|
Post by rabidgerry on Apr 23, 2009 9:12:53 GMT -5
Hi there, I hope this question hasn't been addressed before but what I would like to know would be if there is any little mod that I could do for evening out the sound from series to parallel and vice versa.
I have a neck pick up (Kent armstrong single sized humbucker) installed in my guitar with a switch for series and parallel humbucking options wired in also. What annoys me is the little, but noticeable drop in volume from series to parallel.
It isn't much but when your playing live and switch the switch during battle you can't have a drop in volume if suddenly you just drop down below bass or drums. Yes I could adjust using volume pedals and crap like that but there's got to be a little boost adjustment to compensate for this so when I switch to parallel I let a little extra kick.
May be there isn't but I figured here would be a good place to start asking. I couldn't work something out like this myself but I could do the mod's myself. I don't know anything much about the theory behind electrical components.
Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 23, 2009 11:49:09 GMT -5
Yeah, there's no passive way to accomplish specifically what you're asking - a boost when switching to parallel. It is possible to passively reduce the volume of the series structure. You have got a volume knob, no? But then you said you didn't want to be bothered with that kind of thing.
We could rig a voltage divider onto that S/P switch. It'll probably need another pole or two on the switch itself, and could affect tone to some extent.
If you're willing to go active, a small boost is pretty easy. Still going to have to swap out your switch.
I personally set my amp so that it will start to overdrive pretty good in parallel mode when I'm playing with a moderately heavy attack. When I switch to series mode there isn't quite so much volume jump because the amp won't get any louder. It just distorts more. This could be accomplished in a more clean manner with a compressor.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 23, 2009 11:59:54 GMT -5
RG-
I don't believe we've had that question come up before, at least not recently anyway.
You could reduce the output of the series setting so that it more closely approximated the parallel setting. There are various ways this could be done, but by so doing, you'll be making the two settings sound more alike, thereby defeating the purpose to some degree.
To boost the parallel setting means going to active electronics of some sort- probably not what you're looking for.
EDIT: Ninja Ash strikes again! Ash's answer beat me to the punch.
Another thought that might work. You could wire it such that the parallel setting bypasses the vol and tone controls and goes dirtectly to the output, while the series setting went through the controls. This wouold effectively raise the parallel level vs the series. However, it would also be brighter which you might not want.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 23, 2009 13:37:46 GMT -5
rg,
What you want can be done with the addition of one resistor, and no new switches. I'll throw it out as a challenge to ash and/or newey (and anyone else, except ChrisK - asking him to solve this would be like using an elephant gun to kill a housefly!). If no one rises to the bait in a day or two, I'll post a diagram for you.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Apr 23, 2009 16:36:27 GMT -5
sumgaiAttempting to answer the challenge - what about replacing the jumper wire with a resistor?
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Apr 23, 2009 16:42:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 23, 2009 18:46:54 GMT -5
Sumgai said: Well, wolf beat me to the diagram for knocking down the series to the parallel. But rg was asking to boost the parallel to meet the series signal, and I think Ash and I are right, you can't do that with a single resistor. But of course knocking back the series can effectively accomplish the same thing- one just turns the old amp up a bit to compensate, assuming headroom remains available. The real question is: What value resistor? There is probably a formula to figure that out, but I suspect it'd have some of them thar henries in it and be beyond my ken. What I would do is temporarily put a pot in place of the resistor, measure the parallel setting at the output jack using ChrisK's brain scan procedure, with all knobs at WFO. Then the same for the series, and dial the temporary pot back to where the reading matches the parallel reading. Mark the pot's position with a Sharpie, dewire it and take a reading from the wiper to the CW terminal. Then find a resistor as close as you can to that value. And rg- Even though you originally wanted to boost the parallel, I think we can recommend this method to you to accomplish what you seek. But I don't think we can say this method is tonally benign, either. Your series setting will be knocked back to match your parallel setting output, but your series setting also won't sound the same tonally as it did without the added resistor. Ain't no free lunch . . . Can you say "collateral damage"?
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Apr 23, 2009 19:42:26 GMT -5
Well get yer Barbie to look at it (and not the Q'd one - no shrimp aboot) and leave Henry out of it. Well, you could do all that but it's not necessarily related to reality (tonally, that is). When the two coils are in series, their output voltages add (in a complex plane, harmonically inter-twined way), but when in parallel, they average (in a complex plane, harmonically inter-twined way) thru each ones internal impedance to the common summing node known as the volume pot hot terminal. What does this mean (to Earthlings)? Well, in series we gots two AA batteries in series that generate twice the voltage at once the current with an effective impedance that is the vector sum (I wax complex here...) of each one's internal impedance. In parallel we gots two AA batteries in parallel that generate once the voltage at twice the (potential) current with an effective impedance that is the vector geometric mean (I wax again complex here...) of each one's internal impedance. (Y'all likely weren't aware that the parallel resistor/inductor and series capacitor equation is just the computation of the geometric mean (not to be confused with the harmonic (as in math, not music) mean). Also, an R.M.S. value is just a statistical calculation.) So what? Well, simply trying to measure resistances will not be accurate (it might be close) since in series we have twice the voltage, once the current, and twice the internal resistance, but in parallel we have once the voltage, twice the current, and half the internal resistance. Think of the resistor as an extension of a volume pot. In other words, if the resistor is zero and the pot at full-on, the pot is just a parallel resistor. When the resistor is not zero, think of the pot as being turned down by the ratio of the pot resistance divided by the sum of the pot resistance and the resistor (or, as it's known, the voltage divider equation). As the resistor increases in value, the meta-pot increases in total value while the ratio decreases. (All without turning the pot knob!) For a true (well, sort-of) decrease in series volume as compared to the parallel volume, the (series) resistor should be equal to the total pot value! After all, this will reduce the level by a factor of two, the approximate increase in level that comes from stacking two generators. It's not actually this simple since as we double the level we're halving the drive current. (It's a series resistor since it's in series with the two coils. Note that in a two-port series network, the order of linear components does not matter). In parallel , the resistor is of no effect.) Unfortunately, the load impedance is not just the volume pot and the resistor, but the cable capacitance and the next input impedance in the signal chain. Things tonal are best gleaned empirical. Use a series pot in rheostat mode (of twice the value of the volume pot ) to "dial-in" what you want. Replace this with a fixed resistor, or just leave the pot in-circuit within the control cavity (or just have a separate volume control for both series and parallel modes). I sure am glad that this wasn't a complex solution....... . . . . . . . Well.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 23, 2009 19:57:26 GMT -5
I shall decline to affer a passive solution to this question on account of the fact that there isnt one (at least, not without leaving the tonal quality of the series setting sounding like a steaming pile of bats poo mixed with mud) just my opinion!! J
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 23, 2009 22:46:41 GMT -5
Say, what's with all these dead flies around here? wolf's solution is correct, newey pondered the actual value, and who else but Chris would litter the floor with etomological specimens galore. The fact is, despite John's opinion, the series resistor will have no discernible effect on the tone of the series combo. This comes about because it has the exact same effect on all frequencies, at all signal strengths. More or less, a resistor is the only "all organic, 100% natural ingredient" in a circuit, beside those mechanical devices like switches, jacks and such. That said, Chris divines that the value of this resistor would be approximately the same as the volume pot's value (presumably we're referring to the parallel value of all volume pots in the signal path), but I'm gonna go with newey on this one - just experiment already! To quote a famous person aboot the NutzHouse, it's low voltage, so it won't kill ya! ;D And newey, I don't think that rabidgerry said that the parallel combo must be boosted, only that he'd like them to be the same. I think he was using the word boosted as a point of reference, but in fact, he did say, and I quote: How much you wanna bet that he'll take us up on this one, eh? sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 23, 2009 23:39:11 GMT -5
This comes about because it has the exact same effect on all frequencies, at all signal strengths. But, but, but... That resistor isn't all by itself in there. It interacts in a complex fashion with the other components in this big old filter we've got, and quite definitely does affect the resonant peak at cutoff. That's what my intuition and 5spice tell me, at least.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 24, 2009 5:02:20 GMT -5
rg-
Well, we seem to have a clear cut difference of opinion on whether this mod will affect your series setting's tone. I'm going on intuition, Ash has apparently pspice'd it, and JohnH seems to be speaking from extensive bat guano experience. ;D
Sumgai says "no problemo", however.
You may have to try this mod and get back to us with some empirical results to settle this. It could be that the difference in tone isn't so huge an effect as to be noticeable. Or, maybe you're partial to bat poop . . .
And Ash, could you post the pspice freq curves you got?
|
|
|
Post by rabidgerry on Apr 24, 2009 5:17:26 GMT -5
okey doke people, thanks for that mind blowing debate!!
Yes what I was after would have been a passive solution with minimal alterations. I for some reason invisioned a resistor additon despite not having any idea on the tech know how of such things. I can perform mod's I'm not very into the science behind 'em.
So I'll follow Wolf's solution, but there is the question of what size of resistor? Doing the whole test thing using a pot seems like a loada hassle (am I being lazy?).
Bare in mind I'm not looking tonnes of extra volume, just a little to match the two. The cut back on the volume of the series seems like another option but if it weakens the grunt then I would definately leave this out. Mind you I could also raise the pickup to compensate.
I will for a start follow the Wolf Diagram, but bare in mind folks, I may not have the time to carry this out right away, I'm snowed under with otther crap at the moment. I just knew this was the right place to get some ideas and I am very greatful (mod geek heaven).
|
|
|
Post by rabidgerry on Apr 24, 2009 5:34:14 GMT -5
Oh yeah and as a metal head I have to say I'm in favour of boost rather than cut back!!
Yes I am just looking for something make 'em even output but cutting back don't sit as well with me!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 24, 2009 6:48:19 GMT -5
This comes about because it has the exact same effect on all frequencies, at all signal strengths. But, but, but... That resistor isn't all by itself in there. It interacts in a complex fashion with the other components in this big old filter we've got, and quite definitely does affect the resonant peak at cutoff. That's what my intuition and 5spice tell me, at least. This man speaketh the truth.... The culprit is the cord capacitance, which pounces on the high treble from the feebly high impedance signal which is the result of adding this undesirable resistor, and devours it mercilessly. It would work a bit better with a small cap in parallel with the resistor, but theres nothing that matches the full tone of a humbucker with max volume. But the tone control will act weirdly, since it is separated from interacting properly with the coils. PSpice, 5Spice, or the spreadsheets on this thread allow these effects to be tested. Guitar Frequency Response CalculatorAnd in any case, all these solutions are based on cutting down the series level, not boosting the parallel. To do that, an active circuit is needed.
|
|
yaux0005
Apprentice Shielder
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
|
Post by yaux0005 on Apr 24, 2009 10:41:09 GMT -5
I'm new here, I'd like to offer an alternative. Here is my suggestion: Parallel: neck and bridge hbs Series: neck and bridge scs
Yes this falls outside the realm of self-imposed limitations. However, auditioning these settings demonstrates nearly identical volume levels. Obviously this alters the series sound, but SC series is still beefier than parallel HBs. And for metal you may find SC series to offer a little more bite and less flub than HB series, IMHO, especially if you already pile on the distortion. Ben
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 24, 2009 12:12:59 GMT -5
yaux2005-
Hello and welcome!
What you say is generally right, but so far rg has only mentioned a neck HB alone. If there's a bridge pickup involved, he hasn't told us about that.
He's speaking of a neck HB alone, with a switch to put the 2 coils in either series or parallel. IOW, intra-pickup series/parallel, not inter-pickup series/parallel.
|
|
yaux0005
Apprentice Shielder
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
|
Post by yaux0005 on Apr 24, 2009 12:17:39 GMT -5
oh oh oh oh oh. ok! illustrative of the importance of reading closely! thanks for the warm welcome, I feel like a nut in a can of mixed planters already!
|
|
|
Post by D2o on Apr 24, 2009 12:38:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 24, 2009 15:42:53 GMT -5
John, I've never attacked you before, so please don't think this is the first time.... I'm just gonna poke some fun at you, OK? I find it incredible that someone, anyone, would think that losing a tiny bit of high frequency is important, and say that with a straight face while using humbucker pickups, the mother of all high-frequency killing devices. I mean, it's like a distortion box - if you want dirty, you can start with clean and get to dirty. But if you want clean, you simply can't start with dirty - ain't no circuit in the land that can clean up dirty like it never was. Samo-samo for a humbucker - if it ain't got the highs to start with, then it ain't never gonna have 'em, so why sweat the egregiously small stuff..... Oh, wait.... I get it - you don't wanna lose anymore than you've already given up, on purpose (by choosing the Hb pup). Well, that's admirable, gotta admit. But once again, what does xSpice have to say about that resistance? If it increases, what happens to the overall signal level? The level at the resonance peak? The position of that peak along the frequency spectrum? Equally valid, what consideration does xSpice give to phase shift due to the complex interaction of each reactive component, both with and without any additional resistors? And to cap it off (and not coincidentally, letting John off the hook ), none of this matters, not one whit. As evidence, I offer up for your consideration the venerable tube amplifier. Oh yes, that's the ticket. Watch this: We're not into the nostaligic kick for the helluvit, we're after a particular tone, that of the rock and/or blues players of the 50's and 60's. That tone was generated by yesteryear's pickups, and amplified using yesteryear's amplifiers. To our ears, even those listeners that weren't around then and only have recordings to go by, that tone is the shiznitz, foshizzle. And lest anyone forget, that "tone" was carried from the aforementioned pickups to the aforementioned amplifiers via a truly el-crappo guitar cord, often curly in design. No one today would touch one of those things, except to hang in on a wall somewhere for a retro display. But, just like flatwound strings are necessary to capture "true" rock and roll sound, so it goes for cords - if ain't the same as the original, then the results won't be the same either. And that's not just 'purist elitist' crap I'm spoutin', it's verifiable, repeatedly, in any blind or double-blind test you care to conduct. We've come along ways towards using technology to our benefit, but so far, we refuse to grow beyond what we heard as kids. If today's definition of how it was back then is "crappy", then how come we keep trying to emulate "it" as closely as possible? And for the Lowerd's sake, why are we endlessly debating the need to use new tech to capture (re-capture?) old sounds? Doesn't make much sense to me. (FWIW. Last night I was discussing a different topic with a newly met acquaintance. When he found out I have an old FTR, he immediately offered me a cool grand for it, sight unseen, untested, just wham-bam-TMVM. No sale (!), but it sure illustrates what I'm saying about musicians wanting to capture/retain that 'old-school' tone, eh?) </rant> Now, it's back to the salt mines for me - the sun is shining, the frau is tapping her foot, etc. Spatër. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 24, 2009 17:19:02 GMT -5
John, I've never attacked you before, so please don't think this is the first time.... I'm just gonna poke some fun at you, OK? :)sumgai No problem at all Mr S! I'm just having fun too!. But this resistor thingo........I dont think its such a small effect on tone. Heres a screen shot of two plots representing a PAF humbucker on a Gibson guitar, with about a 10' to 15'cord. In the second view, an extra resistor has been added to the pup to get the basic response down by 6db, which is x1/2 on the voltage signal and enough to match the volume of a parallel wired pup. The top treble of the response is blown away! The extra resistance, at R1 (which is usually just representing the coil resistance) is just over 200k. Its interesting that its that value, which is because at the high pickup impedance resulting, the tone control is starting to have an effect across all the frequencies. So the extra resistance to halve the signal is approximately that of the tone, volume and amp input impedance, in parallel. Note I made the coil capacitance C1 equal zero, since otherwise it unfairly penalises the second plot by being on the wrong side of the added resistance. I've tried things like this. On one LP type guitar, I wanted to add a much smaller fixed resistor in series with each pickup so that they mix easier and the volume controls interacted better. But it still lost the edge due to this effect and so I only suggest that where there is a buffer available. John
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 24, 2009 22:15:51 GMT -5
John, That extra resistance..... as you noted, you added 200KΩ of resistance directly into the pickup, putting the capacitor on the wrong side of the equation. I have to ask, why didn't you model it externally to the pickup, as it would be found "in the wild"? Next, I don't think that it's kosher to model a capacitor out of existance - that ain't what's happening in real life, eh? Third, while there is an interaction between all of the component parts of the pup, I doubt seriously that the "high impedance of the pickup" will necessarily dictate that the external resistance be overly large, as in 200KΩ. The value for said resistor should be chosen strictly for the overall effect on the signal level, unless there are other circumstances that can't be ignored. As it happens, I don't have the data to submit to you, but anecdotal evidence (from many sources) indicates that your 'unmodified' plots are actually very close real life - for a single coil pickup guitar. Most plots of real humbucker guitars that are fed into an o'scope come up looking more like your modified plot. Which would tend to back up your theory of, don't remove any more treble than you have to. (!) It gets even more interesting when you consider that putting on a set of graphite saddles tends to remove the 'hump' at 1800 to 2000Hz, making the Strat/Tele style guitars scope out at very nearly the modified plot. IOW, the hump goes away, and the guitar takes on a not-so-shrill quality. Not quite woman-tone, but closer than stock, without all the fancy electronic mods. I know, I've got that setup in my unit, courtesy of Graphtech. So now we're really in a quandry.... how does one model the interaction of strings, bridge material, body, etc.? They all contribute a bit to the overall tonality, which in turn reduces the xSpice graphs to pictures of not-quite-reality-as-heard-by-a-human. Which, if you'll recall from discussions a few years back, is one of the main reasons I don't put too many of my eggs in that particular basket. And to put a fine point on it, I am of course, basing some of my anecdotal evidence on what my single-coil-tuned ears can hear. My definition of "just fine" may or may not gibe with yours. ;D Ah, the beauty of the innerwebs, where no on can hear you meow. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 24, 2009 22:49:30 GMT -5
rabidgerry said:
Well, there is always the active solution. You could make the parallel setting not only equal the series, but you could blow the series away with the twist of a knob. ;D
But seriously, Gerry, we need you to do this mod and post some empirical evidence to settle this debate!
Maybe do a "before" sound clip before you tear into it, and an "after" once it's done.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Apr 24, 2009 23:51:05 GMT -5
John, That extra resistance..... as you noted, you added 200KΩ of resistance directly into the pickup, putting the capacitor on the wrong side of the equation. I have to ask, why didn't you model it externally to the pickup, as it would be found "in the wild"? I was just using my spreadsheet as the quickest way to show an effect, and usualy that particular resistor R1 is used just for coil resistance. I cant easiliy reconfigure the spreadsheet to do a different arrangement. Spice models will do that though. The C1 capacitance is avery small value and does not usually have much effect - making it zero just helped this demo to work and does not change the overall shape of the curves. It was indeed chosen to get the intended signal level, being a 6db cut in the mid and lower frequencies. My point was, I was expecting to find that a higher value would be needed to get that cut, based just on matching the vol pot and amp input impedance, but it turns out the tone pot is also loading all the frequencies with this arrangement. 200k equates to matching the para resistance of two 500k pots and a 1M input resistance. These models cant represent more than the electrical characteristics of the system, but they are informative on how response will change when electrical components are altered. John
|
|
|
Post by ChristoMephisto on Apr 25, 2009 3:04:49 GMT -5
I did this on my Squier once, added two 22k resistors from between the pups and the volume control at the switch. So when the switch was at parallel, both pups would be in series with the resistors, but not in the mix when in series. Sounded pretty good imho Down at the bottom, it explains it better
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 25, 2009 13:33:37 GMT -5
Seems to me it should be obvious, but I guess it is definitely worth noting. JohnH's Frequency Calculator and the spice sims that we run are not meant to model the actual frequency spectrum we would expect to see coming out of any given guitar. That is, if we recorded a performance and ran a specrum analysis, it might not necessarily line up with the graphs we're getting here.
These programs model the behavior of the electronic filter only. It shows what happens when we run a perfect impulse - containing all (or most) possible frequencies - through said filter.
When I did my 5spice analysis, I did not zero out the pickup capacitance, and did insert a variable resistor at a point after it. I'm not sure why that would make a difference, considering that this is AC we're talking about. My results were essentially the same as JohnH's, so I don't see any point in posting my graphs.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 25, 2009 15:52:31 GMT -5
John, I admit that I lost sight of the differences between a static spreadsheet and a Spice emulation, sorry for the oversight. ash, I do agree, the spreadsheet and xSpice plots only tell us part of the story, but a necessary part nonetheless. It makes a difference where the capacitor is located because, in spite of the signal being AC, the entire circuit is not, strictly speaking, a two-pole filter. If you like, you can break it down to a series of two-pole filters, which is just what I've been 'on' about, placing components in their proper positions to make that happen. When you look at everything in the modeled circuit, it's really a three-pole, or greater, filter. That becomes more like a "black box" - signal in, signal out, with no concept of what's happening inside - and that's too limiting.... we know we can drill down further than that, xSpice proves it, so I say we should use it correctly. ('correctly' being in my opinion, of course. ) After all, what's the use of modeling if we're just gonna draw stick figures instead of using all the crayons in the box? My two €'s worth. cm, You bring up a valid point. It is indeed possible that the overall wiring diagram might point out other solutions to the problem. rabidgerry, can you help us out here, please? sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Apr 25, 2009 20:19:48 GMT -5
This was the disclaimer that I'd added as the discussion related to levels. The battery example is what led to the series resistor being equal to the pot resistance. This is -6dB, as is a parallel config to a series config (for equal coils). What JohnH shows in the peaking (the passive voltage gain*) that comes from the series resonant LCR circuit comprised of the pickup, the cable, and other sundry things (but not the series resistor), and especially a fairly high "Q" (Quality factor) and narrow resonance. *Yep! Adding in the series resistor does indeed reduce the baseline level by -6dB as expected. The additional resistance in series with the pickup coils results in an LCR series resonant circuit that has a very broad resonance (fall-off) and an extremely low "Q", and hence, a very "soft" response. What the volume pot does (aside from reducing the level) is that it decouples the "L" (which lives in the coils alone with the fairly minimal inter-winding capacitance) from the C" (the cable/input capacitance) by way of increasing the "R" (the volume pot or our series resistor). This decoupling broadly sucks (all possible inferences and puns intended) the harmonics out and renders the resulting signal less than interesting. The way that we describe this "tuning/fixing" of the LCR series resonant circuit decoupling comes in many flavors. One of them is treble bleed (dang, "re-peaking" the peak). Now, there's a clue aboot here regarding parallel capacitance with the series resistor. The gain that is relative to the signal level without the effect of the L, C, and R in our spreadsheets and pSpice models is relevant to the effect of the characteristics of the passive components within the circuit. (Passive indicating things not containing active amplification, a pickup, while certainly a passive component, is not dormant/passive.) What we post relates to that said. Complexity is complex. While I have some models that include the actual modeled frequency response of the magnets, the ferrous structure of the pickup, and the generator model for a given string, as well as that of various body woods, I have absolutely no way of correlating such to the actual response of any given guitar type, let alone a particular instantiation thereof. The way that this is done is simple. The model scales. The pickup is a weak operator. Make the magnet(s)/structure stronger. Model it with LCR filter s that take the generator output and massage it before it's "sent" to the pickup model. While you're at it, include parallel or series (as in before the magnet/structure model) or both structures for the filter s to realize a generator that, while driven by a constant voltage output level when swept (we haven't even hinted at our need to discuss table derived or arbitrary waveform generators, boys and girls) models the actual capability of the pickup to sense. Then, we can truly say that what we see is what we will hear. Except that we all hear differently. Harmonics, as well as the pole phase shifts that we never talk about. So, the heck with a perfect model, it is moot. However, our modeling does indeed indicate the relative effectivity of those components that we can vary, on the relative tonal output of said model. It's the best that we can hope for. After all, if it was easy to model or clear to correlate to what we (all) hear, it would have been well-done by now. So. I stick to my original recommendation: "Things tonal are best gleaned empirical."
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 25, 2009 23:14:34 GMT -5
...as well as the pole phase shifts that we never talk about... Except we have begun to talk about it, sort of. I could have sworn you had a Reference article around here that involved this topic, but I might have been thinking about something else. I'm working on something that follows up on that thread, but I think the phase issue deserves its own.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 26, 2009 9:07:53 GMT -5
|
|