Open Suggestion For A Future GRE Scanner For "Advanced Users"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,241
Location
Vista, CA
Be forewarned - the following is a very long post with some degree of technical "jargon". If you don't like this type of post then PLEASE go no further!

My initial inclination was not to start a new thread but to include this as a post in the already established thread concerning the introduction of GRE's new PSR800 product. This is because of GRE's very significant (in my opinion) decision to include a true raw discriminator output on that product. For a product primarily targeted towards non-technical "open box turn on and use" type customers this is an interesting "advanced user" feature that tells me that GRE is not wholly abandoning this advanced user customer base as so many seem to fear. I see the following suggestion as a logical and practical "next step". However, because this post would veer significantly off topic for that thread I decided it would be better form for me to start a new one.

I have been thinking long and hard about what GRE could do in terms of developing and bringing to market a future scanner designed for advanced users that still could be cost effective for them to produce and for us to purchase. I personally think that most very advanced technical scanner users would be willing to spend upwards of close to a thousand dollars or more for a well designed advanced scanning product with the right features and performance but I also realize that this cost point probably makes the market analysis folks at GRE very nervous and unlikely to be willing to tackle. Therefor I am going to make a suggestion that should be very feasible in terms of staying near to the already established $500 market bearable price point.

To keep the cost down, this product would target a limited subset of what we, the advanced technically oriented scanner enthusiasts want. It does not directly address, for example, the need for better front end RF performance though that is something I think we strongly desire, because I see so much obvious reluctance to do this on the part of GRE that I must assume they have looked at this and simply decided it was not cost effective enough to achieve. I disagree personally with this decision, if true, but, will concede to it for the purposes of this suggestion.

This suggestion would target the need for accommodating new advanced forms of digital voice modulation used in the narrow band LMR segment that lie outside the already well supported in consumer scanners P25 Phase I mode. This would accommodate both current and future modes that contain their information well below 500KHz in bandwidth. Currently used modes of this ilk would include MotoTurbo/DMR TDMA and NXDN FDMA based variants. The potential to support the current Motorola variant of the future TDMA P25 Phase II standard as well as the eventual standard itself when finalized is also there and simply subject to user supplied software.

That last sentence should clue one in on the fact that this is a suggestion that focuses on usage with an externally connected computer so, right away, one can see that this is not a stand-alone product and not terribly well suited to portable usage. This is true but it also allows for continued stand-alone usage when dealing solely with the currently well understood "normal" digital mode of P25 Phase I. That is, the scanner will retain its stand alone "normal" operational characteristics when not dealing with this "new feature".

I have written many times in these forums about the need for a consumer scanner to include a hardware I/Q demodulator section as well as the common FM discriminator circuit and include well isolated switchable raw unfiltered outputs of each circuit available for post processing using a computer equipped with the necessary A/D converter PCIe add-on card (given the nature of raw I/Q demodulator analog outputs something beyond the common low audio frequency sound card would be needed; however, if an internal A/D converter is used, only the digital bits need be accommodated to convert to USB format, etc.). Unfortunately, it appears to me as though this is another bit of circuitry that falls under the "making the cost analysis folks extremely nervous to the point of becoming violently ill" title. Therefor, once again, I reluctantly concede defeat here and will NOT include this in my current cost-centric suggestion.

To still accommodate the desired need and yet keep the cost and added complexity as low as possible I suggest the simple inclusion of an isolated tap on the final intermediate frequency, aka "IF", output located prior to the final IF filter. On a desktop unit this could simply be another BNC connector located on the back of the unit which could be labeled something like "Final IF Output" or some such. Since the scanner's final IF is the common 455KHz IF (I believe - or around that, at any rate) it should easily accommodate LMR narrow band modes using less than that bandwidth to contain their information and, because of the low frequency, the required additional circuitry and PCB layout which includes a unity gain (or moderate gain, if needed) isolation amplifier and associated transmission line plus connector would not be complex nor would it be terribly difficult to implement in a practical, repeatable and factory produce-able fashion. If inclusion in a portable format is also deemed practical then, for hand held models, the usage of a small coaxial connector similar to what the older hand held cellular phones had to allow connection to an external antenna: I believe it was a small SMB variant usually recessed in the case with a stiff removable rubber cover over it when not in use - something like a larger version of what one sees commonly used for antenna connections on many 802.11 radio cards used in laptops. I would make the rubber cover have a good tab connected to the case of the scanner so as to mitigate potential loss-of-cover issues. Operationally, the external IF output would be controlled from an "Expert Feature" sub-menu using the scanner itself as well as from software such as Don Starr's WINXXX series. Ideally, the isolation amp would be effective enough to allow the scanner to continue to operate normally when activated and, obviously, not load down or otherwise contaminate the final IF chain both before and after the tap point regardless of on/off status. Making the scanner work normally when the tap is engaged would be nice for reasons addressed next.

Since the hardware added to the scanner for this suggestion is minimal and not complex in any way it should add very little to the cost of the scanner and allow it to be used in the same fashion as is done today. No additional complexity is added to the cost sensitive RF and demodulator sections only very little to the final low frequency IF section. A user could simply buy this scanner and use it as done today and potentially never use the IF tap. Remember, this model would still be targeted to the more advanced user rather than the turn-on-and-use out-of-box crowd that is targeted by units such as GRE's PSR800 and Uniden's HP-1 so I would think that the additional cost for the added IF tap (which, I believe, conservatively should not exceed $20 to $50 added to the current purchase price) should not terribly bother the advanced user target customer base. As extra options, GRE could provide connecting cables and - this is significant - a dedicated PCIe computer card which contains a decent A/D converter and associated circuitry for usage with the scanner's final IF. GRE could include basic control software and, maybe, basic demodulating software if practical (possibly "lite" versions of, say, whatever future variant of DSD Linux and/or Windows software is available). If the IF tap can be switched in while maintaining the scanner's normal operational characteristics then the scanner could be software controlled and status monitor-able while allowing the use of the IF tap which gives the user with the necessary computer hardware and software the ability to use the scanner to receive internally supported modes (FM, P25 Phase I) while allowing the connected computer plus decoding software the ability to demodulate other modes (MotoTurbo, NXDN, etc.) when the scanner stops on such a signal. With the proper control, status monitoring, and demodulating software, the operation could be potentially seamless in terms of modulation mode handling regardless of whether the mode is one internally/natively handled by the scanner or is one of the "other" modes such as MotoTurbo or NXDN or, potentially, P25 Phase II. Audio from the scanner could even be routed to the computer's sound card to allow the user to have "it all" come out of the same speaker, if so desired (likewise, the scanner audio could be mixed with the computer audio externally and fed to external speakers). The complexity and potential operational characteristics is/are limited only by the user's additional hardware and software.

This allows GRE many advantages relative to current lines. The cost of the product by itself would only be minimally impacted by the added IF tap and would still give more advanced users seeking a more streamlined approach to non-P25 Phase I demodulation a reason to consider this scanner for purchase. The IF tap yields a far more flexible signal to play with for current and future digital modulation modes than the usual discriminator output. This provides future processing software writers nearly unlimited "room to play" for narrow band LMR digital modes. This is a good low cost alternative to including true I/Q raw analog or digital bits output. The only downside is the requirement of a suitable A/D converter card for the PC over and above the standard audio frequency sound card. Again, however, the advanced user would likely not be daunted by this need and actually welcome the significantly added flexibility this system adds beyond what can be attained using the traditional FM discriminator + sound card solution. The user could elect to purchase the GRE A/D card or a third party product as long as it can process the final IF frequency range thereby allowing the user to choose, for example, higher performance than what the "basic" GRE card offers. This allows a tiered user base approach - starting with the basic scanner as normal today and moving toward whatever maximum complexity is allowed by additional PC hardware and software. Potentially, GRE's card, if offered, could even be marketed toward users of non-GRE models or users of other GRE models without this feature so long as the IF is compatible (455KHz is very common) and a tap for the IF is provided via modification (if not already available). So, although this may be a small market, this might even offer some additional revenue for GRE. The card could be designed and manufactured in house or could be a rebranded model from another supplier - whatever GRE deems most cost effective.

This has been a long post and I apologize for that. Nevertheless, I see this as a very good potential future product or system of products for GRE that would greatly appeal to advanced scanner enthusiasts without adding significant additional cost to the basic product.

-Mike
 
Last edited:

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,241
Location
Vista, CA
A couple of additional points I forgot to include in my initial post (too late to edit, now):

Firstly, I forgot to mention the product's use with HF SDR hardware. The 455KHz (or thereabouts) final IF is quite within the realm of the frequency range of many current HF SDR PC cards and external boxes. Therefor, that output could easily be used by such beasts only requiring the appropriate software for processing. If one already had a good HF SDR/PC setup then they would only need the software to use it with the scanner (assuming the SDR hardware is as good as or better than the basic fixed or limited frequency A/D card that GRE could potentially supply).

Secondly, I realize that this system is at the mercy of the scanner's internal RF design limitations including the potentially noisy LO used and the limited front end dynamic range. These are just going to have to be accepted compromises. The idea here is to give GRE a potential future addition to their current core internal design which will significantly add flexibility while keeping the cost and re-design complexity as low as possible. If one wanted better then they could obviously opt for $1000 or greater options involving VHF/UHF SDR hardware such as the USRP, Winradio, RFSpace, etc.

-Mike
 

wrhenker

Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
38
Location
Coal City
Somebody has way too much time on his hands... I really do not think that GRE would want to spend the time, cost and other resources to accomodate the select few that a product that as described above would benefit. Think about this for a while. We are living in a "cheap" society. Just how could they justify it? In order for this to work, it would have to be the biggest thing since sliced bread - a "motherload" of a radio, which I might add, most people would not be able to afford. With that said, I am sure the intentions are great, but I doubt anyone reading this will see anything close in his or her lifetime. It doesn't hurt to dream though.....
 

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,241
Location
Vista, CA
Somebody has way too much time on his hands... I really do not think that GRE would want to spend the time, cost and other resources to accomodate the select few that a product that as described above would benefit. Think about this for a while. We are living in a "cheap" society. Just how could they justify it? In order for this to work, it would have to be the biggest thing since sliced bread - a "motherload" of a radio, which I might add, most people would not be able to afford. With that said, I am sure the intentions are great, but I doubt anyone reading this will see anything close in his or her lifetime. It doesn't hurt to dream though.....

Well, my suggestion would only be a weency-bit more complex than what they already are doing with the discriminator output on the new PSR800 and from a total design time and cost standpoint likely far less than what went into the user interface design (hardware and software/firmware) for that unit or the Uniden HP-1. They (GRE) doesn't even have to provide the A/D PC card if they don't want to and I certainly wasn't expecting them to write the processing software. So I really can't see how this would be either extremely costly in terms of design time or monetarily and the RF design remains as it already is (unless they wish to improve it - up to them) so it would certainly not result in a ""motherload" of a radio" that nobody but a few could afford! The parts and implementation I am talking about should not amount to much over an additional $20 to $50 extra purchase price, conservatively speaking, for the radio itself. The card is another matter but, as I said, GRE doesn't even need to sell one if they don't want to - there are alternatives already available including the HF SDR units I mentioned.

-Mike
 

Oldglide

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
154
Location
Metro Chicago
Excellent post, great ideas

Mike_D_G is absolutely correct. These changes would be small at best considering today's manufacturing techniques and available technology. Yes there would be some additional cost but most of that cost would probably be for a new case design. Keep the technical stuff coming.
 
Last edited:

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Location
Lansing, MI
Great idea but doesn't make business sense.
 

T-Santon

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Ohio's Snow Belt
I would GLADLY pay $1,000 for a radio that will handle Phase-2 TDMA, and better P25 simulcasting abilities...I don't personally care about MotoTrbo, or anything else like that....I just want a scanner that will handle the systems in my area in a few years...

Cleveland, The Cuyahoga-MARCS Project, and Lake County will all be simulcasting P25 within the next couple of years...There is also talk that Cleveland's new system will be Phase-2 TDMA...These changes will make my PSR-500 almost completely useless when that happens...

I just hope I don't have to wait until a few years AFTER the transition to finally be able to purchase a scanner that will track these sites (like we have in the past).

So like I said, $1,000 bucks for the scanner of the future...NO PROBLEM! I'll buy one in a heartbeat! I'm just hoping for the chance. I'm guessing there are many other enthusiasts on this site that feel the same way...

I know we're in a rough economy right now, and the folks at GRE may be nervous about marketing such an expensive product...But I don't see that stopping most of us die-hard listeners out there. We love this hobby, and we'll do what we have to do to get our hands on one...It's a small price to pay for something you love doing.

Just something for GRE (and Uniden) to consider.
 

Thayne

Member
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
2,145
Great idea but doesn't make business sense.

I totally agree; but by the time everything is encrypted because of al the Joe & Jane Blows walking around listening to streaming on their smartphones it will be a moot point anyway---
 

northzone

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
502
Location
Northern California
Quote "the need for better front end RF performance though that is something I think we strongly desire"

Forget all the useless add-on crap that only adds toy value. The quality of the receiver is really the only thing that matters. When narrow-banding really kicks in and VHF stations are 7.5khz steps and UHF are 6.25 steps there is not ANY current scanner that will work correctly. Look at the selectivity specs, many scanners have only 6db selectivity at 7.5khz. Worthless!
 

LAflyer

Global DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,827
Location
SoCal
Personally I'd like to definitely see more emission modes covered including things like MOTOTRBO.

Seems like as time goes on, there is a steady migration to ever new technologies, and it warrants top end scanner receivers keeping up.
 

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,241
Location
Vista, CA
Great idea but doesn't make business sense.

Au contraire, Oh Great Master Of The Incredibly Concise And Occasionally Bordering On Cryptic Reply...

Ok, it should be obvious that I disagree strongly with rdale's point given my initial and followup postings and I think I defined my reasoning clearly but, to illuminate it further I'll take a different tack here and play "devil's advocate" against myself in response with the hope that I can further explain why I think that rdale is incorrect. Right from the start, however, I should point out that I do not think I can sway rdale's opinion on the matter but by answering his statement I may still be able to sway others.

Go back in time about a year...

Channeling my inner cost/market/profit analysis budget-bible-thumping buisnonerd...

"Producing a consumer scanner radio with a built-in final IF tap makes no business sense...producing a consumer scanner radio with a built-in raw analog discriminator tap makes no buisiness sense...wait...what..?"

Now, one can argue that GRE's new scanner (I refer here to the announced PSR800) having a discriminator tap still doesn't exactly mean it will be proven to have made "good business sense" but, clearly someone in the budget analysis group overseeing engineering was finally swayed in the other direction. Granted, it was likely a tough sell but it finally did happen.

Point being that somehow, someway, ye olde discriminator tap magically appeared on a manufactured consumer radio scanner (or will appear, at any rate, when eventually released). This, by itself, is interesting and significant to me. Given the recent history of consumer scanner development by GRE and Uniden I honestly very nearly gave up expecting it to happen.

This announcement has reawakened my desire to get GRE's attention with regard to future requests for features appealing to the "advanced user" crowd, more specifically, those of us interested in experimenting with the demodulation of narrow band LMR digital modes other than P25 Phase I because SOMEONE appears to be listening and effectively responding in our favor!

Now one can argue that doing this is small potatoes cost-wise so it wasn't really too hard to sell and the aftermarket modification is so popular that it's an easy add design-wise. Well, it DID take them some number of years during which time the technology for this type of feature changed little, if at all, before they finally added it to the core design. Something changed, the technology didn't (a simple tap point with the proper buffering components) AND they even added an isolation amp, according to Mr. Starr! They actually went BEYOND the minimum (well, it could be argued that an iso amp would be prudent to ensure proper operation of the unit within the desired specs).

And, yes, it is "small potatoes" but they are very useful "potatoes" indeed. Believe me, I have a background in RF engineering for the consumer cellular phone and Bluetooth markets, I'm a technical weenie but have dealt much with budget/accounting folks. Comparing relative complexities and costs, a discriminator tap with iso amp is only VERY slightly more complex than adding a second headphone jack with its ancillary circuitry (incl. amp, etc.). Now, adding a final IF tap with its ancillary circuitry (iso amp, etc.) is only VERY slightly more complex than adding the discriminator tap, etc.

I picked about the cheapest least complex non-digital feature I could think of to add that yielded the most "bang for the buck" amongst us so-called "advanced users". It's a very logical next step from the discriminator tap and provides the most significant improvement in "playground space" for digital signal processing software gurus without adding any additional decoding hardware at all!

Yes, it took many years of people using the aftermarket mod before a mainstream manufacture decided to include it in a manufactured design so it may again take many years of IF mod usage before the same thing occurs for it, to put it "linear-extrapolation...um, ...ly", but, I'm simply seeing an opportunity (an open illustration of GRE's willingness to still listen to "advanced users" asking for RF/IF/analog features) and taking a chance to see if I can get someone in the company to kick this around as a future feature to add, say, within the next couple of years; sort of "jumping the gun" and trying to forestall a decade of wait or more.

Well, at the very least, maybe I'll try to drum up interest in it as an aftermarket mod; the wider and less processed unfiltered final IF is, as I said, potentially far more favorable raw material to play with in the software digital signal processing and digital voice mode demodulating realm than the discriminator tap. Given the complexities of various digital modulation forms, both current and future, something beyond a disc tap would still be preferred, at least as an alternative.

Such a feature, if included, could help offset, a little, some of the "pain" experienced by "advanced users" concerning the reluctance on the part of the manufacturers to add new digital demodulation modes directly (I'm not saying they aren't working on them, necessarily, just that they don't yet see practical cost effective means to add them into the core design yet) to the core design.

Even if they add MotoTurbo, NXDN, P25 pre-Phase II, and P25 Real Phase II, within the next year or so, they would still not be likely to add modes such as OpenSky, or Provoice. Giving us this simple tap really adds tremendous flexibility for the "advanced user" interested in experimenting with digital voice modes.

-Mike

PS,

rcool101,

Actually, I am well aware of the complexity or lack therof contained in such a feature. Honestly, it really is as I said, relatively speaking, 455KHz, though higher than audio range is quite low enough not to have significant issues with layout or component parasitics.

norhzone,

Completely in agreement with you but I already felt that that horse was beaten to death on my part (been asking for that for over 30 years!) so I decided to let the manufacturers "have their way" on that one. Something to consider, post processing the IF in the digital domain might help here; or one could add their own hardware sub-circuit consisting of the "correct" narrow IF filters if one had the skills and resources at hand to do so meaning that a final IF tap would be useful here as well.
 

Jim41

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
188
Great Idea

Mike,

I think you have provided a thoughtful and thought provoking idea for consideration by the RR.Com community, including the scanner manufacturers. I commend you for sharing your ideas.

In the end, it will be the scanner/receiver manufacturers and others to make a decision on implementing this idea into a consumer product.

Until one of the scanner manufacturers implements this idea, it is a business opporunity for other RR.Com members. We've seen several examples over the years where members operate part-time business that cater to low volume / low cost accessories. Maybe one of our members will see this as an attractive business opportunity.

Another option/opportunity for the advanced RR.Com member is to contact a scanner manufacturer and offer to partricipate in development efforts and/or beta testing. This could provide the member an opportunity to possess some development or prototype hardware and contribute to extending the capability of scanner products.

Jim41
 

DonS

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,102
Location
Franktown, CO
Now, one can argue that GRE's new scanner (I refer here to the announced PSR800) having a discriminator tap still doesn't exactly mean it will be proven to have made "good business sense" but, clearly someone in the budget analysis group overseeing engineering was finally swayed in the other direction. Granted, it was likely a tough sell but it finally did happen.
Not a tough sell. A man day of design, implementation, and testing NRE, and only a couple of pennies in recurring hardware cost (caps on the input to the audio amp).
AND they even added an isolation amp, according to Mr. Starr! They actually went BEYOND the minimum (well, it could be argued that an iso amp would be prudent to ensure proper operation of the unit within the desired specs).
The "amp" I mentioned was the existing audio amp part, which had a spare input available. That's why, on this scanner, it was an easy decision.

In case it wasn't clear from my prior posts above: the signal delivered is the same signal that is used internally for all decoding and demodulation. This includes all subaudible tone/data, trunking control channels, and P25 voice. Any desired format that would "fit within" the signal bandwidth for P25 CAI voice should be available with this output.

As far as a "real IF output", or similar... my concern (perhaps unfounded) would be adding an RF output to a device that's supposed to be an "unintentional radiator".
 

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,241
Location
Vista, CA
Not a tough sell. A man day of design, implementation, and testing NRE, and only a couple of pennies in recurring hardware cost (caps on the input to the audio amp).

The "amp" I mentioned was the existing audio amp part, which had a spare input available. That's why, on this scanner, it was an easy decision.

In case it wasn't clear from my prior posts above: the signal delivered is the same signal that is used internally for all decoding and demodulation. This includes all subaudible tone/data, trunking control channels, and P25 voice. Any desired format that would "fit within" the signal bandwidth for P25 CAI voice should be available with this output.

As far as a "real IF output", or similar... my concern (perhaps unfounded) would be adding an RF output to a device that's supposed to be an "unintentional radiator".

Interesting! Yes, the fact that the extra audio amp input was available explains why this wasn't such a "tough sell" and did materialize, thanks for that info! Adding an active component like an integrated amp, does become a major issue in the final cost and production analysis even if it's nothing major for design and prototyping. I'm curious, Don, if you are free to answer, is the second input on the audio amp just a second input (switched from the primary) or a full extra amp on the IC? I would assume it's the latter since there are so many cheap audio amp IC's (or op-amp IC's for usage in an audio amp design) with multiple amps and they usually come in even numbers meaning if you have an odd number need you end up with an occasional spare. Just curious - if switchable, as in "one or the other" then that would obviously mean normal operation wouldn't be possible when the discriminator output is activated whereas, if it is a fully separate amp stage then it could function concurrently with the normal audio circuit.

And, unfortunately, you are right; yep, I completely overlooked the FCC Part 15 unintentional radiator issue/certification. That was really a stupid oversight on my part to leave out of the analysis. I've gone through a lot of EMI testing for products before so I should have known better than to leave that out of my initial analysis of potential cost, etc. Thinking it through, I don't think it would be too bad but I don't know how close the IF and LO leakage-based EMI is to the limits on the current models so I don't know how sensitive they would be to this addition. Oh well, as I said, I'm only making the suggestion and, even if GRE seriously starts considering this tomorrow, I wouldn't be expecting it for at least a year and more likely two.

I still think it's a good idea with a lot of future potential and still hope (perhaps naively) that it will materialize within a couple of years. I do like the fact that the 800 has a discriminator tap now and that will really make it easier for many for future use with programs like DSD in dealing with the types of digital voice modes that can easily be accommodated within the confines of the discriminator. For the 800, that to me is an unexpected "advanced user" feature that tells me that they are not completely ignoring that subset of the scanner user crowd altogether, despite what many are fearing. So I, personally, will take that as a good sign. Also, although this is the GRE forum, I should mention that I found a similar ray of hope for "advanced features" in Uniden's xt line - the IF Exchange feature! This is also something I have wanted to see for many years and was stoked when I saw Uniden had included it. I know a lot of people either don't need it or, more likely aren't aware of it (or don't full understand it) but it's there - unfortunately, I don't have the funds to purchase an xt unit now but I'm happy to see the feature out there in a consumer scanner line.

Anyway, thanks for the comments, folks, I just wanted to put it out there and see what some others thought, which occurred and did give me more food for thought. For now, I'll look at it as a mod that I will work on - see what I can put together in terms of parts and design. If I actually realize it, I'll do some basic EMI sniffing and see how bad the RFI could be with a basic home-brew approach which should be a worst case scenario for a basic starting point in terms of considering for future factory implementation. This all depends on how bad current life issues impact my time, of course; things are somewhat dicey for me now so we'll see. But, if possible, I will try and maybe at least get it started so that I can pass it on to someone else who can take it over if I can't finish it. I've currently got two Pro-197's for potential experimentation. The base model, at least externally, looks like a good candidate. Wish I had a full schematic and pcb layout diagram, though; that would help tremendously!

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top