AR-3a restoration question

[Guest postjob62]

In an archived post (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, couldn't retrieve the thread) I remember Tom saying something to the effect that in his experience he had never encountered an AR speaker that required any replacement of crossover components. This was contingent on the unit in question not have been struck by lightning, plugged directly into AC, etc., but as I recall the post the caps, inductors and all were immune to damage from any musical input or the ravages of time.

Am I recalling this correctly, and do others concur based on their experience? And if I have posited this correctly, would not the sonic restoration of my 3a's consist only of making sure all 3 drivers were properly operating in spec and of course servicing the original pots as often discussed here? I'd just hate to have to go back into a cabinet once the above had been done and it had been resealed when it could have been done all at the same time if necessary.

Let me state that my hope is only to reliably recreate the original sound of these speakers as best able; I have no interest in "improving" the classic sound.

Regards,

Ed

[tysontom]

>In an archived post (I'm paraphrasing from memory here,

>couldn't retrieve the thread) I remember Tom saying something

>to the effect that in his experience he had never encountered

>an AR speaker that required any replacement of crossover

>components. This was contingent on the unit in question not

>have been struck by lightning, plugged directly into AC, etc.,

>but as I recall the post the caps, inductors and all were

>immune to damage from any musical input or the ravages of

>time.

>

>Am I recalling this correctly, and do others concur based on

>their experience? And if I have posited this correctly, would

>not the sonic restoration of my 3a's consist only of making

>sure all 3 drivers were properly operating in spec and of

>course servicing the original pots as often discussed here?

>I'd just hate to have to go back into a cabinet once the above

>had been done and it had been resealed when it could have been

>done all at the same time if necessary.

>

>Let me state that my hope is only to reliably recreate the

>original sound of these speakers as best able; I have no

>interest in "improving" the classic sound.

This had in fact been my experience, but there have been *many* others within this forum that have indeed experienced problems with crossover capacitors (inductors aren't likely to ever give trouble), such that if you have doubts, you may wish to have them checked while you have the speaker apart. Most of my restorations have been on the very early AR speakers going up through the AR-10Pi and AR-11, but not much beyond that. It appears that more of the problems seem to occur with some of the later-model electrolytic capacitors rather than the plastic-encapsulated, wax-impregnated caps made by Chicago Industrial. Certainly the early oil-filled caps seem to be stable. If you are in doubt, take them out and have them tested.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest postjob62]

Tom,

Thanks for your reply. Would 3a's circa 1973-74 (ser. # ~ 85,000) but still front-wired mid/tweets and standard grills be likely to be included in the category of "the plastic-encapsulated, wax-impregnated caps made by Chicago Industrial" ? Or would they likely have the "later model electrolytics" ?

Thanks,

Ed

[tysontom]

>

>Tom,

>

>Thanks for your reply. Would 3a's circa 1973-74 (ser. # ~

>85,000) but still front-wired mid/tweets and standard grills

>be likely to be included in the category of "the

>plastic-encapsulated, wax-impregnated caps made by Chicago

>Industrial" ? Or would they likely have the "later model

>electrolytics" ?

>

Ed, I believe that if your models still have the front-wired configuration, it is likely that they do have the old-style caps. Incidentally, are the grill panels glued to the front baffle or are they attached by Velcro? The serial-number sequence of your AR-3as is fairly high and just predates the back-wired versions with electrolytic caps, so you should verify when you enter the speaker to clean the level controls (a process that is almost unavoidable). Either way, I would listen to the speakers once you have cleaned the level controls: it could be that everything is fine. If in doubt, however, remove the capacitors and take them to a place that has commercial test gear (such as Hewlett-Packard or Agilent Technologies) or the like. The tolerance for any of the crossover capacitors is +/- 10%, so some variance is probably fine.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest postjob62]

Tom,

These had the grills removed when I got them, but there is no sign of velcro anywhere. Neither is there the blobs of melted glue I'm accustomed to seeing on my 2ax's (this is the first pair of 3a's I've owned). The grills actually bear up against a very narrow lip or ledge just inside the bezel moulding, and don't appear to get anywher close to the baffle when seated. In a couple of places there is evidence of residue of a black tarry substance on the back of the grills which appears to have held them against this narrow lip.

They do have the skimpy rear labels, on which "10/73" is pre-printed on the label.

Ed

[tysontom]

>Tom,

>

>These had the grills removed when I got them, but there is no

>sign of velcro anywhere. Neither is there the blobs of melted

>glue I'm accustomed to seeing on my 2ax's (this is the first

>pair of 3a's I've owned). The grills actually bear up against

>a very narrow lip or ledge just inside the bezel moulding, and

>don't appear to get anywher close to the baffle when seated.

>In a couple of places there is evidence of residue of a black

>tarry substance on the back of the grills which appears to

>have held them against this narrow lip.

>

>They do have the skimpy rear labels, on which "10/73" is

>pre-printed on the label.

>

>Ed

Ed, the black "tarry substance" leads me to believe that these grills were the Velcro-type, because by the time AR had moved production of the AR-3a over to Norwood, they also changed the grill material from beige linen, glued-on frame, to a lighter-color linen with the Velcro frame. In so doing, the masonite grill frames had a black-mastic substance applied in order to hold the grill material in place, and to hide the outline of the grill frame. This method was flawed, because the black material eventually bled through the grill onto the front, and the appearance is obvious. However, I have not seen this material used to hold the grill frame to the cabinet molding.

Once again, your serial-number sequence is borderline, so yours might have been glued-on with the newer frame. You would definitely see evidence of USM Hot Glue on the backs of the grill panel, as it always worked its way into the grill material during application. I believe that your speakers probably had the stapled-on Velcro strips, and someone along the way might have removed them. The Velcro method caused the grill frames to sometimes protrude slightly outside the cabinet molding, whereas the glued versions were inset about 1/4-inches inside the molding edge. For this reason, the Velcro was frequently removed by owners.

Now I really wonder which crossover components you have. There is but one way to find out, and that is to go inside. Also, have you tried playing the speakers by turning the level controls back and forth to find a "good" spot? This can sometimes take several minutes of moving the controls back and forth. Have you heard output from the midrange and tweeter in both speakers?

--Tom Tyson

[Guest postjob62]

Tom,

I am attaching pics that may help you identify these 3a's. I don't know if the color of the grill fabric will be definitive enough since all digital cameras are different. I will say that I have a couple of 2ax NOS "replacement" grills that are definitely a thicker, whiter, coarser material than this. In looking very closely, I see no sign that velcro was ever attached; it actually looks like the black mastic was used to attach the grills directly to the narrow lip just inside the moulding. I have turned one grill around to show this, but what you likely cannot see is that the bead of mastic appears to have been run all the way around this lip.

I also attached a pic that shows the front- wired tweeter and mid, as well as the convex screen cover glued to the top of the mid. (By the way, how does one desolder/resolder the tweeters and mids from the terminal strip with all that thick black stuff covering the strip and wires?). You had previously said that these items indicated a late-production "old-style" 3a, not one of the later ones built after quality diminished. My interest in this (other than the caps) is that I would prefer to put restoration effort into the better series 3a to start with. Maybe these are "tweeners".

The mids work but not the tweeters, but due to a recent back problem I have not been able to work with the controls yet or remove the woofer to get a look at the crossovers. I do know that one of the pots will spin around continuously as if there were no stops.

Hopefully in a couple of weeks I will be able to remove the woofer and shoot a pic of the crossover, which may enable you to identify the caps. Meanwhile, is this enough info to help you guess ?

Regards,

Ed

[RoyC]

Hi Ed,

They look like great restoration candidates to me! The drivers look to be original...and I bet the pots are keeping the tweeters from tweeting.

I have a pair manufactured in late 1974 with 96,000+ serial numbers so your pair would probably be late '73 or early '74 as Tom suggested.

There is a good chance that the 6uf tweeter cap is a blue Sprague and that the woofer and mid caps are larger blue Sprague "Compulytics" or silver Industrial Condenser "Royalitics".

I've attached photos of the Spragues. The 6uf cap is from the '74 model and the 50uf and 150uf caps are from a late '72 model (serial number 67,000+). I have seen a number of early '70's crossovers with the can caps used for the woofer and mid and the wax block cap for the tweeter...so it will be interesting to see what you find.

Regardless of the type you discover it is worth checking them out. I have found more than a few of all types used in the 60's and early 70's sufficiently out of spec to justify replacement.

Roy

[Guest Bret]

Ed,

I'm responding in hopes of saving you a lot of "fretting" time. As you read what I'm typing, please remember that I am entirely in your "restore don't upgrade" camp.

Analogies - DaVinci paintings must eventually be cleaned, restored, and repaired. It is not possible to find a new set of old tires for your Studebaker. Output devices are no longer made or available for a 1979 Kenwood KR-9600. Except as a museum piece, there is little reason to worry about restoring your 1957 Setchel Carlson TV and if you've got a burned-out tube, you can't replace it with a new, identical tube.

Ed, that seems to be where we are.

I have no way of knowing if those old capacitors are good or not. I suspect, highly, that they are not. I suspect (based on experiments done and reported here and my understanding of the results) that there is no such thing as a 30 year old capacitor that still functions as-new; period. It does seem to be true that some of them are substantially worse than others and 25 year old caps may be worse than 30 year old caps. I suspect you will have a hard time finding-out if yours are good or not because I suspect there are very few people who care enough to have the proper, expensive equipment to test them thoroughly.

Recap (no pun intended), short-version: Pair of AR-90s with bad Callins caps; recapped with cheap electrolytics - "much, much better." Pair of 10pi's with bad Callins recapped with Solen caps (after they formed) - "Wow, cool." 10pi's with Sprague Compulytics recapped with new, cheap, electrolytics - "Better, but not as good as the Solens." 9s recapped with North Creeks - "I didn't know all that was in the recording!" 10pi's re-recapped with North Creek caps - "Holy moley is *that* ever better - you couldn't even hear the "x" before." End result: Once experienced, regardless of desire to leave well enough alone, it is hard-to-impossible to accept that it is better to hear less and hear it fuzzier - in the name of restoration - by allowing the speaker to play badly.

Back to the premise that these speakers should be restored, not improved - The short version is that doing such a thing is not possible. The longer version is that: It isn't possible because enough, exacting, information on component parts does not exist. It isn't necessary because even AR changed cap brands, configurations, and in some cases values mid-model, and sometimes more than once. AR changed drivers, in audible ways, over the years mid-model, too. If it were even possible, restoring your ARs back to exactly the way *that pair* came from the factory does not mean that you are putting them back in-spec the way that model was originally designed before engineering compromises and changes were made. I am of the opinion that we will never hear what Roy Allison heard. That particular sound will never again be produced on planet Earth.

I'm not an advocate of fixing what isn't broken and I would never suggest putting modern 21" rims and Falken tires on a Packard restoration. I'm just saying that you *cannot* put factory original tires back on a Packard if you want to *drive* it; and any modern tire you do use will by definition be a "better tire" because they are all better tires. You can't help but improve it just by repairing it.

Thus - my new opinion is; "Preserve as museum pieces that which you do not intend to use; repair as needed anything you do intend to use; don't sweat the tiny details too much on a pair you use because it didn't matter that much to AR and should not matter that much to you." And finally - "Who wants to listen to less than the speaker is capable of in the name of reclaiming a sound we cannot even know, identify, or test for?"

(e.g. - AR changed the 12" driver many times over the years, changed cap companies and whether parallelled caps were employed, changed tweeters to include ferrofluid without changing the crossover in any way, changed cabinets, changed tweeter/midrange orientation, changed crossover frequency, changed driver suppliers, used different stuffing materials in same-model speakers, changed terminals, added "foam defraction rings" etc etc etc)

Realizing that this view may be wildly unpopular, I invite dissent.

Bret

[Guest Bret]

Thinking about the various AR models. . . seems to me the "classics" are just the right models to put better, newer, cleaner caps in. The later generation speakers with 3 position switches leave you with only rough adjustments possible. The L-pads / pots in the older models leave you with a full range of attenuation to make any minor adjustments necessary due to differences the caps make.

And the last comment I have to make is that if you find changing caps may be advisable, it can be a non-destructive until you hear it. If you hate it, don't mount the new ones, resolder the old ones.

Bret

[ninohernes]

Yup! I love the way my AR-4x's sound with the new Solen caps I put in last month!

[RoyC]

I think some folks get used to the degraded sound of out of spec old caps. The new in spec caps therefore make a significant difference.

In that situation the new caps should actually bring the speakers closer to their original sound.

Given the variables in the "restoration" process of the 35+ year old AR-3a, I wouldn't hesitate to replace the old caps. I have never heard one sound worse as the result of a capectomy...and at the very least it provides long term capacitor insurance.

Roy

[dynaco_dan]

>Yup! I love the way my AR-4x's sound with the new Solen caps

>I put in last month!

Hi there;

Another rattle and 2 1/2 cents from me again.

This is one of my all time favourite, a best bang for the buck speaker, a very good choice to modify, because of it's simplistic crossover,with only two very good drivers.

After seeing this comment, I would love to know what the actual differences are.

What is this new sound you say you hear now?

Can you please describe this sound improvement, as J. Gordon Holt, maybe would have done back in the old Stereophile days.

I can imagine a more precise capacitance rating, than the OEM caps, which is maybe closer to the original, designed crossover point.

If anyone read another rattle I recently wrote, about caps and resistors, this is a great opportunity to show that a simple change in NP caps can change the sound, but why?

Is this an actual improvement, an un-veiling?

I do know there is several more expensive hi-end cap manufacturers.

I wonder if someone has the money, time and inclination to solder in a switching circuit substituting the different caps and reviewing and reporting the perceived results?

I don't remember ever reading a report of this type of test by substitution of caps.

The end results could be transferred to other models and brands of speakers.

What if another Solen cap, with a higher or lower voltage rating, was used instead, what would, if any changes, would there be?

I am going to be following the feedback from this topic further, as I want to learn as much as I can about this subject.

In a past write-up, I made a comment about Advent, having a more repeatable crossover point, with their 3 position switch, and also Dynaco with their 5 position switch.

In retrospect maybe AR should have gone with the 5 position switch also, rather than the pots.

Even with the pots turned up full, there still is about a 1 ohm resistance.

[Guest postjob62]

Bret,

Thanks for your very thoughtful response. I really don't disagree with any of your "restoration" observations; in fact I am sure yor're exactly right. This particular pair needs some cabinet and veneer restoration additionally, so they will never be museum pieces anyhow. And your comments about the "original" sound is accurate-I wasn't there to start with. I just want these to sound as good as possible in keeping with what we surmise might have been original.

My motive for asking the question was actually much simpler. This is an embarrassing revelation-don't laugh. I'm really not a very good solderer, and my hands are large. Additionally, my lack of basic electronics knowledge precludes me being able to visually distinguish a cap from a resistor or anything else. I do interpret and follow specific instructions well, thank goodness. So I was simply looking for an easy way out. If there was a "rule" that applied, per Tom's statement that he had never had to replace a cap in the oldies, then things would have been much simpler for me. It would just be a matter of servicing the pots, which I'm probably capable of given the amount of instruction available on this wonderful forum.

So there you have it-I'm outed!

Regards,

Ed

[ninohernes]

The difference was quite large between the old caps and the new ones. There is much more detail in the high end now. Instruments sound harmonically rich. The old caps tended to smear detail. Also, stereo imaging has improved drastically. Now when listening to a good mix, vocals come from dead center. There is really a nice strong phantom center now. With the old caps, the center was rather diffuse rather than in sharp focus like it is now.

[RoyC]

Hi Ed,

Don't lose sleep over the eternal cap debate.

You will find the level controls to be the most difficult part of your plan. Although it is possible, they are not easy to clean while still wired to the crossover. For example, the control that you mentioned that "spins" around may be corroded beyond repair and may need replacement.

I have restored many of these old timers and have listened to them next to each other in various stages of restoration and completion. The biggest issues relative to their sound are rotted foam woofer surrounds, level controls, degraded tweeters and inappropriate replacement drivers. Cap issues are WAY down on the list.

Although I recommend checking out the old caps as a prudent thing to do, and I have no problem replacing them with modern poly or mylar caps, my personal experience (after much "A/B-ing") is that sound differences among caps of the same value are relatively insignificant (if perceived at all) in the grand scheme of things. My suggestion was simply based on having discovered a number of "bad" caps along the way. In MOST cases new woofer surrounds and level control repairs produce very satisfying results in otherwise all original AR-3a sytems.

Let's see what you find when you open them up....one step at a time.

Roy

[Guest postjob62]

Thanks Roy,

I've been somewhat impaired for 3 weeks with a vertabra/pinched nerve issue in my neck but am hoping for some non-surgical relief Tuesday at another specialist. Assuming that pans out, disassembling drivers on these 3a's is my first project. I'll report in with my findings as soon as I'm able to get it done.

Your words of encouragement are appreciated, and it sure helps to put things in the proper perspective.

Regards,

Ed

[dynaco_dan]

>Bret,

>

>Thanks for your very thoughtful response. I really don't

>disagree with any of your "restoration" observations; in fact

>I am sure yor're exactly right. This particular pair needs

>some cabinet and veneer restoration additionally, so they will

>never be museum pieces anyhow. And your comments about the

>"original" sound is accurate-I wasn't there to start with. I

>just want these to sound as good as possible in keeping with

>what we surmise might have been original.

>

>My motive for asking the question was actually much simpler.

>This is an embarrassing revelation-don't laugh. I'm really not

>a very good solderer, and my hands are large. Additionally, my

>lack of basic electronics knowledge precludes me being able to

>visually distinguish a cap from a resistor or anything else. I

>do interpret and follow specific instructions well, thank

>goodness. So I was simply looking for an easy way out. If

>there was a "rule" that applied, per Tom's statement that he

>had never had to replace a cap in the oldies, then things

>would have been much simpler for me. It would just be a matter

>of servicing the pots, which I'm probably capable of given the

>amount of instruction available on this wonderful forum.

>

>So there you have it-I'm outed!

>

>Regards,

>

>Ed

Hi Ed

I don't think anyone laughed at your soldering ability at all.

Probably we all said to ourselves, been there, done that.

I did a lot of copper pipe soldering for years, learning how to solder uphill is using a technique not a trick.

Soldering of electronics was something I learned by assembling many Dynakits and Heathkits way back.

I worked at the local AR warantee depot, and bought myself a Weller WPTC (?) solder station at about $35.00 cdn, which is about $150.00 cdn now.

This is much more than the average hobbiest might ever buy, I was used to a Weller 25 watt pencil iron previously, to be more productive I went for the better iron and used the stock tip.

There is a lot of information about it on the internet, I found the tip which has different temperature ratings and shapes worked real well, whether it was 1/4 watt resistors or multiple leads.

The type of solder used is another story, which can also be answered if anyone is interested.

Radio Shack used to have very inexpensive (<$5.00) small electronic introductory handbooks which delve into the basics of resistors, caps, pots, switches, transformers, etc., there was colour photos of each and a simple explanation and purpose of each.

It won't make you an expert, but you may feel a little more comfortable in identifying components.

Goo luck, Ed.

[Guest Bret]

>If anyone read another rattle I recently wrote, about caps and resistors, this is a great opportunity to show that a simple change in NP caps can change the sound, but why?

>Is this an actual improvement, an un-veiling?<

Yes - it's a matter of inaudible stuff becoming audible. It isn't like "removing a sheet" from in front of the speakers. It's like pulling poodles out of your ears, or getting the chicken to roost somewhere other than on top of the midrange and tweeter.

>I do know there is several more expensive hi-end cap manufacturers.<

Yeah, well. . . why spend $5,000 on caps for a $7.50 tweeter?

>I wonder if someone has the money, time and inclination to solder in a switching circuit substituting the different caps and reviewing and reporting the perceived results?<

I'd love to read your report! ;-)

>I don't remember ever reading a report of this type of test by substitution of caps.<

There is a rather long and informative one from Rich and his 11s. There is also an interesting reference to selecting capacitors by oscilloscope in the library somewhere. . . restoring AR xx's. Can't remember it. Made sense when I read it. Look here for Rich's thread:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/dcbo...ing_type=search

>The end results could be transferred to other models and brands of speakers.<

No doubt.

>What if another Solen cap, with a higher or lower voltage rating, was used instead, what would, if any changes, would there be?<

The changes that I did were more course than that. Eventually I settled on the North Creek caps because I wasn't willing to spend $70 times 8 or 10 to get a tiny difference. I've stopped where I am because it was the last improvement I'm willing to pay for.

I don't seem to be able to hear resistor differences or internal wire differences. I'm currently restoring a pair where I'm going to double-check that - blindly. Now talk about subtle, if any, difference. I doubt my ears are up to that even if measurable differences exist.

>I am going to be following the feedback from this topic further, as I want to learn as much as I can about this subject.<

Be sure to check-out John's capacitor materials research. There is a wealth, a mountain, of material on the Forum about caps. I believe the issue of cap aging has been researched, reported, and put to bed.

>In retrospect maybe AR should have gone with the 5 position switch also, rather than the pots.<

I'd like a 20 position switch, myself.

Bret

[dynaco_dan]

>The difference was quite large between the old caps and the

>new ones. There is much more detail in the high end now.

>Instruments sound harmonically rich. The old caps tended to

>smear detail. Also, stereo imaging has improved drastically.

>Now when listening to a good mix, vocals come from dead

>center. There is really a nice strong phantom center now. With

>the old caps, the center was rather diffuse rather than in

>sharp focus like it is now.

Hi Joe

Thank you for your commentary, great writing.

I was really pleased to read your comments.

This is one man's first hand opinion of an improvement in an already well proven speaker at a minimum of cost.

I suggest the 4X, if there is an improvement with a $7.50 tweeter, heaven knows with AR-3A's or LST's or better.

Your feedback can now help AR-4X owners improve their own special speaker, if they so desire.

Now anyone, with an old brand of classic 2 way speaker systems, can weigh, if they want to, invest a few dollars and a little time to improve their highs.

The next step, might be for a member, to do likewise, with a 3 way, such as the AR-2AX's.

A cap change of their mid and tweeter caps would be another interesting read, I am sure.

Thank you again, Joe.

[ninohernes]

I have really been impressed by the AR-4x. Its amazing that this was a "budget" speaker system. They really have all of the characteristics of a good audiophile speaker. No question that the AR-3 and 3a are better, but the 4x can surely hold its own against the big guys!

[Guest postjob62]

Joe,

I certainly second your 4x opinion. I have 2 pairs "stacked" and wired parallel (2 channel), powered by an old Marantz 2230 in my 13x13.5x8 office. The sound is just amazing. I don't know the audiophile expressesions like "imaging", "soundstage", etc. but I sure know what sounds good to me and this is it!

It is just astonishing what less than a $300.00 investment (including a Toshiba DVD/CD player) can do!

I just don't hear all that much difference between these and my 2ax's, and in fact sometimes I think these 4x's are just a little bit sweeter. I can't wait to get my 3a's restored and running to see how they sound related to these smaller guys.

Ed

[Guest b stott]

My 3a's have been in constant use since I brought them home from the factory (where I worked on the amplifier) in the fall of 1967. I have not touched them since then except to dust them. I am afraid to even try and move the 2 pots on the back since they are both still passing signal. If I move them, I might loose one or both of the drivers they control. I am sure they don't sound the same as they did in '67, but they still sound good to me. Would you risk doing anything to a pristeen, operating pair of 3s's that still produce crystal clear music?

[RoyC]

I for one wouldn't mess with them yet. Your woofers have cloth surrounds, not the decomposing foam surrounds of the later version, so that eliminates one of the main reasons to open the cabinets. Its probably not worth breaking into them until the pots stop working reliably or there is a noticable difference in the sound. When that happens you can deal with the pots and check out the capacitors at the same time.

Roy

[dynaco_dan]

> My 3a's have been in constant use since I brought them home

>from the factory (where I worked on the amplifier) in the fall

>of 1967. I have not touched them since then except to dust

>them. I am afraid to even try and move the 2 pots on the back

>since they are both still passing signal. If I move them, I

>might loose one or both of the drivers they control. I am sure

>they don't sound the same as they did in '67, but they still

>sound good to me. Would you risk doing anything to a pristeen,

>operating pair of 3s's that still produce crystal clear

>music?

Hi there;

I would suggest continue enjoying them as is.

If and when they should have a tweeter or mid dropout just turn the pots slightly and that should be all that is needed.

Should that ever become ineffective, then perhaps applying Deoxit spray to the pots contacts accessable through the woofer opening and removing the insulation.

This is not a recommended job as the grill cloth and/or frame may get damaged and is no longer available.

Caution with the removal of the woofer, and especially take healthy precautions with removing the old fibreglas.

Jennifer Warrens The Hunter CD, Patriot Games Soundtrack, and the Soundtrack from Casper, The Friendly Ghost, I kid you not, these should also raise your eyebrows.

Good listening.