Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
acoustic speaker

Improving Bose 901s

Recommended Posts

I am new to this forum, but in scouting around, I think I saw where member "soundminded" modified his Bose 901 drivers or equalizer or something to improve the 901s. Can someone point me to where this information is in this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try using the advanced search function and enter soundminded's handle along with your search words. IIRC, he described it in very general terms. He's a pretty secretive guy you know.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this forum, but in scouting around, I think I saw where member "soundminded" modified his Bose 901 drivers or equalizer or something to improve the 901s. Can someone point me to where this information is in this forum?

I have probably posted more about it than I should have. However, since I did let the cat out of the bag so to speak, I'll review what I did. If you try this, be warned, I found it very time consuming and tedious. On the other hand, the results were more than well worth it. For its type and purpose which I have clearly defined, it's the best setup I've encountered and will beat anything else I have or heard including my modified AR9s (except for AR9's extraordinary deep bass capabilities even with modest amplifier power.)

The problem and solution are based on my own observations and still proprietary mathmatical model of acoustics so I will not tell all but I will give you the general idea which you can try for yourself.

Bose 901 cannot reproduce concert hall acoustics by itself no more than any other current sound system can. There are many reasons for this but the fact that they don't exist on recordings either qualitatively or quantitatively would be sufficient by itself. So the first thing to accept is that you will not be hearing a reasonable facsimile of a live performance at a large public venue from them. The goal of the sound system I devised using them is specific, to reproduce the sound of unamplified musical instruments and human voices as they would be heard in the same room you're in. This restricts their usefulness in this regard to solo instruments and small groups. Although they will of course play any kind of recording, this works best for classical music and jazz. One critical issue is that they will be played at the correct SPL.

Bose 901 has a distinct advantage over all other speaker systems in that it has what I call inherently low absolute vector distortion. This means that sound waves from a single instrument arrive at the listener from a multitude of directions just the way they do from live musical instruments. This is exactly the opposite of the current idea of producing highly directional loudspeaker systems.

Bose 901's main problem as I see it is that it does not produce flat frequency response. The original model and series II are acoustic suspension speakers which have the capability to produce very low tones down to the limits of audibility better than most other speakers. Within their power handling capability, the can give AR9 a run for its money. But power requirements are enormous, far greater than Dr. Bose indicated for most rooms. For this reason they work best in multiple pairs with huge amplifiers. (I use only one pair in a 14 x 14 room with a cathedral ceiling and 138 wpc is marginal. (AR9 does very well with 60 wpc in a room twice as large.) My pair like most I think have a significant peak of around 7 db at around 500 hz. Starting at this point and going down in frequency the speaker falls off at 12db per octave like any AS speaker system but the equalizer only supplies 6db per octave boost. So a cut is needed at 500hz and slightly above and then rising output as frequency lowers by another 6db per octave. If you have series III or later, you may not hear the lowest octave and might overload the system if you try. From what I can tell, the ported system is likely cut off at an octave above the AS version. This additional equalization can bring the bass into far flatter and more extended performance without playing it at deafening levels.

901's other problem for any version is that a 4" driver we call a midwoofer today makes for an awful tweeter. Not only is output of the highest octave very limited due to the high inertial mass of the cone (Gordon Holt's observation with which I fully agree) but what little output it produces in this range beams directly on axis. This is a consequence of the cone diameter. To correct this problem, I used an array of small mylar tweeters similar to Audax's 3/8" version. They are very inexpensive and easy to obtain. I used 8 ohm versions. I used 6 per channel, three on the back facing left, right and center, two facing the ceiling, and one in front directly above the 4" driver. I crossed them over at 6db per octave at around 9khz and drive them with a separate amplifier. Equalization for each recoring is critical to obtain correct tonality. I'd say only about 5% of the tweeter energy is directed forward owing to the crossover design and the reflected energy does not have the same FR as the direct energy. This is done to compensate for the differential absorption of the sound as a function of frequency before it reaches the listener. The goal is to have not only the direct sound flat but all of the reflections too. This eliminates two additional forms of geometric distortion my model predicts that other speaker systms can't come close to preventing unless you are unfortunate to be in the world's worst possible listening space, an anechoic chamber.

When properly adjusted, the ability of this configuration to accurately reproduce the sound of musical instruments and voices with remarkable presence from recordings is astonishing, far better than I would have expected. The success of this arrangement is proof that the theory that Redbook CD from inexpensive CD players is adequate for any music is compelling, it's all you need. No exotic audiophile amplifiers, wires, or other peculiar devices that are popular but carry no weight with mainstream electrical engineers are necessary either and would serve no useful purpose. In fact they would probably detract from this system if they have any effect at all. For best results, each recording will need its own equalization owing to the variables of spectral balance inherent in recordings. Multiple equalizers are desirable to facillitate this, my setup for this system has four inclding the Bose equalizer. Fortunately they are not expensive.

BTW, my first effort at this in the early 1990s was a complete failure and my second effort even when I had much more experience re-engineering other speakers and knew what had to be done took nearly four years from 2004 to 2008 before I considered it entirely successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have probably posted more about it than I should have. However, since I did let the cat out of the bag so to speak, I'll review what I did. If you try this, be warned, I found it very time consuming and tedious. On the other hand, the results were more than well worth it. For its type and purpose which I have clearly defined, it's the best setup I've encountered and will beat anything else I have or heard including my modified AR9s (except for AR9's extraordinary deep bass capabilities even with modest amplifier power.)

The problem and solution are based on my own observations and still proprietary mathmatical model of acoustics so I will not tell all but I will give you the general idea which you can try for yourself.

Bose 901 cannot reproduce concert hall acoustics by itself no more than any other current sound system can. There are many reasons for this but the fact that they don't exist on recordings either qualitatively or quantitatively would be sufficient by itself. So the first thing to accept is that you will not be hearing a reasonable facsimile of a live performance at a large public venue from them. The goal of the sound system I devised using them is specific, to reproduce the sound of unamplified musical instruments and human voices as they would be heard in the same room you're in. This restricts their usefulness in this regard to solo instruments and small groups. Although they will of course play any kind of recording, this works best for classical music and jazz. One critical issue is that they will be played at the correct SPL.

Bose 901 has a distinct advantage over all other speaker systems in that it has what I call inherently low absolute vector distortion. This means that sound waves from a single instrument arrive at the listener from a multitude of directions just the way they do from live musical instruments. This is exactly the opposite of the current idea of producing highly directional loudspeaker systems.

Bose 901's main problem as I see it is that it does not produce flat frequency response. The original model and series II are acoustic suspension speakers which have the capability to produce very low tones down to the limits of audibility better than most other speakers. Within their power handling capability, the can give AR9 a run for its money. But power requirements are enormous, far greater than Dr. Bose indicated for most rooms. For this reason they work best in multiple pairs with huge amplifiers. (I use only one pair in a 14 x 14 room with a cathedral ceiling and 138 wpc is marginal. (AR9 does very well with 60 wpc in a room twice as large.) My pair like most I think have a significant peak of around 7 db at around 500 hz. Starting at this point and going down in frequency the speaker falls off at 12db per octave like any AS speaker system but the equalizer only supplies 6db per octave boost. So a cut is needed at 500hz and slightly above and then rising output as frequency lowers by another 6db per octave. If you have series III or later, you may not hear the lowest octave and might overload the system if you try. From what I can tell, the ported system is likely cut off at an octave above the AS version. This additional equalization can bring the bass into far flatter and more extended performance without playing it at deafening levels.

901's other problem for any version is that a 4" driver we call a midwoofer today makes for an awful tweeter. Not only is output of the highest octave very limited due to the high inertial mass of the cone (Gordon Holt's observation with which I fully agree) but what little output it produces in this range beams directly on axis. This is a consequence of the cone diameter. To correct this problem, I used an array of small mylar tweeters similar to Audax's 3/8" version. They are very inexpensive and easy to obtain. I used 8 ohm versions. I used 6 per channel, three on the back facing left, right and center, two facing the ceiling, and one in front directly above the 4" driver. I crossed them over at 6db per octave at around 9khz and drive them with a separate amplifier. Equalization for each recoring is critical to obtain correct tonality. I'd say only about 5% of the tweeter energy is directed forward owing to the crossover design and the reflected energy does not have the same FR as the direct energy. This is done to compensate for the differential absorption of the sound as a function of frequency before it reaches the listener. The goal is to have not only the direct sound flat but all of the reflections too. This eliminates two additional forms of geometric distortion my model predicts that other speaker systms can't come close to preventing unless you are unfortunate to be in the world's worst possible listening space, an anechoic chamber.

When properly adjusted, the ability of this configuration to accurately reproduce the sound of musical instruments and voices with remarkable presence from recordings is astonishing, far better than I would have expected. The success of this arrangement is proof that the theory that Redbook CD from inexpensive CD players is adequate for any music is compelling, it's all you need. No exotic audiophile amplifiers, wires, or other peculiar devices that are popular but carry no weight with mainstream electrical engineers are necessary either and would serve no useful purpose. In fact they would probably detract from this system if they have any effect at all. For best results, each recording will need its own equalization owing to the variables of spectral balance inherent in recordings. Multiple equalizers are desirable to facillitate this, my setup for this system has four inclding the Bose equalizer. Fortunately they are not expensive.

BTW, my first effort at this in the early 1990s was a complete failure and my second effort even when I had much more experience re-engineering other speakers and knew what had to be done took nearly four years from 2004 to 2008 before I considered it entirely successful.

Hi there

You have written an interesting commentary of your quest and accomplishments, very well done, Soundminded.

Did using add-ons such as, the Microstatic tweeter arrays, of course with the original Peerless tweeter drivers, or Janszen 1-30 or equal speaker arrays

cross your mind in your investigation?

For a secretive man you write very openly, in my opinion, thank you very much.

I have never owned a pair or even auditioned a pair in my home.

On very rare occasion I did hear them demo'd in a few stereo stores, very spacious sounding indeed, when used with their speaker stands of course.

In my work in thousands of homes I only ever saw one pair of Bose 901's, at each end of a chesterfield, sitting on

the floor, used as end tables.

Once in a local pub, I saw a pair suspended from their ceiling, they were sufficiently far enough from the wall, which was good, but they were v'd toward the

open room.

I mentioned to them that they should be v'd towards the wall, and why, I never returned there to see if they reversed them.

It has been over 35 years since I last heard a pair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have probably posted more about it than I should have. However, since I did let the cat out of the bag so to speak, I'll review what I did. If you try this, be warned, I found it very time consuming and tedious. On the other hand, the results were more than well worth it. For its type and purpose which I have clearly defined, it's the best setup I've encountered and will beat anything else I have or heard including my modified AR9s (except for AR9's extraordinary deep bass capabilities even with modest amplifier power.)

The problem and solution are based on my own observations and still proprietary mathmatical model of acoustics so I will not tell all but I will give you the general idea which you can try for yourself.

Bose 901 cannot reproduce concert hall acoustics by itself no more than any other current sound system can. There are many reasons for this but the fact that they don't exist on recordings either qualitatively or quantitatively would be sufficient by itself. So the first thing to accept is that you will not be hearing a reasonable facsimile of a live performance at a large public venue from them. The goal of the sound system I devised using them is specific, to reproduce the sound of unamplified musical instruments and human voices as they would be heard in the same room you're in. This restricts their usefulness in this regard to solo instruments and small groups. Although they will of course play any kind of recording, this works best for classical music and jazz. One critical issue is that they will be played at the correct SPL.

Bose 901 has a distinct advantage over all other speaker systems in that it has what I call inherently low absolute vector distortion. This means that sound waves from a single instrument arrive at the listener from a multitude of directions just the way they do from live musical instruments. This is exactly the opposite of the current idea of producing highly directional loudspeaker systems.

Bose 901's main problem as I see it is that it does not produce flat frequency response. The original model and series II are acoustic suspension speakers which have the capability to produce very low tones down to the limits of audibility better than most other speakers. Within their power handling capability, the can give AR9 a run for its money. But power requirements are enormous, far greater than Dr. Bose indicated for most rooms. For this reason they work best in multiple pairs with huge amplifiers. (I use only one pair in a 14 x 14 room with a cathedral ceiling and 138 wpc is marginal. (AR9 does very well with 60 wpc in a room twice as large.) My pair like most I think have a significant peak of around 7 db at around 500 hz. Starting at this point and going down in frequency the speaker falls off at 12db per octave like any AS speaker system but the equalizer only supplies 6db per octave boost. So a cut is needed at 500hz and slightly above and then rising output as frequency lowers by another 6db per octave. If you have series III or later, you may not hear the lowest octave and might overload the system if you try. From what I can tell, the ported system is likely cut off at an octave above the AS version. This additional equalization can bring the bass into far flatter and more extended performance without playing it at deafening levels.

901's other problem for any version is that a 4" driver we call a midwoofer today makes for an awful tweeter. Not only is output of the highest octave very limited due to the high inertial mass of the cone (Gordon Holt's observation with which I fully agree) but what little output it produces in this range beams directly on axis. This is a consequence of the cone diameter. To correct this problem, I used an array of small mylar tweeters similar to Audax's 3/8" version. They are very inexpensive and easy to obtain. I used 8 ohm versions. I used 6 per channel, three on the back facing left, right and center, two facing the ceiling, and one in front directly above the 4" driver. I crossed them over at 6db per octave at around 9khz and drive them with a separate amplifier. Equalization for each recoring is critical to obtain correct tonality. I'd say only about 5% of the tweeter energy is directed forward owing to the crossover design and the reflected energy does not have the same FR as the direct energy. This is done to compensate for the differential absorption of the sound as a function of frequency before it reaches the listener. The goal is to have not only the direct sound flat but all of the reflections too. This eliminates two additional forms of geometric distortion my model predicts that other speaker systms can't come close to preventing unless you are unfortunate to be in the world's worst possible listening space, an anechoic chamber.

When properly adjusted, the ability of this configuration to accurately reproduce the sound of musical instruments and voices with remarkable presence from recordings is astonishing, far better than I would have expected. The success of this arrangement is proof that the theory that Redbook CD from inexpensive CD players is adequate for any music is compelling, it's all you need. No exotic audiophile amplifiers, wires, or other peculiar devices that are popular but carry no weight with mainstream electrical engineers are necessary either and would serve no useful purpose. In fact they would probably detract from this system if they have any effect at all. For best results, each recording will need its own equalization owing to the variables of spectral balance inherent in recordings. Multiple equalizers are desirable to facillitate this, my setup for this system has four inclding the Bose equalizer. Fortunately they are not expensive.

BTW, my first effort at this in the early 1990s was a complete failure and my second effort even when I had much more experience re-engineering other speakers and knew what had to be done took nearly four years from 2004 to 2008 before I considered it entirely successful.

My thanks, too, to soundminded for his reply. When I see a word like proprietary, I understand the secretive nature of explaining a function or use - especially if one is going to patent it or doesn't want another to steal the idea and patent it. If I understand soundminded correctly, the inherently low absolute vector distortion advantage disappears when the Bose 901 drivers start beaming at high frequencies. I believe that the Roy Allison drivers and speaker implementations also allow sound waves from a single instrument to arrive at the listener from a multitude of directions also - and his tweeters minimize the beaming. Do you agree or disagree soundminded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thanks, too, to soundminded for his reply. When I see a word like proprietary, I understand the secretive nature of explaining a function or use - especially if one is going to patent it or doesn't want another to steal the idea and patent it. If I understand soundminded correctly, the inherently low absolute vector distortion advantage disappears when the Bose 901 drivers start beaming at high frequencies. I believe that the Roy Allison drivers and speaker implementations also allow sound waves from a single instrument to arrive at the listener from a multitude of directions also - and his tweeters minimize the beaming. Do you agree or disagree soundminded?

When I refer to absolute vector distortion, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of sound propagated by a source. There are other types of vector distortion. (BTW, when you invent something, you have the liberty of putting whatever name you like on it.) Here's a simple example of what I mean. Next time you are at a piano bar or someone is playing a piano in a hotel lobby or a buskar (street musician) is playing a violin, or whatever, walk around the musician and the instrument. Notice that the tone of the instrument hardly changes at all. The rare exception may be a singer or a piano with its lid propped open. You'll lose some high frequencies when you're behind those. Now put your speaker in the middle of a room or better yet in your back yard and walk around it. Notice how the loudness changes. Much louder when you are in front of it, not nealy as loud when you are behind it. Because the vector propagation in different directions is so qualitatively different, in your listening room, the speaker can never sound like the musical instrument. This is because the sound propagated in different directions is reflected by the room differently in the two cases. Important reflections which give life to the musical instrument are quantatively absent and qualitatively different from the speaker. The sound coming out of it will always sound like its coming out of a box because most of it reaching you, especially at high frequencies is. Except for Bose 901. It is just about the only speaker where the sound actually seems to be alive in the room with you as though it was coming from actual musical instruments. This was IMO the reason it was so popular. Too bad its sound was so badly flawed in other ways that prevented it from reproducing the timbre of musical instruments accurately. The tendency of the 4" driver to beam or for 1" tweeters to beam for that matter compared to the midrange and woofer in ways real musical instruments don't propagate their high frequencies radically differently from other tones gives rise to another form of geometric distortion. My model explains these and many more. It takes a novel approach to the phenomenon of acoustics. It is this approach which is at the heart of my discoveries about sound and other inventions that arose from it including the one I patented. That idea may yet have the possibility of a new lease on life. That's why it remains unpublished.

BTW, without these enhancements, the Alison speakers are probably a better bet for most people IMO. They will at least play the top octave of the audible spectrum. That's very important if you can hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

You have written an interesting commentary of your quest and accomplishments, very well done, Soundminded.

Did using add-ons such as, the Microstatic tweeter arrays, of course with the original Peerless tweeter drivers, or Janszen 1-30 or equal speaker arrays

cross your mind in your investigation?

For a secretive man you write very openly, in my opinion, thank you very much.

I have never owned a pair or even auditioned a pair in my home.

On very rare occasion I did hear them demo'd in a few stereo stores, very spacious sounding indeed, when used with their speaker stands of course.

In my work in thousands of homes I only ever saw one pair of Bose 901's, at each end of a chesterfield, sitting on

the floor, used as end tables.

Once in a local pub, I saw a pair suspended from their ceiling, they were sufficiently far enough from the wall, which was good, but they were v'd toward the

open room.

I mentioned to them that they should be v'd towards the wall, and why, I never returned there to see if they reversed them.

It has been over 35 years since I last heard a pair.

Hi Vern. It's been a long time since I've seen your posts around here. I didn't try these other tweeters. They didn't do what I was looking to try anyway. And of course they are much more expensive. The mylar tweeters seem to do exactly what I want them to. They are small, cheap, and easy to find. The last batch I bought were so cheap I got 400 of them for $20. That's on top of about another 175 sitting in my basement that ran about 28 cents each. What I'm going to do with all of them I don't know. But if I burn a buch of them up, at least there won't be much to cry about. I've had 4 Tonegen ribbons in my basement for the longest time too. I don't know what I'll do with those either. They were part of a large batch of drivers I bought at a low fixed price. The rest weren't much to crow about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I refer to absolute vector distortion, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of sound propagated by a source. There are other types of vector distortion. (BTW, when you invent something, you have the liberty of putting whatever name you like on it.) Here's a simple example of what I mean. Next time you are at a piano bar or someone is playing a piano in a hotel lobby or a buskar (street musician) is playing a violin, or whatever, walk around the musician and the instrument. Notice that the tone of the instrument hardly changes at all. The rare exception may be a singer or a piano with its lid propped open. You'll lose some high frequencies when you're behind those. Now put your speaker in the middle of a room or better yet in your back yard and walk around it. Notice how the loudness changes. Much louder when you are in front of it, not nealy as loud when you are behind it. Because the vector propagation in different directions is so qualitatively different, in your listening room, the speaker can never sound like the musical instrument. This is because the sound propagated in different directions is reflected by the room differently in the two cases. Important reflections which give life to the musical instrument are quantatively absent and qualitatively different from the speaker. The sound coming out of it will always sound like its coming out of a box because most of it reaching you, especially at high frequencies is. Except for Bose 901. It is just about the only speaker where the sound actually seems to be alive in the room with you as though it was coming from actual musical instruments. This was IMO the reason it was so popular. Too bad its sound was so badly flawed in other ways that prevented it from reproducing the timbre of musical instruments accurately. The tendency of the 4" driver to beam or for 1" tweeters to beam for that matter compared to the midrange and woofer in ways real musical instruments don't propagate their high frequencies radically differently from other tones gives rise to another form of geometric distortion. My model explains these and many more. It takes a novel approach to the phenomenon of acoustics. It is this approach which is at the heart of my discoveries about sound and other inventions that arose from it including the one I patented. That idea may yet have the possibility of a new lease on life. That's why it remains unpublished.

BTW, without these enhancements, the Alison speakers are probably a better bet for most people IMO. They will at least play the top octave of the audible spectrum. That's very important if you can hear it.

Thanks for reply.

When you say "BTW, without these enhancements, the Alison speakers are probably a better bet for most people IMO. They will at least play the top octave of the audible spectrum. That's very important if you can hear it", I'm sure I can't hear it. But my idea was that the Allison drivers supposedly radiate the sound in a half hemisphere so that if you walked halfway around the speaker, you would hear what you were talking about - that is the sound would be the same on either side as the sound from the front. You couldn't walk behind the Allisons and hear the same sound, but because they are designed to be backed up against the wall or in a corner, the front and side sound should be reflected from the walls ala the Bose 901. So I would assume the Allison and Bose sound would be similar - but I don't know - I have heard the Allisons, but not the Bose 901s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soundminded:  I know that this thread is fossilized, but I have to challenge / correct this statement:  " Bose 901 has a distinct advantage over all other speaker systems in that it has what I call inherently low absolute vector distortion. This means that sound waves from a single instrument arrive at the listener from a multitude of directions just the way they do from live musical instruments".

There are three speakers that I can think of that do this equally well, if not in FAR superior fashion.  That is, the Walsh driver based Ohm A, Ohm F & Ohm G.  All three offer an even wider radiation pattern than the 901 AND they are time & phase coherent.  They are also far more linear in amplitude frequency response both within their usable ranges AND at the frequency extremes.  Having owned 901's & several pairs of Ohm's, I speak from experience with no guesswork involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2011 at 6:35 PM, soundminded said:

Hi Vern. It's been a long time since I've seen your posts around here. I didn't try these other tweeters. They didn't do what I was looking to try anyway. And of course they are much more expensive. The mylar tweeters seem to do exactly what I want them to. They are small, cheap, and easy to find. The last batch I bought were so cheap I got 400 of them for $20. That's on top of about another 175 sitting in my basement that ran about 28 cents each. What I'm going to do with all of them I don't know. But if I burn a buch of them up, at least there won't be much to cry about. I've had 4 Tonegen ribbons in my basement for the longest time too. I don't know what I'll do with those either. They were part of a large batch of drivers I bought at a low fixed price. The rest weren't much to crow about.

I'm curios to know why would you buy in batches? Just because the lasting quality is so low on these or you just didn't want to go to the store again. thx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 12:45 PM, Sean said:

Soundminded:  I know that this thread is fossilized, but I have to challenge / correct this statement:  " Bose 901 has a distinct advantage over all other speaker systems in that it has what I call inherently low absolute vector distortion. This means that sound waves from a single instrument arrive at the listener from a multitude of directions just the way they do from live musical instruments".

There are three speakers that I can think of that do this equally well, if not in FAR superior fashion.  That is, the Walsh driver based Ohm A, Ohm F & Ohm G.  All three offer an even wider radiation pattern than the 901 AND they are time & phase coherent.  They are also far more linear in amplitude frequency response both within their usable ranges AND at the frequency extremes.  Having owned 901's & several pairs of Ohm's, I speak from experience with no guesswork involved. 

Some reading on your OHM speakers....the G....closest in price....No properly functioning Ohm Gs are known to still exist because of the degradation original foam in the surround. They can be upgraded with the current 2000 driver, which has a rubber surround and will not need to be replaced....but at a cost of $1400!  The other even more expensive OHM's face a very expensive rebuild to be playable. 

Despite your argument about vector distortion, I am years later enjoying a $200 pair of series II 901's with only a hundred dollar upgrade to the equalizer. I will enjoy excellent vector distortion without spending big bucks to do it....but thanks for your opinion. I am sure the OHM's were really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×