My default audiophile state: dissatisfaction

[Atmasphere]

Please explain this to me. The preamp "knows" what are cable artifacts and what is program material? How does it know what is an artifact and what is the music you want to hear? How does it remove artifacts that occur before and after itself in the signal path? How does it know what are artifacts from good cables you supposedly want and artifacts from bad cables you don't?

Sounds like voodoo.

Its not- the artifacts in any cable have to do with the overall impedance of the system of which the cable is a part. If the impedance of the system is low, the cable will have less artifact. This situation is not new and was solved back in the late 1940s with the advent of balanced line operation. In fact the balanced line system was designed specifically to eliminate cable artifact and it works at that really well as long as the equipment used supports the balanced standard (note- most high end audio stuff doesn't). BTW the low impedance thing works for single-ended too.

That is funny..because the first word that came to my mind was voodoo...vulcan mind meld? (RIP Spock).

IMO, I repeat, IMO< the preamp is the single most limiting factor to transparency in a high end end system.

This is not entirely true- what is true is that is *can* be if poorly designed. The best speakers and amps in the world are useless if the preamp is unable to carry through with the signal. But the lack of a preamp does not mean that the signal will be more pure! There are lots of problems with passive devices and apparently lots of problems with DACs and stand-alone phono sections such that a good preamp that indeed works correctly can correct a lot of sins.

I'm not used to hearing the effects of cables in my system as my preamp is one of the few in high end audio that supports the balanced standard. To that end:
1) has a low output impedance and not only can drive 600 ohms but will drive 32 headphones as well (the latter not required to support the standard)
2) ground is ignored and carries no signal current either at the output of the preamp or the input of the amp. This is where most high end audio preamps fall flat on their faces.
3) pinout- pin 1 ground, pins 2 and 3 are signal carrying equal weight (and don't fall for that 'cold' and 'hot' thing that you sometimes hear about - all that does is promote confusion).

If your preamp can do all this you can run really long runs of inexpensive cable. I use Mogami Neglex in my system, 30 feet of it. I've tried high end cables but you just don't hear a difference. Similarly, the phono cartridge is a low impedance balanced source if a LOMC version, so I run a balanced line there too and have the same benefit of no cable artifact.

The thing that gets me about this is that this was all solved 65 years ago but we still have people thinking that such isn't even possible. You would think that audiophiles would embrace a simple technology that works as well as this does but you would be amazed at the pushback I've gotten over balanced lines in the last 25 years... (FWIW we offered the world's first balanced line preamps back in 1989).

 

[DaveyF]

I agree.

I'm not so sure. The sound that we hear "live" is always ( at least to me) something that I can recognize immediately. Agreed that the "live" instrument can and does sound somewhat different depending on numerous variables. So, the goal of the "Absolute Sound" still seems to stand. The reproduction of the "live" event ( and according to HP, an unamplified "live" event) sufficient to "fool" one into thinking that the reproduced is "live". I do NOT think this goal is that realsitic for a sophisticated listener, however, the closer we can come, the more we as a'philes are succeeding, IMO.
BTW, when I say dissatisfaction is inherent in our hobby, that references the ability to get close enough to the goal....NOT necessarily with the sound that we have achieved so far with our systems. I, for one, am pretty happy with the SQ of my system.BUT, it could always be better...like everyone else's system.

Andre, BIG +1 on your first post in this thread.

 

[LL21]

Thanks for all the responses, I see the can is open and the worms are everywhere! I want to answer the questions asked as best I can, but I feel I should start here:

...it seems clear that my current method of upgrading isn't working for me, as my approach seems to take me too far down one path at the expense of others...

...I always pushed for resolution and clarity, each upgrade had to give me more details, and on the face of it that seems sensible. ...and as a result I always ended up prioritising that over everything else. ... Some part of me thought that if it ...conveyed the purity of the human voice and accurate instrumental timbres then everything else would be good too.
... If there's any kind of large-scale complexity that needs a solid underpinning, it's going to sound quite compromised. If the recording is warm (or even distantly-mic'ed) then it'll probably sound good, and I have lots of examples, but there are just too many recordings that I can't enjoy for me to be happy. Rock is very difficult (in the words of one non-audiophile friend: "It sounds tinny") but these days I don't listen to so much of that. I can't decide whether I don't listen because I don't want to or because it sounds bad. Jazz generally sounds good, but even early Miles Davis can be a turn-off because the tonal balance seems so tilted towards upper-mid hardness. Large-scale choral works can sound unnaturally spotlit and thin, as can orchestral music. Classical piano and organ music often lack scale, and I'm not even talking about pedal notes here.

For me, it seems to be a question of tonal balance, with upper-mid exaggerated at the expense of upper bass.

... The final kicker: I'm a pretty good organist, ... I just need something that does it better, and that can provide a more even-handed approach across the board.

...I'd lose some resolution and clarity for that now.

Final final thought: I've heard lots of systems I like (and lots that I haven't) but the recurring theme is that systems I like have a certain broad brush "sweep" to them, systems I increasingly don't like are of the forensic sort. I used to favour "warts an' all" but I'm starting to think that I no longer want that. However, I don't want to go too far the other way in my search for gorgeousness of sound.

Let me make sure I got the gyst right. You are looking for:

- tonal BALANCE over ultimate detail
- effortlessness in scale
- and that means (ideally) full range scale so that when you crank the rock or the organ, you get a thrill if not the 'real thing'

Frankly, i can totally relate to that. As you can see in my own system...i have a lot of stuff that focuses on tonal purity first...and that ultimately has detail, extension, etc...because it happens to be the reference level of the designer...but that element of tonal purity and tonal balance comes first for me. Then bass, scale and effortlessness. And THEN its great to have detail, separation, soundstage and the things that put a smile on my audiophile side.

Looking at your system, as a WAG...let me make some [personal] observations. GRAAF and Kharma are surely know for being very well articulated designs. I am not sure how much 'grunt' and outright scale you get with either...but for now, lets assume you got them for reasons which still are important to you.

...The Wadia...a good piece for sure...given your priorities, you might be pleasantly surprised by how much digital has leapt forward.

My two cents...just to see what the heck happens...try a Vivaldi or Zanden digital setup, an all-out sub, a JL, a big Velodyne, and just see what you think. Your system is comprised of pretty discerning/'high ability to dissect'-type components...and i wonder if you put a different voice behind them...if you might not like what you hear. And the sub is for sub 40hz grunt and power...which does some great things for low end, organ and power...but also can do some very nice things to the mids..

You may not wish to spend this kind of money, but i like starting with state of the art pieces so that i can see if that truly is the direction i want to go...and then if need be pare back from there.

 

[bonzo75]

I have zero interest in being satisfied. That is because I am not trying to go SOTA in audio at all. I average one live classical concert a week (doing three this week, actually - Purcell Opera, Brahms 4th, and Mahler's 1st), and get my Zeppelin feed from youtube bootlegs, so I am not pretending to be in audiophilia for music. This is a fun addictive hobby, and I love being dissatisfied, and tweaking, and trying to gauge what can change the sound, and going around auditioning other systems. Discovering new stuff. It's the geek in me. If you want to be satisfied, buy a one-box room corrected system like Linn that's easy to live with and get it over with. If you are posting on this forum, you are an audiophile druggie and there is no cure to your lack of satisfaction. None of you have the right tonality, bass, soundstage, all of it. That's why forums like these exist

 

[Al M.]

...The Wadia...a good piece for sure...given your priorities, you might be pleasantly surprised by how much digital has leapt forward.

Old Wadias are surprisingly good, and changing the CD player won't dramatically change tonal balance. I'd keep the Wadia in his situation, given the budget.

My two cents...just to see what the heck happens...try a Vivaldi or Zanden digital setup, an all-out sub, a JL, a big Velodyne, and just see what you think. Your system is comprised of pretty discerning/'high ability to dissect'-type components...and i wonder if you put a different voice behind them...if you might not like what you hear. And the sub is for sub 40hz grunt and power...which does some great things for low end, organ and power...but also can do some very nice things to the mids..

You may not wish to spend this kind of money, but i like starting with state of the art pieces so that i can see if that truly is the direction i want to go...and then if need be pare back from there.

I am afraid you are playing too much attention too electronics/speakers. I firmly stand behind my suggestion that the room is the first thing that needs to be addressed.

 

[Orb]

That is funny..because the first word that came to my mind was voodoo...vulcan mind meld? (RIP Spock).

IMO, I repeat, IMO< the preamp is the single most limiting factor to transparency in a high end end system.

This is not entirely true- what is true is that is *can* be if poorly designed. The best speakers and amps in the world are useless if the preamp is unable to carry through with the signal. But the lack of a preamp does not mean that the signal will be more pure! There are lots of problems with passive devices and apparently lots of problems with DACs and stand-alone phono sections such that a good preamp that indeed works correctly can correct a lot of sins.
........
If your preamp can do all this you can run really long runs of inexpensive cable. I use Mogami Neglex in my system, 30 feet of it. I've tried high end cables but you just don't hear a difference. Similarly, the phono cartridge is a low impedance balanced source if a LOMC version, so I run a balanced line there too and have the same benefit of no cable artifact.

The thing that gets me about this is that this was all solved 65 years ago but we still have people thinking that such isn't even possible. You would think that audiophiles would embrace a simple technology that works as well as this does but you would be amazed at the pushback I've gotten over balanced lines in the last 25 years... (FWIW we offered the world's first balanced line preamps back in 1989).

TBH for many people these days I do feel the top integrated amps are the way to go, as it removes the hassle of considering the preamp and related system and cable synergy.
I tend to agree only a few designs sound exceptional without a preamp (where relying upon the DAC to be that), which brings us back to the good integrated where this is not an issue, especially if one does not listen to LPs.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Don Hills]

... I am afraid you are playing too much attention too electronics/speakers. I firmly stand behind my suggestion that the room is the first thing that needs to be addressed.

Indeed. The elephant in the room ... is the room.

And may I add that it is refreshing to see a dealer (JackD) recommending optimising the position of the speakers you have before spending money on new ones. Just turning your speakers a few degrees can often make a bigger difference than replacing all of your electronics and cables.

 

[Orb]

Indeed. The elephant in the room ... is the room.

And may I add that it is refreshing to see a dealer (JackD) recommending optimising the position of the speakers you have before spending money on new ones. Just turning your speakers a few degrees can often make a bigger difference than replacing all of your electronics and cables.

It is true the room can have the greatest influence on sound and possibly quality (depending upon criteria/scope) but it does not necessarily have the greatest influence on cognitive listening dissonance/unpleasant related dissatisfaction.
It is interesting how many improve their room and then still change their equipment due to lack of satisfaction or identified "dissonance" in context of long term listening/ownership (rather than say first several months).

The assumption though is that the room (including what is in the room such as glass tables-wall and floor materials,etc) and speaker placement-positioning is not a total disaster.
So yeah agree some effort should be taken and consideration for the environment it is in also with boundary reinforcement/reflection, including rake angle of the speaker/listening height as part of positioning/toe-in/distances.

Not disagreeing just do not feel room situation is necessarily the root issue for many identifying dissonance/lack of enjoyment with their system, but it can add to the satisfaction.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Andre Marc]

Its not- the artifacts in any cable have to do with the overall impedance of the system of which the cable is a part. If the impedance of the system is low, the cable will have less artifact. This situation is not new and was solved back in the late 1940s with the advent of balanced line operation. In fact the balanced line system was designed specifically to eliminate cable artifact and it works at that really well as long as the equipment used supports the balanced standard (note- most high end audio stuff doesn't). BTW the low impedance thing works for single-ended too.



This is not entirely true- what is true is that is *can* be if poorly designed. The best speakers and amps in the world are useless if the preamp is unable to carry through with the signal. But the lack of a preamp does not mean that the signal will be more pure! There are lots of problems with passive devices and apparently lots of problems with DACs and stand-alone phono sections such that a good preamp that indeed works correctly can correct a lot of sins.

I'm not used to hearing the effects of cables in my system as my preamp is one of the few in high end audio that supports the balanced standard. To that end:
1) has a low output impedance and not only can drive 600 ohms but will drive 32 headphones as well (the latter not required to support the standard)
2) ground is ignored and carries no signal current either at the output of the preamp or the input of the amp. This is where most high end audio preamps fall flat on their faces.
3) pinout- pin 1 ground, pins 2 and 3 are signal carrying equal weight (and don't fall for that 'cold' and 'hot' thing that you sometimes hear about - all that does is promote confusion).

If your preamp can do all this you can run really long runs of inexpensive cable. I use Mogami Neglex in my system, 30 feet of it. I've tried high end cables but you just don't hear a difference. Similarly, the phono cartridge is a low impedance balanced source if a LOMC version, so I run a balanced line there too and have the same benefit of no cable artifact.

The thing that gets me about this is that this was all solved 65 years ago but we still have people thinking that such isn't even possible. You would think that audiophiles would embrace a simple technology that works as well as this does but you would be amazed at the pushback I've gotten over balanced lines in the last 25 years... (FWIW we offered the world's first balanced line preamps back in 1989).

I appreciate your post, informative, educational, and lays out your position clearly.

My response comes as a layman, I am no engineer, and I don't play one on TV.

I understand the concept behind balanced, but that being said, plenty of mega talented designers who make astoundingly good sounding gear, like
Eva Anna Manley, Conrad and Johnson, Vladimir Lamm, and a slew of others feel that balanced circuits and cables provide absolutely no benefit
in the typical home system. Don't shoot the messenger. On the OTHER hand, guys like Charles Hansen of Ayre and the folks at ARC certainly prefer
balanced.

Yes, the problem may have been solved decades ago, but for, correct me if I am wrong, a different purpose. and that was for extremely long cable runs
for microphones etc.

I personally rarely ever run more than a 1 Meter IC. And at that length balanced is a solution in search of a problem..IMO.

And back to my statement concerning preamps..you your self imply most, even very high end ones, are not designed well, or at least correctly...an even
better case to eliminate it.

Agree that not ALL passives are good, but the good ones are superb.

 

[Andre Marc]

TBH for many people these days I do feel the top integrated amps are the way to go, as it removes the hassle of considering the preamp and related system and cable synergy.
I tend to agree only a few designs sound exceptional without a preamp (where relying upon the DAC to be that), which brings us back to the good integrated where this is not an issue, especially if one does not listen to LPs.

Cheers
Orb

From my experience, integrated amps with passive input stages are superior...basically a power amp with input selector and volume attenuation.

 

[Orb]

From my experience, integrated amps with passive input stages are superior...basically a power amp with input selector and volume attenuation.

Yeah,
and integrated amps have come a long way in the last 10 years, and the performance/price ratio is the icing on the cake, and IMO easier to find/put together a complete system one can really enjoy.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Andre Marc]

Yeah,
and integrated amps have come a long way in the last 10 years, and the performance/price ratio is the icing on the cake, and IMO easier to find/put together a complete system one can really enjoy.

Cheers
Orb

You are preaching to the choir!!!

 

[Atmasphere]

I understand the concept behind balanced, but that being said, plenty of mega talented designers who make astoundingly good sounding gear, like
Eva Anna Manley, Conrad and Johnson, Vladimir Lamm, and a slew of others feel that balanced circuits and cables provide absolutely no benefit
in the typical home system. Don't shoot the messenger. On the OTHER hand, guys like Charles Hansen of Ayre and the folks at ARC certainly prefer
balanced.

Yes, the problem may have been solved decades ago, but for, correct me if I am wrong, a different purpose. and that was for extremely long cable runs
for microphones etc.

I personally rarely ever run more than a 1 Meter IC. And at that length balanced is a solution in search of a problem..IMO.

And back to my statement concerning preamps..you your self imply most, even very high end ones, are not designed well, or at least correctly...an even
better case to eliminate it.

Agree that not ALL passives are good, but the good ones are superb.

A lotta stuff here. First, the last- the math always goes against you with passives. The best way to use one is to have it built into the amp. Otherwise most of the PVCs are going to eat bass as you turn them down from all the way up.

If someone tells you that balanced brings no benefit to a home system it is simply because they have no idea what they are talking about, have a single-ended system to sell, or both. Its that simple; that is one of the biggest myths about balanced line operation out there! FWIW, I didn't go balanced for any other reason than I saw what it could do way back when I played in the local civic orchestra when I was in high school (early 1970s). I saw Neumann microphones being used to record the orchestra, and the runs to the recorder were a good 100 feet. I introduced myself to the recordist and got a listen to the headphones. The sound was stunning! That stuck with me- microphones don't put out a lot of signal yet they sounded amazing running through all that cable. The significance of that did not really dawn on me until years later when I started hearing differences in cables as I got into high end.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you like music, it is recorded almost entirely in the balanced domain. Here in Minnesota, Mercury recorded the Minneapolis Symphony at Northrup Auditorium. They ran nearly 200 feet of cable between the mics and the recorders which were permanently mounted in their recording truck. Yet the better your stereo gets, the better any of the recordings from the Golden Age gets. If the cables were a problem eventually their artifact would turn up. But instead the recordings just sound more and more like music.

Put another way, if you have ever preferred one interconnect over another then you know exactly why even a 1 meter run done with balanced can work better. Its like no cable at all. This is a very real argument; otherwise no-one would push their brand of single-ended cable over someone else's- they would all sound exactly the same. Balanced can be an improvement even if the run is only 6 inches- the length is irrelevant.

The reason balanced lines have not been used in home audio has mostly been about cost. Back in the 1950s when HiFi was still being sorted out, home equipment went with single-ended connections entirely out of cost benefit and nothing else- it was thought that the cables would always be short and the RCA connector was cheap and had wide bandwidth (it was developed for television tuners) so why not? Nowadays in high end audio cost is not so much of an issue and the why not has to do with the fact that there are monoblock amps that can be placed by loudspeakers, keeping speaker cables short, and we have discovered the unsettling reality which is that we can hear differences in cables even if they are only a meter long.

The problem with many preamps, the demonstration of how poor many of them are is the simple fact that quite often it does sound better to run a passive. That in itself is a statement of how bad things are! But if a preamp designer understands what the preamp is supposed to do (and many apparently don't or we would not be having this conversation) then you would never see a passive outperform an active preamp. This is simply because a passive can't control the interconnect and a preamp can. Add to the coup de grace- digital- and you have a double whammy. For some inexplicable reason, the Redbook spec calls for the output of a DAC to be fairly high. Quite often its so high that the signal has to be knocked down in order to be useful to a power amp. So if you are running a passive, in essence you can never get it to sound right: digital has enough problems coming off sounding a bit on the cold side and this is not helped by a passive control eating up the bass and dynamic punch.

 

[Orb]

Well Atmas I would had sort of agreed in the past myself but then take a look at Townshend and also Music First Audio top model passive preamps, regarding integrated amps it depends IMO how well the input and "preamp stage" are designed and they can be stunning - appreciate your context though may be quite specific.

One aspect I feel XLR has over RCA relates to the signal return and reference ground, RCA is a bit of a headache in context of both ends having their shields connected.
Van Den Hul do offer to connect shield/signal ground only at the source for unbalanced setup to overcome some of the issues, but I think these days even AES recommend to have both ends connected.

That said I find both can be exceptional and comes down to how implemented by audio engineer.
My only annoyance with balanced is if you have separate DAC,Pre,Power and no control over gain and with the DAC voltage being at least 4V, this can be a challenge for finesse control of the volume for loud recordings as you may hardly be able to turn the volume up if wanting to play at low levels.

Just my take as I use either depending upon what equipment I have at the time.
Cheers
Orb

 

[JackD201]

A side note on room acoustics:

While it is true that rooms can and often do create many problems it is important to note that some of these problems may mask problems in the chain. For example strong first reflections falling within the precedence effect time window can cause "harshness" in the presence region but this harshness does not necessarily mean it is THE source of all harshness there. Once dealt with you may still be left with such things like drivers ringing, EMI/RFI hash, etc., etc. things you will have to deal with eventually. Long reverberation time in the midbass region can indeed give the impression of more fullness, in the deep bass more space but at the expense of articulation, in the worst case to the point of muddiness. I guess what I'm saying is that care should be taken when it comes to acoustics. Good acoustics allows a system to show its true colors. A well thought out system will sound better but it won't turn lead to gold. If anything it makes faults more easily heard. Of course this is a GOOD thing. After all, if you know what's wrong only then can you fix it.

In the end, as with anything in life, solutions tend to cause their own problems. As long as the new problems are more benign than the last, then we can be happy that we're headed in the right direction. In this paragraph where I am tripping out on cramming in as many cliches as I can, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[treitz3]

I do believe I just fell in love with you, Jack. Excellent response. Truth be told, please forgive me if I am incorrect in this assumption but I do not believe I have read that before on this forum.......but I will say this......you and I see eye to eye on this one.

Tom

 

[ErikM]

To the OP.. First off you need to decide if you want to fix the problem, or if other things in your life are just simply now more important.

 

[DaveyF]

A lotta stuff here. First, the last- the math always goes against you with passives. The best way to use one is to have it built into the amp. Otherwise most of the PVCs are going to eat bass as you turn them down from all the way up.

If someone tells you that balanced brings no benefit to a home system it is simply because they have no idea what they are talking about, have a single-ended system to sell, or both. Its that simple; that is one of the biggest myths about balanced line operation out there! FWIW, I didn't go balanced for any other reason than I saw what it could do way back when I played in the local civic orchestra when I was in high school (early 1970s). I saw Neumann microphones being used to record the orchestra, and the runs to the recorder were a good 100 feet. I introduced myself to the recordist and got a listen to the headphones. The sound was stunning! That stuck with me- microphones don't put out a lot of signal yet they sounded amazing running through all that cable. The significance of that did not really dawn on me until years later when I started hearing differences in cables as I got into high end.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you like music, it is recorded almost entirely in the balanced domain. Here in Minnesota, Mercury recorded the Minneapolis Symphony at Northrup Auditorium. They ran nearly 200 feet of cable between the mics and the recorders which were permanently mounted in their recording truck. Yet the better your stereo gets, the better any of the recordings from the Golden Age gets. If the cables were a problem eventually their artifact would turn up. But instead the recordings just sound more and more like music.

Put another way, if you have ever preferred one interconnect over another then you know exactly why even a 1 meter run done with balanced can work better. Its like no cable at all. This is a very real argument; otherwise no-one would push their brand of single-ended cable over someone else's- they would all sound exactly the same. Balanced can be an improvement even if the run is only 6 inches- the length is irrelevant.

The reason balanced lines have not been used in home audio has mostly been about cost.
.

Interesting points, Ralph. However, there are several well respected manufacturer's who would disagree with you. I have spoken to a few of these guys and they are adamant that the extra connections that balanced require negates any potential benefit in the home system. IF ( a BIG IF) one is using a long run of cable and you are in a noisy environment ( RFI ) then the benefit can and will accrue.However, most of these designers are of the opinion ( logically to me) that this is the exception and not the rule in the typical home audio set up. When you listened to the set up at the local civic orchestra or the Northrup Auditorium, you noted that they were running 100- 200 feet of cable...!( something we are NOT typically doing in our home systems, BUT are very typically doing in the pro world).
I can tell you from my personal experience when playing music in a live setting, I always prefer the sound of balanced cabling to my board...BUT I always prefer the sound of single ended cable to my amp form the instrument.( Guitar)IF I am talking of + 25 feet of cable from the instrument..then balanced...less than that and I am faced with some loss of information/tone. BTW, you would be surprised at the loss of tone the cabling from the instrument can make...and I'm talking both single ended and balanced here.
A while back I experimented with the top of the line Boss cabling for Guitar...vs. the top of the line Monster Cable, the middle of the road Monster Cable, a cable from Belden , a cable from Mogami, another from Di Marzio and a top of the line set of D'Addario cables. HUGE differences between these cables...FAR more than the balanced vs. the single ended. So much so, that I would have to re-tune my instrument depending on the cable being used!!

 

[LL21]

A side note on room acoustics:

While it is true that rooms can and often do create many problems it is important to note that some of these problems may mask problems in the chain. For example strong first reflections falling within the precedence effect time window can cause "harshness" in the presence region but this harshness does not necessarily mean it is THE source of all harshness there. Once dealt with you may still be left with such things like drivers ringing, EMI/RFI hash, etc., etc. things you will have to deal with eventually. Long reverberation time in the midbass region can indeed give the impression of more fullness, in the deep bass more space but at the expense of articulation, in the worst case to the point of muddiness. I guess what I'm saying is that care should be taken when it comes to acoustics. Good acoustics allows a system to show its true colors. A well thought out system will sound better but it won't turn lead to gold. If anything it makes faults more easily heard. Of course this is a GOOD thing. After all, if you know what's wrong only then can you fix it.

In the end, as with anything in life, solutions tend to cause their own problems. As long as the new problems are more benign than the last, then we can be happy that we're headed in the right direction. In this paragraph where I am tripping out on cramming in as many cliches as I can, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Extremely well said. Thanks for such a clear post. PS - I like the cliches!

 

[JackD201]

Thanks Tom, thanks Lloyd

Greetings from Macau