Does the first reflection point actually matter??
Early lateral reflections contribute to spaciousness and expand the "apparent source width", according to Floyd Toole. Which I agree with, but is subtly, different than what I am arguing about. :) I don't think the laser line matters so much as having the area in general treated. |
@erik_squires wrote: " For the purposes of this argument, alone, I want to argue that first reflection points don’t matter, ever." Early lateral reflections contribute to spaciousness and expand the "apparent source width", according to Floyd Toole. When "presence" is lacking the earliest reflections are the most responsible, according to David Griesinger. So apparently early sidewall reflections are neither entirely beneficial nor entirely detrimental. They do some things which are desirable, and some which are undesirable. Earl Geddes is aware of both the benefits and the detriments of early reflections, and here is his thinking on the subject: "The earlier and the greater in level the first room reflections are, the worse they are. This aspect of sound perception is controversial. Some believe that all reflections are good because they increase the listeners’ feeling of space – they increase the spaciousness of the sound. While it is certainly true that all reflections add to spaciousness, the very early ones (< 10 ms.) do so at the sake of imaging and coloration. There is no contention that reflections > 20 ms are positive and perceived as early reverberation and acoustic spaciousness within the space. In small rooms, the first reflections from an arbitrary source, mainly omni-directional, will never occur later than 10-20 ms (basically this is the definition of a small room), hence the first reflections in small rooms must be thought of as a serious problem that causes coloration and image blurring. These reflections must be considered in the design [of the loudspeakers] and should be also be considered in the room as well." My own investigation (controlled blind testing, but nothing peer-reviewed) leads me to believe that early reflections are strongly involved in conveying a sense of the playback room’s boundaries being nearby. The weaker the early reflections, the less "small room signature" the playback room superimposes atop the recording venue’s acoustic signature, whether it be real or engineered or both. I have been involved in several professional recording studio projects, in which the acoustician has designed angles into the sidewalls which geometrically preclude early sidewall reflections at the mix position. This is to facilitate clearly hearing the acoustic signature which is on the recording, without the mixing room’s signature being dominant. So imo what happens (or doesn’t happen) at the first sidewall reflection points makes a difference. Whether or not this difference "matters", and if to so what extent, is, I suppose, a judgment call. Erik again: "if you take a dozen panels placed around evenly in a room, I don’t think you could tell that the 1st reflection points do anything more special than the rest." This would be true in a large room, but not in a small room. In a large room the reflections paths are much longer and there are so many reflections that the reverberant energy is effectively uniform throughout the room, such that WHERE you place acoustic treatment doesn’t matter - the net effect is the same. But in our small home listening rooms, we experience discrete reflections. And the earliest and loudest of those reflections are the ones which have the strongest effects, whether their effects be beneficial or detrimental or both. Duke |
@hilde45, my pleasure. As for your ceilings, don't fix it if it ain't broken. If you are getting good imaging and vocal articulation, and you are not being troubled by slap echo, count yourself lucky and focus on things that will make a difference. We are much more sensitive to early reflections in the horizontal dimension than in the vertical dimension. Your room is so atypical in its dimensions that general rules of thumb may not apply, as long as you stick with the long wall orientation. In your room I would still worry about front and back walls first. Treating those surfaces is likely to do more than even treating the corners in your room. I got into room acoustics because my system sounded lousy despite the fact that I had superb gear. Treating the room was the right approach in my room, but It may well not afford you that same level of improvement. Your room and system positioning eliminates some typical problems, but affords you less opportunity for further improvement on those problems that remain. It really could be a non-productive rabbit hole for you. Cheers! |
As my ceiling is only 6'6" high in my listening area, and it's *not* acoustic tile. It's a fairly hard surface. Speakers are not too close but it's a low ceiling. I'm sure there's a critical 1st reflection point there. Some have helped me try to troubleshoot my space a bit (thanks, brownsfan!). The side reflection points are less an issue. I can imagine I should do something with the ceiling, but I don't want to go down a room treatment rabbit hole at the moment. (I'm not a skeptic or unwilling to spend if it's worth it, but it represents a genuine investment of time I don't have right now.) |
Yeh Brad that is a very valid point! Some horns are symmetrical some have more width than height. That gives narrower spread up and down. And will result in less issues with ceiling and floor first reflection points. That I have experienced. Eric I would put it like this. As we KNOW that the FIRST bounce (reflection point IS the strongest/highest in dB. Then it more energy (dB) that we can transform to friction with absorbing panels. And 2nd, 3rd reflection, and so on is, each decreasing in energy for each reflection that is done. So if we only have 2 or 4 panels and want to absorb as much reflections from the room boundaries. Where should we places those few panels to get the most absorption as possible with those few panels? Yes at the strongest one of course. If we wanted to preserve the side reflections but we wanted to absorb the same amount of dB but only treated the 2nd, 3rd and so on reflection points then we need much more coverage than what just 2 or 4 panels could contribute with. So we see that first reflection points is giving us most bang per square unit of panel/treatment. (As for me I want in general listen on what is in the recording and not get the "color" and delay of room boundaries. The "color" is defined by what material the room boundaries consist of. We know that dry walls and concrete walls reflect different amount of dB for each frequency (frequency response). So we can consider that in a concrete there inside that wall sits a mixing engineer that use litle more level on the bass faders on his console compared to the mixing engineer in the dry wall. Sorry for that dumb analogy.) :D |
Brad,
For the purposes of this argument, alone, I want to argue that first reflection points don't matter, ever. Again, I don't mean that room treatment doesn't matter. I just argue that the idea that the first reflection points are some sort of magical acupressure point for speakers seems wishful thinking to me. What does matter, a lot, is the overall acoustic field. An even decay rate and proper balance of diffusion and absorption. But if you take a dozen panels placed around evenly in a room, I don't think you could tell that the 1st reflection points do anything more special than the rest. And I am also _not_ making the argument that speaker to room acoustic matching doesn't matter, it does a great deal. Best, E |
The one issue missing from this discussion is your impression of acoustic treatment at first reflection points completely depends on how wide a dispersion speaker you actually use. A speaker that narrows with frequency, say a horn, will send less info to the side walls as frequency increases. A ribbon or any planar device will also do this but it can depend on what frequency the planar portion of the speaker is working in. So imagine a ribbon working at 3K and above. You wont get as much energy at 3K and above on first reflection points as they get fairly narrow even at 3K and get even narrower as you get to 10K and above. This is easily demonstrated by rotating the speaker until it almost faces the side walls, you'll hear bunch of splash as you get more energy on it. Also the wall material matters- glass is very different frequency emphasis than wood. There are many different types of absorbers- some work well at HF, and some work better at mids and some are built to be LF absorbers with membranes. SO there is no universal answer to this other than to say if you have a wide dispersion speaker, the first reflection point absorption is critical to improving image. If you have a narrow dispersion speaker you may not hear much difference. Also you need to buy real absorbers like GIK, or make them, I like the 4 inch thick ones, they absorb more for the same wall space. Brad |
| Post removed |
For what it is worth: The wife and I bought a distressed 3.5 story townhouse in the city of Newburgh NY for super cheap and did a top down restoration. Except for the top attic floor. It is there that I have my home office, studio and listening room. The room is insulated with rock wool: 6 inches in the walls and 17 inches in the ceiling. There are two dormers and a gable to break up parallel wall and ceiling reflections. Not that I have much. My architect, who I know from college days, has designed some recording studios. He told me not to seal the rock wool behind dry wall, but instead to simply cover it with burlap. This would give me a semi-anechoic room. No panels to position etc. The difference in the sound quality from my old New York City loft - with its tin ceiling, brick walls and huge glass windows - is night and day. For the amount of money that I was spending anyway to insulate my home to get it to perform to near net zero performance levels, I got the equivalent of a room that is recording studio quality. |
@aj523 The 40.2's are so far away from the side walls that I can't believe that they are much of a problem. Vu of Deja Vu in Wash DC, a major Harbeth dealer, stated to me that they needed a *minimum* of 2 feet from outer edge to side wall, and yours have much, much more. Frankly, it's the amount of glass in the vicinity that to me would be the major concern. I see you have some kind of adjustable blind on most if not all of them. So simple experiment: play the same track with all blinds completely up, and then all completely down. I'd be curiously to know if you hear a difference. |
Thx @erik_squires and @optimize The GIK 242s are rated from 250, and the 244s from 80. He specifically wanted to match the 35hz +/- 3db point of the Harbeth for smoother results and he thinks bass is the biggest issue in the room. But the investment is significant and the aesthetics are not great for a room that’s not a dedicated listening room. They come on rollers so the 150lb panels can be wheeled around. In the pics you can see a big plant to the left of the left speaker and a velvet sitting chair to the right of the right speaker - he said both of those have got to go! Lol. As the speakers must have unencumbered space in and around them. |
I love measurements. I spend my day job measuring things. I have 3 calibrated microphones right next to me, and yet, when it comes to the question of: "How do you help the average audiophile?" I have really come to be against measurements. I worry that those advocating for measurement software for acoustics and sub configuration (including me in the past) forget just how difficult calibrating a room is. People think of this software like you are buying a spell checker. You just high light all the red words and check the spelling. They are nothing like that. For this reason I’ve totally turned around. Now I advise others to find trusted acoustics consultants to help with the room, and good room correction to integrate a sub. It may seem hypocritical, since I would never do either... but then, I have spent a lifetime learning about what I’m doing and would rather tweak it myself. If a new audiophile shows up and wants to get to done, I don’t recommend my path. I don't want to ever discourage anyone from learning, I enjoy learning and applying tools, speakers and room acoustics a great deal, but how do I serve the audiophile asking for advice best? That's the question I have wrestled with a great deal, and no longer answer like I used to. Now, an audiophile who wants to learn how to make speakers, or is really interested in acoustics, of course to them I answer differently. My point is, I don't think tools and software serve everyone the same way, and I think we should be more adaptive at least. Best, E |
3. No need to buy software to measure the room since the problems are obvious and better spent on product. What? I am not considering my self as a measurement guy. But that is the just so wrong on so many planes. It is like saying don't give someone else money but instead give it to me. On the other hand not many buy the software when it is free.. on the third hand you need only buy a calibrated microphone that cost peanuts (65-100 USD). You need to learn to use the software or get someone that can. Nobody trust me nobody can hear what you are able to find out by measuring. (You have never heard someone say "Oh that room has a 10 dB big dip at 53 Hz" for example. But measurement will show you exactly that and much more) You can determine what effect after that you got after putting 7000 $ into your room
It is like emperor new clothes nobody dear to say something negative.. Plus he knows that if you don't do a measurement then you will not after the treatment say to him "Look there is still a 10 dB gain at 100 Hz (for example) after the treatment as it were before.. Plus he knows that if you get the gear and make measurements with the free software that you are halfway to be able to make a active correction.. you need "only" to take that measurement and export and then import to the DSP for it to correct your room.. To push you into that direction is only loose loose for him. When you can make demands on how much improvements you should and would expect.. But yes I am also of that opinion that we should fix the room with room treatment as far we can do THEN using active DSP. But you NEED to measure to have and to get a baseline.. Measuring is knowing! (On a personal plan I think you will destroy that beautiful space. With all of those windows there is not much space to put all the stuff.. and making that project very hard from a esthetic point of view.) |
5. Tame from "40 cycles - 7000 cycles" as he calls it with eight (8) carbon panel CPs at $750 per panel. And since each panel weighs 150lbs, its about $1,000 for shipping. So all in $7,000. @aj523 This is why I always recommend GIK acoustics. Very effective products at reasonable prices. I don’t know of any of them that weigh 150 lbs either. :) As an alternative, consider the GIK panels with soffit traps, which are cheaper, lighter weight, and also go down to low frequencies. They also do free room consultation. Truthfully, you may NOT need any bass treatment, so panels that go down to 40 Hz may be serious overkill. Tame the mid/treble range, and this may re-balance your room well enough. If that doesn't make your speakers sound larger and more powerful, then pull out the bass traps (GIK soffit). Also, might want to try using excess toe-in. Have the tweeter line cross in front of your head. This may sufficiently improve reflections off the sides. Of course, heavy curtains would also help. Best, E |
@audiokinesis Thanks Duke. Your feedback is ALWAYS appreciated. As you know I seriously took the room into consideration when make the speaker decision, turning down several planars /dipoles that i was really interested in. The Harbeths, 3 feet out from the front wall and almost 7 feet from the side walls, with their large front baffle seemed to be the best choice and quite frankly they sound absolutely amazing, BUT Foley tells me the Harbeth midrange and the speaker overall will sound like a different speaker altogether to the extreme. Soooo... now I’m deciding on putting 1200 lbs of treatment in our main living room but save multiple x $$$$ on the cost of a wedding next June since my fiancee will surely leave me. Not an easy one indeed. 🤔 |
A dedicated audio room is way much cheaper to treat and controls....Mine with 2 windows relatively small with irregular geometry, cost peanuts and the results are astounding, superior to many upgrading of my gear... But a living room, being a common room ask for more esthetical solutions, then costly indeed.... My own room look like the seat of an arachneid that will use his many "fingers" to connect all with his silk cables.... :) i could not do that without divorcing in a common room.... And like usual people never speak about active room controls of acoustics, only about passive materials treatment.... I begin to think that i had invented the concept..... It seems nobody has ever hear about it all...But active controls cannot be done in a common room anyway... |
Aj523 wrote: " 5. Tame from "40 cycles - 7000 cycles" as he calls it with eight (8) carbon panel CPs at $750 per panel. And since each panel weighs 150lbs, its about $1,000 for shipping. So all in $7,000." I agree with the frequency region he focuses on. We see that serious acoustic treatment is expensive. That seven thousand dollar figure is an argument for taking loudspeaker/room interaction into account from the beginning, as imo there are more cost-effective solutions. Duke |
I just had my free phone consultation with Mr. Foley and after reviewing my room through photos (see link), he recommended the following: 1. No diffusion anywhere to begin with. That will worsen the problem he perceives given all the windows. 2. Treat the walls closest to the speakers first so that’s the front wall behind the speakers first and the side walls with as much absorption as possible. 3. No need to buy software to measure the room since the problems are obvious and better spent on product. 4. The treatment of corners with bass traps etc is a common fallacy and not a priority. 5. Tame from "40 cycles - 7000 cycles" as he calls it with eight (8) carbon panel CPs at $750 per panel. And since each panel weighs 150lbs, its about $1,000 for shipping. So all in $7,000. 6. He did some calculation where he said I would see 65 percent improvement. I pressed him on what that is measured against but forgot his reply. 7. Then we can talk about diffusion after a period of time of listening to the results. THOUGHTS? https://photos.app.goo.gl/BFAQLGEo4UmknMZm6 |
We can clearly say it is more than "some". More exactly half of all reflections is good and the other half is harmful for stereo image. Experiment: Put a wall of panels from your face in sweet spot that extends right in the middle to your front wall between the speakers. The sound stage is incredibly and will never be better than this.. ..yes it looks stupid and is impractical but just as a experiment. In short we have one room for left and another for right and the reflections from each speaker is there BUT they are totally separated. That shows us how "harmful" to the sound stage perception, the first reflection point from the right speaker in the left wall that reach the left ear.. that were intended for the other ear.. and vice versa. So half of all reflections (when we can see the experiment as we have two separate rooms left and right) is not good or is just destroying the sound quality. And if you have done the experiment then you will most likely agree. |
optimize, some of your points have been addressed in previous responses. That side point will act as a muted bass shy speaker that is delayed as it were placed further away.. Because of how our brain processes reflections, how we perceive reflected sound depends on how long those reflections are delayed compared to the direct path from source to ear. If the path of the reflected sound is longer than about 6 meters longer than the direct path from the source to the ear, the reflection will add to the spaciousness of the room. Any reflection that is shorter than that will generally not be distinguished as a separate sound and will result in a spacial smear. Another consideration is that the dB level of sound decreases as the distance increases, and the dB level further decreases every time it bounces off of another surface. It has been my experience that reflections that have a path about 2-4 meters longer than the direct path are especially detrimental to precise localization of instruments and voices if those reflected signals are not at least -20 dB compared to the direct sound. So the answer is that some reflections off of side walls are beneficial, and some are detrimental. I have left the sidewalls of my room untreated from about 0.5 meters forward from the first reflection point to the front corners. Doing so gives me better sound stage width at the expense of increased slap echo. I've devised a way to deflect the first reflection point away from the ear, which results in superb imaging in my rather narrow (~4.5 meter wide) room. My approach is different than traditional absorption or diffusion. It is more consistent with the approach described by Duke LeJuene above. The first sidewall reflection point matters in the design of a recording studio control room. Those I have been involved in used angles which direct the reflections away from the normal listening position.If I read your post right, your room is less than 2 M wide. I don't know how your room is laid out otherwise, but it seems likely to me that your side wall first reflection points have a delay of less than 5 milliseconds compared to the direct signal. Some say that those very short delays don't compromise imaging as much as those having a delay of 5-20 milliseconds. So you may not get much benefit from trying to treat your sidewall first reflections as others. |
I were thinking about.. If we ONLY look at the side walls reflections. Then the first reflection points that the sound bouncing off. My thoughts goes like this: First reflection point is weaker (lower dB) than the direct. And what reflects of that surface is probably more higher frequencies than lower ones (Hz). That side point will act as a muted bass shy speaker that is delayed as it were placed further away.. Can this side walls reflection points contribute to a wider sound stage? Or some other benefits that can be a argument to not treat side walls reflections? (And of course the our experiences will vary greatly when we have all different distances from the speaker to the side wall in our unique rooms. So I would like to know what distance is used when we tell about our experience.) A experience I have (sidewalls 80 cm away) it is like that helps or make it possible to hear sounds/instruments somewhere between the speaker and the first reflection point.. so extreme right or left will be beyond the speaker. Yes now when I think about it the sound stage is then wider.. But it is unintended wider and nothing the artist/producer were aiming for. And when first reflection point reflect a uncontrolled frequency response/range depending on what type of surface the effect will be more or less pronounced depending on the different frequency range different instruments has.. So I think I have answered my own question somewhat.. but how are your thoughts on this? |
We exist in a universe of waves...beginning with the subatomic, density and type variants all.... It just 'thins out' the further off we rise from what we percieve as solid ground. And we're just another version of it, making waves of our own. "What state do you live in?" Quantum.... "Zip code?" (Hand over a thumb drive...) J'accuse: The number of things agreed upon = the number not. The universe is subject to the Bell Curve as much as we 'average out' in our HO about what we hear, how we hear it, and how we feel (or don't) about it .... Flies in the fluxes of universal ambers...in the midst of all the other waves...the daily surf... Not terribly sci about it, but it makes for my day. *S* |
Few people know that Goethe make his point against Newton in color theory....While Newton search for a theoretical mathematical corpuscules light theory, Goethe described for the first times in history the way of colors to comes from light and dark in the world in relation to physiology....Goethe was a colossus of intelligence but in too much fields for the average people to understand him really....And to this day, Goethe reflexions seems not to go to a dead end, like a corpuscule theory of light and colors... Edwin Land was a Goethe disciple for example.... :). In acoustic there is something similar....And Michael Green put it right by noting that sound is also pressure, not an abstract mathematical wave only, but a living wave.... |
Your software is only good for PASSIVE materials installation... You ears can guide you to ACTIVE modification with ACTIVE device, , for example resonators... No program exist to direct you in a specfic room with his particular geometry and content about the way to use resonators, and any active device... In small room NO program do better than your ears... By the way the ears SEE.... If not, you are deaf by social programmation........ :) |
Why not advising people to have fun....Trying their own ears a step at a time, with low cost materials and some creations of their own? i just do that and my room is heaven...( i just create a new form of diffusor) It is remarkable that people trust formulas and not their ears.... Room geometry and content are acoustically complex, ready made formulas on a program will not do better at the end than your listenings playful experiments.... Be creative, free yourself, trust yourself, is my advice.... :) |
The software, apart from showing you waterfall plots which identify the most troublesome frequencies, will also help you position your speakers and subs. You are preaching to the choir. What I wonder about is how to be helpful with the least amount of trouble for an audiophile, or better yet, a music-phile, who just wants to get excellent results. I wonder how many really want to learn what the software does, measure and adjust, and also, without a lot of reading and research, come to the right answers. Having the tools doesn't mean you have the skills. And I don't want to discourage anyone from learning. What my narrow question here is, for an audiophile who is new to the idea of room acoustics, and wants excellent results, am I doing them a service by suggesting they get a mic and REW or OmniMic, or am I better off suggesting they get a consultant like GIK to help them? |
@aj523, a good and sensible post. I use Dayton Omnimic V2 because I also need to measure the electro-acoustic and Thiele/Small speaker parameters but REW and HolmImpulse are free and do much the same. @eric-squires, what is an "average audiophile'? You can only go so far by continual upgrading at great expense but all that extra detail and low noise floor you are paying for is being lost to strong early reflections. In fact at low frequencies where bass nulls occur that information is lost completely and you can not get it back with EQ. The more power you pump into it just cancels with the same power. Multiple subs and bass traps are needed to smooth this problem out, a problem all domestic rooms have. If you consider the amount of time and money the 'average audiophile' spends on their system you would be better off embracing the subject than shying away from it. I am sure the cost of a mic. will be the cheapest and by far the biggest upgrade you can make. There is much on the net to help get a handle on this. The software, apart from showing you waterfall plots which identify the most troublesome frequencies, will also help you position your speakers and subs. |
The closer the reflection point is to the speaker the more it will matter. Likely more evident in smaller rooms. In my case, side walls are about 2feet away from the speakers. I treated them with a diffuser/absorber combo panels (soundplanks from ASC) and it tamed down the brightness a bit as per my goal. But It also reduced soundstage width a little. |
As a fanboy of active room eq and the means to accomplish such... A pair of ears, however compromised and even biased, can hear and discern 'details' that a calibrated mic with it's software may only hint at, or 'gloss over'. Mho, one would need to be running some rather sophisticated wares, running in r/t into a 3D waveform to catch 'reflections'...and, even then. they'd likely be effected by frequency, harmonics...and even ones' presence in the space.... ...and be very persistent and equally patient in the measurement routine. I am an imperfect being in an imperfect world, surrounded by imperfect 'things' playing imperfect sounds. Eventually.....one has to accept ones' limitations... (Thanks a whole bunch, Harry....*smirk*) |
Seems like the only alternative to avoid all this is to buy acoustic measurement software like from Dayton audio and figure out your room. Then treat it accordingly. Sigh, I don't know. I mean, honestly, I know speakers more than acoustics, and I think that for the average audiophile, this is a steep learning curve. I mean, if you want to learn about acoustics, then YES, get yourself a mic and some software young lady/young man and go west with the wagon train... Fun stuff. But when I think of how to be helpful, what can I say which helps audiophiles enjoy their systems longer, better, asking the pros for help is a better way to go, along with some experimentation here and there. |
Like usual i react too swiftly to your post... I apologize to you... You are a good faith person and i am too passionnate... I apologize in double... https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation This article is only few months ago...very interesting to say the least... I had not speak about my own way and experiments with my room here my goal was not to derail the thread... I only refer to them by the concept of active controls of room by relation to passive treatment of room... I related my 2 years journey in my thread... "Miracles in audio....." My goal was with only homemade device and very low cost materials transform an audio system to a totally new level... I expose how with the concepts of the 3 embeddings of an audio system, the most powerful being acoustic, but the electrical embeddings being also very powerful.... The mechanical embedding being important but less powerful...The acoustic methods has 2 way: active and passive.... The active way is almost unheard of in any audio thread... The "superstition" that we must eliminate reflection points instead of working with them comes from that ignorance about active controls and the way the brain work to recreate a lived sound event from a recording in an actual room.... Ok i dont wanted to derail the thread .... My deepest regards to you.... |
Mahgister, it sounded to me like you have created a "stunning audio experience" by doing something to you room, but I have absolutely no idea what you have done. I have no idea what your "change of perspective" is, but would like to. You seem to be very excited about it. Have you discovered something new? It also sounds like you may feel offended by something I said, which was not my intent. If you want to talk about that too, feel free. Which Floyd Toole article are you referring to? I’m somewhat familiar with his work on sound reproduction, and on the acoustics and psychoacoustics of loudspeakers and rooms. Duke |
we speak about first reflections point and their obstructiveness or usefulness... It seems to me that i was speaking about that... It seems to you otherwise... You do not enjoy a change of perspective it seems? Perhaps it will be a good idea to read Floyd Toole article...You will have a cue of what i speak about ... My best to you... I will go.... |
Mahgister wrote: "how will you create ideal listening conditions in your own room?" That would take a while for me to answer and would de-rail or hijack the thread. I get the impression that you have something you’d like to share: "The best is the cheapest way to create a stunning audio experience is not upgrading your audio system to a more transparent one at prohibitive cost, but transforming your room in a positive player...The rewarding is astounding and the cost very low.... "This is my experiment...This is my point.... " It sound like you are very excited about something you have done in your room. Maybe you could start a thread about it? Duke |
