW1401 will be obtained at half the price.
 
Sounds like a nice project, StabMe!

Radian LM8 and LT3 are the planars I would try first. B&G Neo10 would be better than my Neo8. Quality of those available now is a big problem, be prepared to disqualify some of them (look at distortion and spl response). I was lucky and my units are all OK. I ordered immediately two pairs way back then.

Beyma G-series perform very well, LF might have more Xmax. For low bass duties high max excursion is essential! I chose Nd because it looks so sexy as nude!

I considered a CNC'd aluminium frame, but it gets easily pretty expensive. At least make a proto first of plywood or rods etc. what is available in your garage.
 
Last edited:
Second:
Beyma 15G40 or 18Sound 15LW1401 in an H-Frame (60-200)
Beyma 12G40 as midbass/lower midrange (200-500)
Beyma 6MI100 midrange (500-2000)
Beyma TPL-150 HF driver (2000 and up)

IMHO seems to me that you could skip the 6" driver. Run the 12G40 to a tpl-150h crossing at 1k

I use a Beyma 12MI100 crossed at about 1k to a large ribbon tweeter and very much like the results.

Evan
 
Last edited:
Another option for me is Mundorf AMT17D2.2 Any thoughts on this driver in combination with Neo8 (this one i have ordered).

BTW, 12G40 is also ordered for midbass - lower midrange duties.

18Sound 15LW1401 will be obtained at half the price.


Mundorf is probably a better choice for it's lower freq. performance as a dipole. BUT it's a LOT more expensive. ;) Oh, I also tend to like AMT's just a bit better than planars for the treble region (typically better lower-level detail). :)

The "wider" horizontal directivity (at higher freq.s) might have been an artifact of the waveguide/planar transition for the Radian.

Good news on the 18 Sound! :) You will of course still need the subwoofer to compliment the design: and that will add to the cost (both in terms of driver(s) and amplification) in addition to the 18 sound driver for each loudspeaker and likely more expensive amplification. To me, the Rythmik solution is preferable for a host of reasons, one of which *might be total cost.

*I say "might", because I'm assuming you are in Europe and I've really no idea how "hard" you'd get screwed-over on various taxes/fees, nor what the shipping costs would be. :eek:
 
Last edited:
One really important thing about dipoles above 2kHz is, if the backside radiation symmetrical to frontside. Manufacturers dont give that data, but you can guess it by looking. Cones/dynamic drivers are hopeless in this regard and I have a doubt about AMTs.

Dipole cancellation below the dipole peak overrules most wiggles in response, and gives 6dB/oct slope

Every dipole radiator has a limit up where in frequency the dipole action goes. Above 4kHz very small details of the frame become significant. With my AINOgradients I struggled with 3" cones too long before I understood this and purchased the B&G Neo8PDFR.

And yes, it really must be a 4-way! Each driver has only 2-3 octaves of smooth and consistent dipole radiation pattern without excessive distortion.

Attached is Peerless NE95 responses. More details in my thread.
 

Attachments

  • ne95 raw 150ms.png
    ne95 raw 150ms.png
    88.3 KB · Views: 347
Second:
IMHO seems to me that you could skip the 6" driver. Run the 12G40 to a tpl-150h crossing at 1k

I use a Beyma 12MI100 crossed at about 1k to a large ribbon tweeter and very much like the results.

Evan

Hey Evan!

Well, i wanted a dipole system which will exhibit similar rear radiation with what it has in the front. I guess 12G40 will won't have that pattern up to 1.000Hz? I guess a twelve-incher will only be useful for 2-2 1/2 octaves (160-700-800)? And how clean is TPL-150 at 1.000Hz? from what i can see in the datasheet, it would more like an xo at about 1.5Khz?
 
Sounds like a nice project, StabMe!

Radian LM8 and LT3 are the planars I would try first. B&G Neo10 would be better than my Neo8. Quality of those available now is a big problem, be prepared to disqualify some of them (look at distortion and spl response). I was lucky and my units are all OK. I ordered immediately two pairs way back then.

I found Neo8s lightly used which were produced back in the day in Denmark, hope it won't have the quality problems. And as for the tweeter - i guess i would rather skip on modern BG Neo3's and go with something similar. Since i already bought Neo8s, i guess TPL150 is kinda redundant? Or is it?

I am thinking about Mundorf AMT17D2.2 which is offered at $180, not sure if it is per piece or per pair. :)

Beyma G-series perform very well, LF might have more Xmax. For low bass duties high max excursion is essential! I chose Nd because it looks so sexy as nude!

I have some experience with 8G drivers - i use them as midbass drivers in my car in sealed door enclosures an can say only good things about them. mige0 also praises 12G so i decided to choose them

I considered a CNC'd aluminium frame, but it gets easily pretty expensive. At least make a proto first of plywood or rods etc. what is available in your garage.

Those wiggles in response above 10kHz are unavoidable (just like with coaxials and most horns), but fortunately not heard! And you will get even worse discontinuities with the frame anyway.

Any recommendations for the frame? I am going to have a frame on which i will hang the drivers. 15-incher will have its own frame an be place inside the main one not touching it.

Here is a photorealistic representation of how it will look like. Please, do not confuse with the real thing - it is just a mock up. I know it looks almost like a real thing!

06.27.2019-13.43.png


Do you guys thing i am risking some interference from the sides of the frame which is not vertical?

I can also make just a flipped-over T frame. This will allow me to put some mesh in the front of swinging drivers in a small frame:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
 
Agree on a 4-way, Ju.

Now i just have to choose what to use as an HF dipole.

Mundorf amt17d22 is out of question as of now due to its prohibitive cost.



One really important thing about dipoles above 2kHz is, if the backside radiation symmetrical to frontside. Manufacturers dont give that data, but you can guess it by looking. Cones/dynamic drivers are hopeless in this regard and I have a doubt about AMTs.

Dipole cancellation below the dipole peak overrules most wiggles in response, and gives 6dB/oct slope

Every dipole radiator has a limit up where in frequency the dipole action goes. Above 4kHz very small details of the frame become significant. With my AINOgradients I struggled with 3" cones too long before I understood this and purchased the B&G Neo8PDFR.

And yes, it really must be a 4-way! Each driver has only 2-3 octaves of smooth and consistent dipole radiation pattern without excessive distortion.

Attached is Peerless NE95 responses. More details in my thread.
 
Here is a photorealistic representation of how it will look like. Please, do not confuse with the real thing - it is just a mock up. I know it looks almost like a real thing!

06.27.2019-13.43.png


Do you guys thing i am risking some interference from the sides of the frame which is not vertical?

I am working on a system much like what you are building, with different variations, with an emphasis on symmetric dipolar radiation to both the front AND the rear. The rear radiation is mostly ignored and most people just assume it is like the front, but except for low frequencies this is often not the case unless you use planar drivers like the B&G Neo model, Mundorf, etc.

In any case, what you are doing with the frame looks great. But there is one flaw that I see in your cartoon of the setup: I worry you have not taken into account the center of mass of the drivers. It's NOT on the mounting flange! The magnet is a significant portion of the mass, and it is several inches behind. If you hang the driver via the mounting holes the weight distribution tips it "upwards". The more massive the magnet, the further back the center of mass. Only if you hang the driver by the center of mass will it hang straight.

I found a solution to this problem. You find some sturdy long bolts. Tightly install two of these in the top two mounting holes on either side of the center one (in your pic, at 10 and 2 on the clock face like for the midrange). Then you find a point near the rear of the bolt that lies on the center of mass. When you hang the driver from this point, it hangs straight. These bolts must support the entire weight of the driver, so if your midrange has a large ferrite magnet this will put a lot of strain on them. Unless you can find another point to hang the driver that is on the center of mass, this is the best way to do it. I can hang a 15" Neo magnet driver like this no problem for example.

Another thing you should consider is how to run the lead wires to the drivers. I have found that when the driver is smaller/lighter, the wire itself will tend to pull on the freely swinging assembly. You may run into this with the Neo3PDR. One solution is to bring a stiff wire (like solid core) up to 2' away from the driver and then use some bare tinsel lead or base stranded wire to bridge the gap. You need to work out something one way or another that allows the driver to hang undisturbed.

Yet another issue is alignment of the acoustic centers of the drivers, especially for the tweeter, midrange, and the midwoofer (the H-frame alignment can just be approximate). Just as with a boxed speaker, misaligned acoustic radiation will lead to large phase lead/lag issues. You cannot use delay to fix this problem with a dipole, however, because by "moving" the apparent acoustic center (e.g. back with delay) you are simultaneously moving the acoustic center frontwards when looking from the rear. You have to physically align the acoustic centers of all drivers in a dipole system or what will happen is that to the front you will have good integration between drivers around the crossover points but this will be screwed up to the rear. This would be less of a problem with e.g. the Neo10+Neo3 because they are slim and alignment is almost automatic, but between a planar driver and cone driver you need to find the acoustic center and check alignment from both front and rear vantage points. The AC is usually located back towards the rear of the cone e.g near the dust cap. A quarter of an inch is a significant delay (e.g. phase lag) at frequencies above 1kHz. Do not overlook this important aspect of the dipole system and its crossover design/driver integration.

You brought up the question about whether the frame side members will cause any interference problems. I have been making measurements on drivers within a frame like this. I found that as long as there are at least 4" of free space on either side (more is better) between the driver and the hanging frame members it doesn't really show up in the measurement, even above 60 degrees off axis horizontally. With enough free room on the sides, the dipole can form and the frame falls in the acoustic shadow of the dipole null at 90 degrees. As long as the thickness (front to back) of the frame is not more than a couple of inches and the frame is on the order of 20" wide you can ignore it. With larger drivers used at lower frequencies this is less of a concern, it's more for frequencies above 800Hz or so.

I see you listed the Beyma TPL-150 as a possibility, crossed at 2kHz. Is that a dipole? For some reason I thought it was not... If not, I would definitely not cross from a dipole system to a monopole tweeter at 2k. This is best done at 5kHz or higher, or just use a dipole tweeter.

In my system, I have tried to use cone drivers for all but the tweeter. If you cannot source a planar midrange (e.g. the Neo10) I can give you some suggestions via PM on drivers that will work well in this application. I have made a bunch of measurements on various drivers, front and rear, including the distortion profile, and know of a couple of good candidates for this role that work well as a dipole. Many times the magnet structure and basket will cause problems in the rear response when you get to around 1kHz, and it is difficult to tell a priori without buying and measuring. I would not suggest using a 12" up to 2kHz as a dipole without measuring the rear response first. But the same problems happens with drivers of all sizes, and smaller is not necessarily better in this regard. What you want is a driver that can be crossed at 2kHz, since this is about the low end of a dipole tweeter's range.

Anyway, I am encouraged to see you take this path with your system. I originally suggested this kind of design on this site here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/320815-multi-ob-2.html#post5389471

Finally, what materials are you planning to use for the "frame" for the hanging drivers? This is one problem I have been wrestling with. I'm not talented at woodworking. Hardwood tends to warp/twist. I have a mockup done with 2x4 lumber and that is already a problem. Plywood could work, but it has to support all the hanging weight and resist sway and twist. A metal frame seems like a good idea, but I fear that it will resonate (that "ping" metal sound you get when you tap on it). My frame is straight up and down, so I will have fewer structural concerns to worry about, and IMO you should think about it carefully.
 
Last edited:
Hello, Charlie! Thanks for chiming in.

It is your ideas that you shared across different posts on this forum and even a PDF file with a whole approach outlined that got me interested in making a symmetric dipole system with nude hanging drivers.

I am working on a system much like what you are building, with different variations, with an emphasis on symmetric dipolar radiation to both the front AND the rear. The rear radiation is mostly ignored and most people just assume it is like the front, but except for low frequencies this is often not the case unless you use planar drivers like the B&G Neo model, Mundorf, etc.

In any case, what you are doing with the frame looks great. But there is one flaw that I see in your cartoon of the setup: I worry you have not taken into account the center of mass of the drivers. It's NOT on the mounting flange! The magnet is a significant portion of the mass, and it is several inches behind. If you hang the driver via the mounting holes the weight distribution tips it "upwards". The more massive the magnet, the further back the center of mass. Only if you hang the driver by the center of mass will it hang straight.

I found a solution to this problem. You find some sturdy long bolts. Tightly install two of these in the top two mounting holes on either side of the center one (in your pic, at 10 and 2 on the clock face like for the midrange). Then you find a point near the rear of the bolt that lies on the center of mass. When you hang the driver from this point, it hangs straight. These bolts must support the entire weight of the driver, so if your midrange has a large ferrite magnet this will put a lot of strain on them. Unless you can find another point to hang the driver that is on the center of mass, this is the best way to do it. I can hang a 15" Neo magnet driver like this no problem for example.

Yeah, i understood that hung by the mounting wholes, a heavy driver would tilt upwards. I was thinking about hanging it both by the mounting holes AND by the magnet so that it kinda balances the weight and make the driver hang by the straight line. Your solution sounds good, i am just not sure if it is applicable for a 12-incher.

Another thing you should consider is how to run the lead wires to the drivers. I have found that when the driver is smaller/lighter, the wire itself will tend to pull on the freely swinging assembly. You may run into this with the Neo3PDR. One solution is to bring a stiff wire (like solid core) up to 2' away from the driver and then use some bare tinsel lead or base stranded wire to bridge the gap. You need to work out something one way or another that allows the driver to hang undisturbed.

Charlie, i can order a thin and narrow CNCed frame made of wood in which Neo8 and Neo3 will be put and hanged as a single unit. This way such unit becomes heavier and won't be disturbed by wires. Or do you think vibrations from Neo8 will affect the sound of Neo3?


Yet another issue is alignment of the acoustic centers of the drivers, especially for the tweeter, midrange, and the midwoofer (the H-frame alignment can just be approximate). Just as with a boxed speaker, misaligned acoustic radiation will lead to large phase lead/lag issues. You cannot use delay to fix this problem with a dipole, however, because by "moving" the apparent acoustic center (e.g. back with delay) you are simultaneously moving the acoustic center frontwards when looking from the rear. You have to physically align the acoustic centers of all drivers in a dipole system or what will happen is that to the front you will have good integration between drivers around the crossover points but this will be screwed up to the rear. This would be less of a problem with e.g. the Neo10+Neo3 because they are slim and alignment is almost automatic, but between a planar driver and cone driver you need to find the acoustic center and check alignment from both front and rear vantage points. The AC is usually located back towards the rear of the cone e.g near the dust cap. A quarter of an inch is a significant delay (e.g. phase lag) at frequencies above 1kHz. Do not overlook this important aspect of the dipole system and its crossover design/driver integration.


My idea was to use metal rods parallel to the floor on which to hang midrange and tweeter. I will then put the mic in the listening position and move the drivers until impulse responses are aligned.

You brought up the question about whether the frame side members will cause any interference problems. I have been making measurements on drivers within a frame like this. I found that as long as there are at least 4" of free space on either side (more is better) between the driver and the hanging frame members it doesn't really show up in the measurement, even above 60 degrees off axis horizontally. With enough free room on the sides, the dipole can form and the frame falls in the acoustic shadow of the dipole null at 90 degrees. As long as the thickness (front to back) of the frame is not more than a couple of inches and the frame is on the order of 20" wide you can ignore it. With larger drivers used at lower frequencies this is less of a concern, it's more for frequencies above 800Hz or so.

That's good to hear. I am still contemplating on what material to use for the frame. I am not good at woodwork (basically zero skills), so i was thinking just hiring somebody locally to make a frame out of metal profile. Steel, Alu? I will add bracing where it is appropriate and where it won't interfere with the sound.

I see you listed the Beyma TPL-150 as a possibility, crossed at 2kHz. Is that a dipole? For some reason I thought it was not... If not, I would definitely not cross from a dipole system to a monopole tweeter at 2k. This is best done at 5kHz or higher, or just use a dipole tweeter.


StigErik used TPL-150 with the back cover removed. I should have mentioned that too. It is just a contemplation, though. But i think i will skip on TPL since i have already ordered Neo8 and i need something for HF part. Will be considering options mentioned in this thread. Neo3's quality is a concern :(


In my system, I have tried to use cone drivers for all but the tweeter. If you cannot source a planar midrange (e.g. the Neo10) I can give you some suggestions via PM on drivers that will work well in this application. I have made a bunch of measurements on various drivers, front and rear, including the distortion profile, and know of a couple of good candidates for this role that work well as a dipole. Many times the magnet structure and basket will cause problems in the rear response when you get to around 1kHz, and it is difficult to tell a priori without buying and measuring. I would not suggest using a 12" up to 2kHz as a dipole without measuring the rear response first. But the same problems happens with drivers of all sizes, and smaller is not necessarily better in this regard. What you want is a driver that can be crossed at 2kHz, since this is about the low end of a dipole tweeter's range.

As i mentioned earlier, i have already bought planar midrange - BG Neo8. It will be crossed to 12G40 at about 700-800Hz and planar HF driver. I hope, i can get dipole radiation can be guaranteed this way. Do you think 12G40 will maintain dipole pattern up to 700-800Hz?


Anyway, I am encouraged to see you take this path with your system. I originally suggested this kind of design on this site here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/320815-multi-ob-2.html#post5389471

This post is basically where is started :)



Finally, what materials are you planning to use for the "frame" for the hanging drivers? This is one problem I have been wrestling with. I'm not talented at woodworking. Hardwood tends to warp/twist. I have a mockup done with 2x4 lumber and that is already a problem. Plywood could work, but it has to support all the hanging weight and resist sway and twist. A metal frame seems like a good idea, but I fear that it will resonate (that "ping" metal sound you get when you tap on it). My frame is straight up and down, so I will have fewer structural concerns to worry about, and IMO you should think about it carefully.

I am leaning towards a metal frame. A flipped over T frame with horizontal bracing at the top to hang the drivers, in the middle between midrange and midwoofer and at the bottom will make it more stable. I have an option to weld frame members to each other, then i will have them painted balck, i think. A wood frame with mesh to make it look a bit better is also an option. As for the resonating sounds - i think an aluminium frame is a better choice?


Thank you for such a thorough reply, Charlie.
 
Any thoughts on HiVi RT2C-A? Possible to remove the back cover and make it a true dipole? Can have a pair locally.

Same for Fountek NeoX 1 or 3 - those can be had for a reasonable price here. Not sure if one can remove a back cover for dipole application.
 
Last edited:
Hey Evan!

Well, i wanted a dipole system which will exhibit similar rear radiation with what it has in the front. ...... from what i can see in the datasheet, it would more like an xo at about 1.5Khz?

I bet you are correct on both points. I worked with what I had and am very happy with the results.

If the tweeters are reasonable price how about one on facing forward and one facing backwards to achieve dipole radiation? (this is what I have done)
 
Last edited:
If the tweeters are reasonable price how about one on facing forward and one facing backwards to achieve dipole radiation? (this is what I have done)

Normally not a great idea, and it sort of defeats the no-enclosure sound.. BUT at higher freq.s with a cheap AMT (with very little distance separation between the two drivers): it might work well (crossover dependent).

Doubles the cost though. :eek:

You can also double-horn load a good inexpensive compression driver like the one from Peerless. Radiation isn't going to be quite the same because the front has a phase-path, but below the top octave for a 1" exit driver it shouldn't be that dissimilar with the equal horns (front and back). Horns can also provide a dispersion pattern within their bandwidth that can be more controlled with more dipole-ish pattern.
 
Here is the legendary, classic thread of dipole tweeters, OP by Rudol Finke! Double monopoles tested too. The problem comes always from separation of sources vs. short wavelength.

On the directivity of dipole tweeters

Linkwitz and Kreskowsky too must have accepted this is mission impossible. A rearside tweeter adds late reflections similar to the pure dipole, so phase summation is irrelevant above 6kHz anyway, they say. And I do support that too.

Tweeter integration
 
As i mentioned before, I have chosen a woofer driver for my dipole build - 18Sound 15LW1401 4Ohm, which shows promising 106dB at 60Hz in Hornresp simulation with its being a limiting factor 9mm x-max in an H-Frame.

Now, Hornresp does provide data with max SPL and the overall FR image and according to some correspondence between David McBean and some other guy from the forum Hornresp's h-frame models (modeled as compounded horns) are a lot like those provided by MJK MathCad models.

The only thing that i don't see in the Hornresp model is the resonance. Just out of my head i used and H frame with 25cm wings which give 50cm total depth. To make it look symmetric, H and D are also 50cm. Will this thing play up to about 180-200Hz? Aside from MJKs spreadsheets, what is the way to find out?
 
Hmmm...

Seems like i am misunderstanding something about modeling h-frame in Hornresp. Two models in 2xPi:

H-Frame with 25cm wings from each side:

attachment.php


Its calculated combined power response with MaxSPL function:

attachment.php


Nude driver (compounded horn with 0,1cm wings):

attachment.php


Its calculated combined power response with MaxSPL function:

attachment.php


The upper part of the response changes, yes, but not the low end extension.

Am i missing something? Any other better way to model H-Frame?
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 358
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    75.1 KB · Views: 351
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    37.7 KB · Views: 355
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    75.4 KB · Views: 344
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.