Cartridge Loading- A Misnomer

BruceD

VIP/Donor
Dec 13, 2013
1,509
576
540
Peter: Complete and total agreement with everything that you wrote.

Being able to use higher-value loading impedances should allow you to hear more of the dynamics and resolution that the cartridge is capable of, while using lower-value loading impedances will limit how much of the cartridge's dynamics and resolution that you can usefully extract.

hth, jonathan

Good Day Mr Carr, Firstly let me say I am familiar with your excellent cartridges and wish to ask, do your products require the sound character with your statement above which seem to counter the comments that Ortofon maintain in my Question to them on that exact matter

Can both versions be correct re loading at the source?

The lower the load impedance, the higher the current and the more dynamic the sound.

Best regards
XXXXXX
Ortofon A/S


Thank you,

BruceD
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
Regarding loading of low-impedance MC cartridges, in general I recommend trying to reduce any capacitances present between cartridge and phono stage input to as little as possible. Use the lowest-capacitance phono cable that seems decent, turn off any additional capacitance in the input stage of the phono amplifier etc.

The reduced capacitance should make it possible for you use a wider range of loading impedances without having the sound go bright, peaky or thin-bodied. Conversely, any excess capacitance between cartridge and phono stage input will almost certainly force you into choosing lower loading impedances to save your ears.

Being able to use higher-value loading impedances should allow you to hear more of the dynamics and resolution that the cartridge is capable of, while using lower-value loading impedances will limit how much of the cartridge's dynamics and resolution that you can usefully extract.

As you said, live music is energy, and audio reproduction equipment should suppress that energy to the least extent possible.

hth, jonathan

1st I am a SME turntable lover. Sold my SME 20/2 SME IV/Vi, wish I would have kept it (used Lyra Lydian beta, helicon and Skala with that table over the 8 years i owned it). One day, I'll get a SME 30...

2nd Bruce your setup looks fantastic! If you ever get a chance to try footers under your SME 30 the Symposium Fat Padz or the Finite elemente Cerepucs made a pronounced change for my SME 20/2. Maybe the SME 30/2 better isolation renders this not as important...(the motor control reacts to isolation and power cords also)

3rd, I did what Jcarr discusses above with my Lyra Atlas. It's not a true apples to apples (when I traded my Tri Planar for the Schroeder LT's low capacitance silver captive cabling .5 meters). However my loading went from 150 to 840 on my Nagra VPS. Now the 150 ohm card just sounds dull and missing the dynamics and life...while the 840ohm is card retaining the flesh on the bones...but with much improved dynamics.

4th, Jcarr happy to see you posting here...always very valuable info from you
 

jcarr

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2012
52
30
913
Tokyo
www.lyraaudio.com
Hi Bruce:

do your products require the sound character with your statement above

I must be dense today, I don't understand what you mean by "require the sound character". Could you add some explanation?

My comments are based on an objective understanding (measurements, calculations, and simulations) of what a low-impedance cartridge generator is, what an interconnect is, what happens when the two are combined, what happens when resistors of various values are added to the mix, and what happens when extra capacitance is added. A low-impedance cartridge has an inductive generator, while a phono cable has significant capacitance. Put the two together and you get a huge spike at ultrasonic frequencies. These frequencies are much too high for any human to hear directly, but fall in a band that is likely to impair the linearity of the phono stage in much the same manner as excessive RF. When we "load down the cartridge", for the most part we don't affect what the cartridge does at all (unless the value of the load approaches or drops below the internal impedance of the cartridge). What adding resistive loading at the phono stage input accomplishes is to dampen the resonant energy of the ultrasonic spike, and give the phono stage an operating environment isn't so likely to trigger any latent non-linearity tendencies that the phono stage circuitry may have.

For the reasons given, the phrase "cartridge load" is misleading. "Phono stage input terminator" is a better description of what really happens.

Increased capacitance between cartridge and phono amplification circuitry will lower the frequency of the ultrasonic spike, which requires the application of lower resistive values to dampen the spike. Reduced capacitance between cartridge and phono amplification circuitry will increase the frequency of the ultrasonic spike, which can be tamed with higher-value resistive values.

The lower the load impedance, the higher the current and the more dynamic the sound.

The vast majority of phono stages are voltage amplification devices, so giving them more current will not provide any benefit. On the contrary, lower load impedances will attenuate the signal voltage that reaches the phono stage, which is a disadvantage for phono stages that use voltage amplification circuitry. Mind you, I am speaking in objective terms - I would have no quarrel with anyone who claimed subjective benefits.

OTOH, if your phono stage is one of the rare designs that uses I/V circuitry (current-to-voltage conversion), it will benefit from lots of signal current, and will not benefit from signal voltage. However, such designs tend to have zero-ohm input impedance, or state that the input impedance will match itself to the source impedance of the cartridge, which makes the entire issue of input loading moot.

hth, jonathan
 
  • Love
Reactions: Another Johnson

BruceD

VIP/Donor
Dec 13, 2013
1,509
576
540
Thank you Mr. Carr for your prompt reply I apologize for not being clear in my prose--not wishing to encroach any further on the original thread--I just was meaning to clear up the following statements from yourself and Ortofon

Which seem to be at cross-purposes -- I meant to enquire--are you both correct/one correct and one not?

You stated "Highly value Loading Impedances allow more of the Dynamics and Resolution/etc--and lower value will limit these Values"

Ortofon when asked the same Question answered:

"The lower the load impedance, the higher the current and the more dynamic the sound".

Am I the only one who finds this slightly confusing--comparing to your comment above

Thank you again,

BruceD
 

jcarr

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2012
52
30
913
Tokyo
www.lyraaudio.com
Dear Bruce:

In my previous reply (particularly the last two paragraphs) I provided the rationale for my position that, when using low-impedance MC cartridges, terminating the input of a voltage amplification phono stage (which most likely describes your Pass Labs) with lower value resistors is not beneficial for dynamics or resolution. It would be useful you could ask Ortofon to explain the rationale for their position, and while they are at it, why feeding more signal current at the cost of less signal voltage into a voltage amplification circuit is supposed to be a benefit.

It could also be useful if you could ask Pass Labs if feeding their phono stage with an attenuated signal from the cartridge will result in an objectively more dynamic sound.

I concur with John Frech when he describes the subjective listening benefits that occur when reduced capacitance between cartridge and phono stage make it feasible to use higher-value input resistors to terminate the input of the phono stage.

If I may quote John, "my loading (with reduced capacitance) went from 150 to 840 on my Nagra VPS. Now the 150 ohm card just sounds dull and missing the dynamics and life...while the 840ohm card is retaining the flesh on the bones...but with much improved dynamics."

kind regards, jonathan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Another Johnson

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Hi Bruce:



I must be dense today, I don't understand what you mean by "require the sound character". Could you add some explanation?

My comments are based on an objective understanding (measurements, calculations, and simulations) of what a low-impedance cartridge generator is, what an interconnect is, what happens when the two are combined, what happens when resistors of various values are added to the mix, and what happens when extra capacitance is added. A low-impedance cartridge has an inductive generator, while a phono cable has significant capacitance. Put the two together and you get a huge spike at ultrasonic frequencies. These frequencies are much too high for any human to hear directly, but fall in a band that is likely to impair the linearity of the phono stage in much the same manner as excessive RF. When we "load down the cartridge", for the most part we don't affect what the cartridge does at all (unless the value of the load approaches or drops below the internal impedance of the cartridge). What adding resistive loading at the phono stage input accomplishes is to dampen the resonant energy of the ultrasonic spike, and give the phono stage an operating environment isn't so likely to trigger any latent non-linearity tendencies that the phono stage circuitry may have.

For the reasons given, the phrase "cartridge load" is misleading. "Phono stage input terminator" is a better description of what really happens.

Increased capacitance between cartridge and phono amplification circuitry will lower the frequency of the ultrasonic spike, which requires the application of lower resistive values to dampen the spike. Reduced capacitance between cartridge and phono amplification circuitry will increase the frequency of the ultrasonic spike, which can be tamed with higher-value resistive values.



The vast majority of phono stages are voltage amplification devices, so giving them more current will not provide any benefit. On the contrary, lower load impedances will attenuate the signal voltage that reaches the phono stage, which is a disadvantage for phono stages that use voltage amplification circuitry. Mind you, I am speaking in objective terms - I would have no quarrel with anyone who claimed subjective benefits.

OTOH, if your phono stage is one of the rare designs that uses I/V circuitry (current-to-voltage conversion), it will benefit from lots of signal current, and will not benefit from signal voltage. However, such designs tend to have zero-ohm input impedance, or state that the input impedance will match itself to the source impedance of the cartridge, which makes the entire issue of input loading moot.

hth, jonathan

I think that explains why when I was using the Avid phono,with selectable loading, the Air Tight was the only MC cartridge that showed sensitivity to capacitive loading.

Nick Doshi and I discussed the topic of cartridge loading because his phono stage doesn't allow for >3300 ohms loading. His contention (and I don't mean to put any words in Nick's mouth) that higher loading leads to issues with Johnson noise. Plus
Nick also pointed out that the added "detail" at the say higher loadings actually obscures "real" information. I hear what he's talking about with the Atlas and other cartridges -but I attribute that to his phono section being very neutral and resolving without the need for extra kick.

Maybe Nick can say it more eloquently than me.
 

jcarr

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2012
52
30
913
Tokyo
www.lyraaudio.com
Hi Myles: Most likely, all low-impedance MC cartridges will cause ultrasonic resonances when played through the capacitance of a phono interconnect, and burning off the resonant energy is the primary benefit of the "cartridge loading resistor" at the phono stage input. But since the Air Tight and MySonicLabs cartridges are designed to have very low internal impedance, there is even less self-resistance available than normal that could be useful in damping out reactive resonances. Therefore, differences in capacitive loading are more likely to be easily audible with cartridges that have very low internal impedance.

His contention (and I don't mean to put any words in Nick's mouth) that higher loading leads to issues with Johnson noise.

I don't buy this explanation, because the higher-value loading resistors will be in parallel with the cartridge's self-impedance, therefore the net impedance, and therefore the net Johnson noise, will be dominated by the low impedance of the cartridge's coils.

Plus Nick also pointed out that the added "detail" at the say higher loadings actually obscures "real" information.

If the phono stage does not have high overload margin at ultrasonic frequencies, or not-so-favorable linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the ultrasonic spike resulting from high-value resistive loads (the spike can be in excess of 30dB at 5-7MHz if the phono stage input termination is 10kohm or higher) can easily result in ringing and intermodulation distortion which will obscure real information, which is undoubtedly what Nick is referring to.

But if the designer does give his phono stage high overload margin and good linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the phono stage will treat the ultrasonic spike as simply another signal, and no intermodulation distortion products will be generated that could otherwise be low enough in frequency for the ear to hear. IOW, there will no longer be any distortion products to conceal real information with.

The reactive ultrasonic spike between cartridge inductance and cable capacitance (or phono stage input capacitance) is a real problem that the phono designer should take into consideration during the design process.

One countermeasure would be to design a phono stage input network that efficiently damps out the ultrasonic spike without needing to resort to heavy-handed resistive damping. Way back in 1936, Alan Blumlein published a patent that discusses how to make reactive loads behave like purely resistive ones. The US patent number is 2035457, for anyone who is interested in reading it.

A second countermeasure would be to design the phono stage for high overload margin and good linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, so that even when ultrasonic spikes do occur, the phono stage isn't flummoxed by this.

A third countermeasure would be to reduce the capacitance between cartridge and phono stage to the smallest value possible, since the resulting ultrasonic spike can be damped out with higher-value resistive loads than if greater capacitances were involved.

I hear what he's talking about with the Atlas and other cartridges - but I attribute that to his phono section being very neutral and resolving without the need for extra kick.

As most phono stages are designed are right now, the input resistor needs to serve two functions. The sonically dominating function is to make sure that the resonant ultrasonic spike isn't so large that it affects the behaviour of the phono stage. The sonically lesser function is to load the cartridge. I would like to see these two functions separated so that we can start discussing cartridge loading in terms of what it does for the cartridge, rather than as a phono stage band-aid in disguise.

kind regards, jonathan
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Hi Myles: Most likely, all low-impedance MC cartridges will cause ultrasonic resonances when played through the capacitance of a phono interconnect, and burning off the resonant energy is the primary benefit of the "cartridge loading resistor" at the phono stage input. But since the Air Tight and MySonicLabs cartridges are designed to have very low internal impedance, there is even less self-resistance available than normal that could be useful in damping out reactive resonances. Therefore, differences in capacitive loading are more likely to be easily audible with cartridges that have very low internal impedance.



I don't buy this explanation, because the higher-value loading resistors will be in parallel with the cartridge's self-impedance, therefore the net impedance, and therefore the net Johnson noise, will be dominated by the low impedance of the cartridge's coils.



If the phono stage does not have high overload margin at ultrasonic frequencies, or not-so-favorable linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the ultrasonic spike resulting from high-value resistive loads (the spike can be in excess of 30dB at 5-7MHz if the phono stage input termination is 10kohm or higher) can easily result in ringing and intermodulation distortion which will obscure real information, which is undoubtedly what Nick is referring to.

But if the designer does give his phono stage high overload margin and good linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, the phono stage will treat the ultrasonic spike as simply another signal, and no intermodulation distortion products will be generated that could otherwise be low enough in frequency for the ear to hear. IOW, there will no longer be any distortion products to conceal real information with.

The reactive ultrasonic spike between cartridge inductance and cable capacitance (or phono stage input capacitance) is a real problem that the phono designer should take into consideration during the design process.

One countermeasure would be to design a phono stage input network that efficiently damps out the ultrasonic spike without needing to resort to heavy-handed resistive damping. Way back in 1936, Alan Blumlein published a patent that discusses how to make reactive loads behave like purely resistive ones. The US patent number is 2035457, for anyone who is interested in reading it.

A second countermeasure would be to design the phono stage for high overload margin and good linearity at ultrasonic frequencies, so that even when ultrasonic spikes do occur, the phono stage isn't flummoxed by this.

A third countermeasure would be to reduce the capacitance between cartridge and phono stage to the smallest value possible, since the resulting ultrasonic spike can be damped out with higher-value resistive loads than if greater capacitances were involved.



As most phono stages are designed are right now, the input resistor needs to serve two functions. The sonically dominating function is to make sure that the resonant ultrasonic spike isn't so large that it affects the behaviour of the phono stage. The sonically lesser function is to load the cartridge. I would like to see these two functions separated so that we can start discussing cartridge loading in terms of what it does for the cartridge, rather than as a phono stage band-aid in disguise.

kind regards, jonathan

Couple of questions.

What sort of value are we talking for a low impedance cartridge? (Another very, very low impedance cartridge I had here a while back was the Haniwa. In this case, the designer had designed a phono section specially for the low impedance.)

Two, what sort of phono section overload margin are you talking about? I assume this was something you worked on in your now discontinued phono stage. In the old days, the overload margin of phono sections was talked about quite a bit, but I assumed that issue was a non-issue in most modern phono section?

I know you discuss cables in the literature accompanying your latest cartridges but what sort of cable capacitance are we talking about. If I'm reading this right, also seems to throw that old dogma out the window that MC cartridges, at least low impedance that covers quite a few nowadays save the Benzs and high output MC cartridges off the top of my head, are immune to to capacitive loading?

Nick IIRC had measured the performance of quite a few cartridges thru his phono section and many performed best at 100 ohms. But Nick has more info on that or can correct me.
 

BruceD

VIP/Donor
Dec 13, 2013
1,509
576
540
Allow me to thank Mr Carr for his enlightening responses to this thread -- it is indeed refreshing when a major designer in our field takes the time to explain his methodology.

highly commendable and thank you again

BruceD
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott Naylor

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Allow me to thank Mr Carr for his enlightening responses to this thread -- it is indeed refreshing when a major designer in our field takes the time to explain his methodology.

highly commendable and thank you again

BruceD

+1
 

jfrech

VIP/Donor
Sep 3, 2012
2,152
749
1,160
Austin
+2
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
+3. Here's a link to a site that shows you to where the ultrasonic spike will occur using Pspice models. http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html The model for low impedance/ low inductance carts are at the bottom of the page.

Like Johnathan says the impact of the spike on the signal will depend on the design of the phono stage, but this will give you an idea of what happens with different capacitance and resistance loading values. Knowing that different phono stages behave differently means that you need to use your ears to determine the best loading for your particular combo.

Now that I'm using a phono stage that allows custom loading, I am learning how important loading really is.
 
Last edited:

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
I am late to this discussion, and I find all of Jonathan's comments extremely accurate; I think the following summarizes it perfectly:

A third countermeasure would be to reduce the capacitance between cartridge and phono stage to the smallest value possible, since the resulting ultrasonic spike can be damped out with higher-value resistive loads than if greater capacitances were involved.

Indeed, capacitance does matter even for MC cartridges, and the Hagerman link Sean posted should be read VERY carefully, and so should the formula for calculating optimal resistive loading. The real problem with using the formula is that no cart manufacturer publishes inherent inductance for their cartridges, and although the values for MCs are very very low, they still matter as does the inductance of all cabling involved. At any rate, indeed, higher loading resistive values do offer higher dynamic range (thus, one does need as low capacitive loading as possible), and with my A90 I have been loading it at 1K, after a lot of experimentation and numerous calculations. I have a feeling the higher dynamic range is actually due to the lower current flowing through the cartridge as explained in this thread on down http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3468-Ortofon-A90&p=81833&viewfull=1#post81833

An important consequence of all this is that, the tonearm and phono cables one chooses must have as minimal capacitance as possible, in order for one then to be able to set the resistive loading higher and thus gain in dynamic range. Capacitive properties is the only reason I ended up with the VPI arm and its Valhalla internal cabling, and finally with the MIT MA-X phono interconnect.

Given all this, I am actually in the process of modifying the XP-25 to bypass its lowest capacitive load value of 100pF - I think it is a design flaw not to be able to bypass capacitive loading in that unit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeotrope

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I am late to this discussion, and I find all of Jonathan's comments extremely accurate; I think the following summarizes it perfectly:



Indeed, capacitance does matter even for MC cartridges, and the Hagerman link Sean posted should be read VERY carefully, and so should the formula for calculating optimal resistive loading. The real problem with using the formula is that no cart manufacturer publishes inherent inductance for their cartridges, and although the values for MCs are very very low, they still matter as does the inductance of all cabling involved. At any rate, indeed, higher loading resistive values do offer higher dynamic range (thus, one does need as low capacitive loading as possible), and with my A90 I have been loading it at 1K, after a lot of experimentation and numerous calculations. I have a feeling the higher dynamic range is actually due to the lower current flowing through the cartridge as explained in this thread on down http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3468-Ortofon-A90&p=81833&viewfull=1#post81833

An important consequence of all this is that, the tonearm and phono cables one chooses must have as minimal capacitance as possible, in order for one then to be able to set the resistive loading higher and thus gain in dynamic range. Capacitive properties is the only reason I ended up with the VPI arm and its Valhalla internal cabling, and finally with the MIT MA-X phono interconnect.

Given all this, I am actually in the process of modifying the XP-25 to bypass its lowest capacitive load value of 100pF - I think it is a design flaw not to be able to bypass capacitive loading in that unit.

Good points Ack. There are a lot of carts with no inductance spec info.

Another way to lower the capacitance is to use as short a cable as possible. On my Schroder LT I ordered it with a .75 meter phono cable length. I have my phono stage right underneath the turntable.

Ack if you are going to have a tech change the internal capacitance then I would also suggest having them change the input resistors to Z-foil nude Vishays as well. I have done this on two phono stages and it is a must hear. Really a no brainer IMO.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Good points Ack. There are a lot of carts with no inductance spec info.

Another way to lower the capacitance is to use as short a cable as possible. On my Schroder LT I ordered it with a .75 meter phono cable length. I have my phono stage right underneath the turntable.

Ack if you are going to have a tech change the internal capacitance then I would also suggest having them change the input resistors to Z-foil nude Vishays as well. I have done this on two phono stages and it is a must hear. Really a no brainer IMO.

I think Pass is already using very good load resistors, but I will look into it as well. thanks. BTW, the tech is me :D

PS: I should have said inductance figures are not available for MC carts, not all of them...
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
I just ordered a Cardas Clear Phono cable to try out. I'm sure it will be better than the stock cable!
 

jcarr

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2012
52
30
913
Tokyo
www.lyraaudio.com
I have conducted similar investigations as Jim Hagerman, but using more complex cartridge and cable models that are derived from real-world measurements.

Based on these investigations, I authored a document package that was originally created as a white paper to support Lyra's PhonoPipe, a low-capacitance twin-axial phono cable that we started offering from the latter half of last year (may not be available in all markets). However, the focus of the document package is almost completely on the various electrical parameters and the effects that they cause, so any cable of similarly low capacitance should demonstrate the benefits mentioned in the documents.

I wish that I could attach the documents to this post (everything has been zipped into a single archive of 253kB), but I don't know how. Instead, I am willing to send the documents to anyone would like to study this. Just send me a PM with your email address.

Or if a What's Best moderator can help me attach the 253kB zip archive to a post, that would also be good.

Once more people have a chance to study my documentation, and have a chance to play around with the calculators on Jim Hagerman's website, it should be possible to have more meaningful, in-depth discussions about this topic.

kind regards, jonathan

PS. Myles, the Kubotek Haniwa is another design by Matsudaira, and uses the same high performance permeable core materials found in the Air Tight and My Sonic Labs designs.

PPS. Low-impedance MC cartridges are not-very-efficient electrical generators that have little reason to care about how they are loaded (unless the loading value starts to approach the cartridge's internal impedance). It is the phono stage that is far more likely to complain about capacitive loading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Another Johnson

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I just ordered a Cardas Clear Phono cable to try out. I'm sure it will be better than the stock cable!

Although Cardas does not specify the Clear Phono capacitance their Clear IC cables are ultra low capacitance - we should not expect the phono one to be different in this aspect. Clear is wonderful for people wanting to use very long ICs with tube equipment - the XLR capacitance is 8 pF per foot.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Jonathan's is apparently 5.3pF/ft (currently reviewing his research, more on that later)
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
So clearly Jonathan's research shows that:

a) with higher capacitance, you need lower optimal resistive loading, but still around 149ohms even with high capacitance cables (197pF) and his Kleos - so no idea where the usual comment that "100ohms is best with Lyras" I frequently see, is coming from; his cable offers 267ohms optimal loading of the same cartridge;

b) There are nasty peaks of 30+dB with 47k loadings in every case

c) You can bring resistive loading up to 690ohms with his cable and with a ~6dB peak, but all peaks are in the MHz

More later
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing