Psychoacoustics of Room Reflections
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
When I was first exposed to this in a presentation by Alan Devantier (Harman/Infinity designer), I could not believe what I was hearing. I thought I knew acoustics and then I am sitting there gasping as I am told these things. It just made no sense that a reflection would be better than none. It take a 2-year journey of extensively reviewing the literature, sitting through a ton more presentations, arguing the points with others, reading Dr. Toole's book over and over again, and digging through 50 to 100 AES and ASA papers that I realized the amazing consistency of it, and lack of disclosure in public.
Amir in his article said:
Yeah baby! You totally get it!!
This is the Great Secret, in my opinion. This is where the truth has been hidden in plain sight all along, but it took great minds to uncover it for us. What reflections done right can offer, and how to do them right, is imo probably the most fascinating subject in the world of loudspeakers and rooms. I haven't come across very many people who are as excited about it as you are, Amir. Thank you for applying your time and talent to remedying that lack of disclosure in public.
I think the thing that jolted me the most in Toole's book was the fact that early reflections actually enhance the clarity of speech. I was aware of a lot of the other concepts, but had missed that one. Also, the particularly beneficial nature of lateral reflections (early side wall bounce) was a surprise to me.
One thing I haven't seen much about is what happens when the reflections have a significantly different spectrum from the first-arrival sound. My understanding is that the ear/brain system classifies an incoming sound as a reflection if its spectrum matches that of a first-arrival sound already in short-term storage, and so I speculate that as the spectrum is degraded (due to uneven off-axis response and/or absorption of the high frequencies), the ear/brain system has to work harder - use more CPU capacity - to correctly classify these "spectrally iffy" reflections. And I think this additional CPU usage causes our chipset to overheat, and we get listening fatigue. In other words, I think that a significant spectral discrepancy between the first-arrival and reflected sound can be a source of listening fatigue (cough cough B&W cough). Have you come across anything that might shed light on this?
Thanks!!
Duke
Last edited:
Actually the curved panels of the Martin Logans and SoundLabs are intended to reduce beaming.
The curvature of the Martin Logans is a continuous curve, and I'm not sure what angle it covers, but perhaps in the ballpark of 20 to 30 degrees. Because it's a continuous curve, it behaves like a slice of an expanding cylinder: As the diaphragm moves forward, it is tensioned. As it moves backward, the tension is relaxed. The tensioning of the diaphragm as it moves forward puts stress on it. The solution is to make the curve gentle, and to use a very strong diaphragm material.
The SoundLabs use a faceted-curve diaphragm made up of many flat vertical facets. The facets are dimensioned and angled so that they give a wide continuous coverage with no venetian blind effect in the audible range. SoundLabs have a pattern ranging from 45 to 90 degrees wide, depending on the model, and so they actually produce an unusually wide sweet spot.
Not to take anything away from Roger Sanders (who actually invented the continuously-curved diaphragm electrostat), but there is no lack of science in the design of the SoundLabs, nor presumably of the Martin Logans. And the flat panel that Sanders uses beams significantly. This gives fantastic imaging for the person in the sweet spot, at the expense of both imaging and tonal balance for people outside the sweet spot.
Of particular relevance to the topic of this thread is the radiation pattern of the SoundLabs. First a bit of background, which I think will be consistent with Toole: A diffuse, relatively late-arriving, spectrally correct, well-energized reverberant field is perceptually desirable. The less spectral discrepancy between the first-arrival sound and the reflections, the better. Following this paradigm, Toole and/or his associates have designed monopole speakers with very wide, uniform patterns, like the Revel Salon series.
The SoundLabs approach this ideal from a different angle. First of all, the radiation patterns of their 90-degree models may well be the most uniform in the business. They start out as a figure-8 at low frequencies, and then as we go up in frequency and the panel's directional characteristics take over, we have a 90 degree pattern front-and-back. So there is very little discrepancy between the pattern at low, middle, and high frequencies. I do not know of another technology that does such a good job of this. You can listen to SoundLabs from outside the room, with no line-of-sight to the speakers, and except for a little bit of high frequency rolloff (because short wavelengths are more easily absorbed as they bounce around a room), the tonal balance is correct. The tonal balance is reminiscent of listening to a live band from outside the room the band is playing in.
SoundLabs like to be positioned out in front of the wall a bit, and I normally recommend 5 feet or more if possible. This imparts a good 10 milliseconds or so delay before the backwave energy arrives at the listening position, which is a longer time delay than we get from most speaker's early sidewall bounce in most rooms. The SoundLabs beam like giant lasers in the vertical plane so the early floor and ceiling bounces are eliminated, and if we toe them in fairly aggressively we avoid the early near sidewall bounce as well (and the first strong sidewall bounce of the left speaker is off the right side wall, and vice versa, which is desirable). Now the typical near sidewall bounce is usually beneficial (according to Toole), but in exchange the toe-in not only bounces the frontwave off the opposite side wall, it also aims the backwave off to the side, so that now much of the backwave energy will be coming in from the forward-side quadrant of the listening position, but with a nice long time delay. I believe that this is a more desirable presentation of early reflections than what we get with conventional speakers, and more closely approximates what we experience in a good recital hall. Of course the SoundLabs are not right for every room, set of listening preferences, or budget - but they are an interesting design to analyze.
So imo in the design of the SoundLabs we find a great deal of attention being paid to exploiting the psychoacoustics of room reflections, which happens to be the topic of this thread.
Duke -
Very very interesting post...I read it three times (as a non-techie) to get thru it and make sure I was following your description of sound waves and also the Sound Labs approach as well. I trust Microstrip's ears and know he has long enjoyed those speakers. Your description of their design approach is consistent with how people have described their sound relatives to 'live'.
I note that the new Gryphon Pendragon speakers are designed with a 6' ribbon for mids without any crossover, plus a series of tweeters of some kind...and then a separate set of tower subs with 8 cones that are self powered and actively crossed over. Also Gryphon mentions some of the characteristics of which you speak. They also specifically recommend setting them up in a very wide circular alignment where the curve of the circle uses the listener as the center of the circle.
Very very interesting post...I read it three times (as a non-techie) to get thru it and make sure I was following your description of sound waves and also the Sound Labs approach as well. I trust Microstrip's ears and know he has long enjoyed those speakers. Your description of their design approach is consistent with how people have described their sound relatives to 'live'.
I note that the new Gryphon Pendragon speakers are designed with a 6' ribbon for mids without any crossover, plus a series of tweeters of some kind...and then a separate set of tower subs with 8 cones that are self powered and actively crossed over. Also Gryphon mentions some of the characteristics of which you speak. They also specifically recommend setting them up in a very wide circular alignment where the curve of the circle uses the listener as the center of the circle.
Good stuff, Duke. I don't know Soundlabs (heard a pair once), but I've spent a lot of time listening to a variety of Martin Logans. If ever there was a speaker that screamed for room treatment to kill first reflections, MLs are it. The tonality changes radically, and not attractively, as you walk toward either side, so you know those first reflections are not going to mix well with the direct sound in the room.
I'm with Toole and Linkwitz; give me a speaker that's linear across the broadest possible field and it'll sound good in most rooms, more natural in all of them. But one thing sometimes gets forgotten; these kinds of speakers excite our listening rooms well. That makes for a more natural presentation, a mix of direct and reflected sound that is closer to what we are accustomed to hearing in life, but neither the speakers nor the room know anything about the concert hall or the recording studio. That ambience may or may not have been captured in the recording, but it can only be altered by the rooms we play them in, not brought closer to the original reality.
Tim
I'm with Toole and Linkwitz; give me a speaker that's linear across the broadest possible field and it'll sound good in most rooms, more natural in all of them. But one thing sometimes gets forgotten; these kinds of speakers excite our listening rooms well. That makes for a more natural presentation, a mix of direct and reflected sound that is closer to what we are accustomed to hearing in life, but neither the speakers nor the room know anything about the concert hall or the recording studio. That ambience may or may not have been captured in the recording, but it can only be altered by the rooms we play them in, not brought closer to the original reality.
Tim
Thank you. Imo one of the things that can distinguish great speakers from good ones is how they interact with the listening room. I would place first priority on getting the spectral balance of the reverberant energy to approximate that of the first-arrival sound, and then if the application permits I'd work on arrival time and direction from which the early reflections arrive.
I took a look at the Gryphon Pendragon, very impressive design and an interesting approach to these same issues. There be more than one way to take into account what we now know about psychoacoustics and speaker/room interaction.
Thank you.
An additional challenge that most Martin Logans face is pairing a line-source-approximating narrow-pattern panel with a point-source-approximating wide-pattern woofer. Not only are the pattern shapes very different, but the SPL falls off more slowly with distance from the line-source panel than from the point-source woofer. Room reflections mitigate the discrepancy somewhat, but it's still there. Imo the way to do a hybrid right is shown by the Gryphon Pendragon, but that approach is a bit pricey.
One of the interesting things about in-room reflections is that their benefits are highly counter-intuitive. They are not part of the original recording and therefore can logically be labelled "distortion", yet their subjective improvement of the listening experience (when done right) is clearly documented by Toole and others. Note that professional acousticians (like Jeff Hedback, honored three years in a row by Mix Magazine, who posted in this thread) do not aim for anechoic conditions, not by a long shot. Reflections done right actually improve clarity and intelligibility! I didn't know that until I read Toole's book.
In my opinion there are other radiation pattern shapes that can outperform "broadest possible field", but that's not a disagreement with Toole and Linkwitz over the basic principles - just an alternative way of applying them. And come to think of it, Toole is doing monopoles while Linkwitz is mostly doing dipoles, so even between the two we have different pattern shapes represented. I do controlled-pattern bipoles, which combine some of the characteristics of both, but consider my designs to take a back seat to the SoundLabs as far as ideal room interaction goes.
Last edited:
Duke
this is really great stuff. Thank you for taking the time. On the Gryphon Pendragon, could you provide a little bit more detail about why you think their particular hybrid approach is a good one? Specifically, in reference to their use of woofers and panel...the points was made in an earlier post about the differences in spl fall off over the same distance, and there was some concern that the panel spls will drop off more slowly than that of the woofers. What about the Gryphon approach do you like? And do those reasons apply to other 4-box speakers like the old Genesis, Infinitys, and even today's newer Tidals?
sorry to bombard, but your explanations are clear and appear to come from good engineering (not that I'd know!)...but seriously, much appreciated.
this is really great stuff. Thank you for taking the time. On the Gryphon Pendragon, could you provide a little bit more detail about why you think their particular hybrid approach is a good one? Specifically, in reference to their use of woofers and panel...the points was made in an earlier post about the differences in spl fall off over the same distance, and there was some concern that the panel spls will drop off more slowly than that of the woofers. What about the Gryphon approach do you like? And do those reasons apply to other 4-box speakers like the old Genesis, Infinitys, and even today's newer Tidals?
sorry to bombard, but your explanations are clear and appear to come from good engineering (not that I'd know!)...but seriously, much appreciated.
Thanks for taking the time to read it!
Yes, it's the discrepancy between line-source propagation and point-source propagation that the Pendragon out-maneuvers with its line array of woofers.
Sound pressure level falls off by 6 dB per doubling of distance from a point source, but only 3 dB per doubling of distance from a line source (assuming anechoic conditions - real world example on the way). So if we're trying to combine a single woofer with a tall electrostat or ribbon, the tonal balance of the system will change with distance!
Back when I had ready access to a fairly large room, I took some measurements at 1 meter and also back at 8 meters (three doublings of distance), comparing a point-source speaker and a line-source speaker. With the point source, SPL fell off by 11 dB over that distance (anechoic theory predicts an 18 dB falloff; in-room reflections account for the difference). In contrast, the line source only fell off by 4 dB over that distance (anechoic theory predicts a 9 dB falloff). That's a real-world 7 dB discrepancy between point-source-propagation and line-source-propagation as we go from 1 meter back to 8 meters.
While it is of course possible to "voice" a single woofer/tall line source hybrid so that the first-arrival sound is spectrally balanced at the listening position, I don't think that spectral balance would extend to the reverberant field, and imo we want the reverberant energy to have a similar spectral balance to the first-arrival sound. We avoid all of this hassle if the woofer section is also a line source... we just have to start out with deeper pockets in order to get there!!
The big floor-to-ceiling stack-o-divers Infinity and Genesis systems, yes. The Tidal T-1, I don't think so, because it looks to me like a point-source-approximating system in a tall box with tall subwoofers. The Dali Megaline does it with just one tower per channel.
No problem, bombs away, please ask for clarification on anything that's unclear or has been glossed over. Again, thanks for wading through it all!
Duke said:
I wasn't clear; I didn't mean the broadest possible field of dispersion from the speaker, I meant the broadest possible linear field within the speakers' existing dispersion. Aren't Linkwitz and the Harman boys both going for good linearity throughout the field? My non-technical mind gets that; they're not suppressing reflections, they're using them, but making sure they sound more like the direct sound, more like real instruments would sound in the space. Where they part, I think, is in how, and how much reflection they're using, in how they're manipulating the illusion?
And there, they are making a subjective choice, I think, because it is an illusion. Real instruments simply don't disperse like speakers, or even like each other. The radiation pattern of a cymbal, and how linear it remains as you move off-axis (there really is no off-axis for a cymbal) is radically different from an acoustic guitar, a trumpet, the whole drum kit. We really can't get all that close, unfortunately, but maybe we can understand that real music is played in real rooms, not padded cells, and let playback breathe a bit.
Glad to have you here, Duke. And please understand that all of the above is one big inquiry. I don't pretend to know; I'm just trying to draw some conclusions from what I hear.
Tim
I wasn't clear; I didn't mean the broadest possible field of dispersion from the speaker, I meant the broadest possible linear field within the speakers' existing dispersion. Aren't Linkwitz and the Harman boys both going for good linearity throughout the field? My non-technical mind gets that; they're not suppressing reflections, they're using them, but making sure they sound more like the direct sound, more like real instruments would sound in the space. Where they part, I think, is in how, and how much reflection they're using, in how they're manipulating the illusion?
And there, they are making a subjective choice, I think, because it is an illusion. Real instruments simply don't disperse like speakers, or even like each other. The radiation pattern of a cymbal, and how linear it remains as you move off-axis (there really is no off-axis for a cymbal) is radically different from an acoustic guitar, a trumpet, the whole drum kit. We really can't get all that close, unfortunately, but maybe we can understand that real music is played in real rooms, not padded cells, and let playback breathe a bit.
Glad to have you here, Duke. And please understand that all of the above is one big inquiry. I don't pretend to know; I'm just trying to draw some conclusions from what I hear.
Tim
Phelonious. I made a related remark about MBL and asked Duke if their 2nd reverberant field which Duke says it does so well might actually be an artifice which is great on hall recordings but potentially too much on close miked...which might end up sounding like it has a reverberant field? I have not hear MBLs but I have hear some say they can have this affect more than some thought was appropriate.
Thanks for posting to correct my misperception.
By "good linearity", I take it that you mean something like "smooth net frequency response of the summed on-axis + off-axis energy" - is that close?
Yes, that's my understanding - one might say they are trying to work with the room instead of against it (though I don't think any speaker designer deliberately sets out to work against the room). I think they're barking up different sides of the same tree. In my opinion Harmon's wide-pattern-monopole approach is somewhat more speaker-placement-friendly, while Linkwitz's mostly-dipolar approach can get some nice delay on the backwave energy with proper placement. Neither one is really trying to bounce the first sidewall reflection off the opposite side wall - Geddes does that, and I think it has merit, so I do it too.
Agreed. All we can do is carefully consider (and where possible sample) the poisons available, and pick the most palatable one. However I do believe that the secret to audio nirvana (along with the secret to life, the universe, and everything) lies in doing a really good job off-axis.
Thank you very much, Tim! Please inquire away as much as you want. We're now talking about my favorite subject in the world of speaker design. I'm really glad to see Toole's work widely discussed here - imo that sets this site apart from most.
I mentioned Geddes (my mentor) earlier, and he has his own approach to getting the reverberant field right. What he does is employ aggressive, uniform radiation pattern control so that the speaker's pattern is 90 degrees wide (-6 dB @ 45 degrees off-axis) over most of the spectrum. He then toes the speakers in severely, such that the axes criss-cross in front of the listening position. This widens the sweet spot, and also bounces each speaker's first strong sidewall reflection off the opposite wall. This is desirable from the standpoint of how the ear/brain system processes reflections, and results in an increased perception of ambience and envelopment in a large acoustic space. Geddes likes to use an unusually live, diffuse room so that the spectrally-correct reverberant energy his speakers generate bounces around for a long time, and takes a long time to decay.
In my opinion once we get down into subwoofer territory, the radiation pattern doesn't matter as much because the room's modal behavior dominates. The ear has to hear several cycles of a bass tone before it can even detect the pitch (and cannot even detect the presence of bass energy from less than one cycle), and when you consider bass wavelengths vs listening room size, you realize that we literally cannot hear bass tones without the room's signature being all over them unless we have a very big room. My impression is that this is probably increasingly true from about 200 Hz on down to the pressure zone (which is roughly where the wavelengths are more than twice the longest room dimension so we no longer get standing waves), but personally I'd still want to at least pay attention to the radiation patterns if we're crossing over much north of 100 Hz.
I'm a major advocate of distributed multiple subs, either a la Welti or a la Geddes. Interestingly, they came to similar conclusions about the smoothing benefits of multisubs (imo smooth bass = fast bass) totally independent of one another but at almost the same time - Welti preferring symmetrical placement and Geddes asymmetrical, but both are very respectful of the other's work. I build a four-piece multisub system, using Geddes' original concept with his permission; he has since moved on to using three independently equalized subs.
Last edited:
I would think this would completely bugger (the technical term) horizontal imaging!
Tim
Well there you go pulling out them fancy technical terms again!
Seriously, I agree that such extreme toe-in looks wrong but with the right kind of speakers it works very well if your goal is to have an unusually wide sweet spot. Lemme 'splain (another technical term):
The ear localizes sound by two mechanisms: Arrival time and intensity. With speakers set up "normally" (modest toe-in), for the off-centerline listener, the near speaker naturally "wins" arrival time, and it also wins intensity, as you're now more on-axis of the near speaker and correspondingly more off-axis of the far speaker. As a result of both localization mechanisms favoring the near speaker, the center image often shifts over farther than you have (like if you move over two feet, the center image may move over three or four feet).
Now this won't work with all speakers, but follow along for now and I'll get to the design specifics in a minute. Suppose we toe the speakers in severely, such that their axes criss-cross in front of the listening position. For the off-axis listener the near speaker obviously "wins" arrival time, but the far speaker wins intensity, because we've moved on-axis of the far speaker but far off-axis of the near speaker. These two competing localization mechanisms offset one another to some extent, enough so that the center vocalist doesn't move much, and we can still hear a decent spread of instruments in the horizontal plane.
The secret to this working is, the off-axis response of the near speaker must fall off fairly rapidly and smoothly. We accomplish this by using a 90 degree (in the horizontal plane at least) constant-directivity horn or waveguide, and crossing over where the woofer's pattern has also narrowed to 90 degrees. Most speakers have too wide and/or too variable a pattern for this to work well.
At audio shows I often get people who walk into the room and immediately want to "fix" my set-up because the toe-in looks like it's way too much. I ask them to listen first, and then when they concede that the imaging is actually pretty good, I go through my little spiel about first arrival sound and intensity. I also routinely set up one chair up against the side wall, well to the outside of the near speaker. Obviously that's the last chair to be taken, but in between songs I'll often ask the person in that chair how it sounds. They're always surprised that not only is the tonal balance still good, but that they can hear a spread to the instruments, and depending on how the recording is miked, sometimes the center vocalist still sounds like she's roughly in the center.
All of that being said, best imaging for one (with my speakers at least) is usually with the left speaker pointed straight at the left ear, and the right speaker pointed straight at the right ear. This also results in a little bit brighter tonal balance (now you're directly on-axis of both speakers), so I provide a high frequency tilt control (in the form of a resistor in a cup on the back of the cabinet).
I have customers who use such speakers in their home theater systems and have gotten rid of their center channel speakers and just use phantom center mode. The main purpose of the center channel speaker is to anchor the dialogue on-screen for viewers who are off to either side of the centerline. Speakers with the characteristics I've described do a good enough job of keeping the dialogue onscreen for off-centerline viewers that a center channel is optional (and if it doesn't match the mains spectrally and dynamically...). Also, in phantom center mode you generally get better soundstage depth, which probably doesn't matter for movies but is a nice little extra for music videos.
Last edited:
Mine is definitely a one-listener set up -- near field. I occasionally watch movies on the system, and a center is not missed at all. Got to say I really enjoy the very precise pinpoint imaging you get from these kinds of speakers in a near field set up, even though I know it's not exactly what happens to audio in a room. It kind of replaces the sense of placement you get from being able to see where the instrument is in the plane. You've really got me curious about different setups, though. I may have to drag my speakers back out into one of the larger rooms in the house again and play around some....
Tim
Tim
Duke,
As far as I remember Geddes uses different eq and settings for each subwoofer, while the original Todd Welti approach used a single controller for all subs - this could explain in part why they differ so much in placement suggestions.
I remember Amir posted about a new JBL Synthesis system for optimal subwoofer setting but was proprietary.
There are definitely things a nearfield setup does better than a conventional setup, and some of those things are magical. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to give up a good nearfield setup!
I'm not sure how much luck you'll have with the crossfiring of speakers whose radiation patterns are fairly wide. Probably will get some improvement for off-centerline listeners, but ime that approach works best when the speakers have a more narrow radiation pattern than is typical.
Yes, nowadays Earl is using independently EQ'd subs, and is getting incredibly smooth results from three such subs. The first time he described his concept to me (I was taking him to the airport to catch a plane home from CES), he just described multiple distributed subs, and I asked him if I could use the idea. He said yes, and so I've tried to remember to give him credit for it, because what I do is based on an early generation of his concept.
Todd Welti investigated symmetrical setups, whereas Earl's approach is deliberately asymmetrical. Todd's and Earl's approaches are original, in that they did their work independent of one another, with no knowledge of the other's work. The interesting thing is that they arrived at such similar solutions, while just about everyone else has been focusing on building better subwoofers and better equalizers. Of course one advantage of a decent multisub setup is that the spatial variation is reduced, making it more likely that any EQ that's needed is addressing a global problem instead of a localized one.
Duke, brilliant stuff again. Like the Classics in my library, I can re-read your posts and learn new things every time.
Do you recommend (a) any, (b) some, (c) a lot, or (d) no room treatments for speakers like Soundlabs? for point source speakers? And why?
I know MBL doesn't recommend any room treatments, but I would imagine sticking some in corners (wall/ ceilings/ floor) intersections (vs. all over the room) would have beneficial bass effects while preserving the ambiance the designer worked so hard to create. Thanks!
[cue Hank Hill's voice]Yes sir, Ah sure can talk a good game now, Ah tell ya what.[/Hank Hill]
Depends on the specifics of course, but in general I recommend diffusion of the early reflection zones, and absorption only as a last resort. My analogy is this: What would you do if this was a room for a grand piano? Would you turn it into a padded cell, or would you want to get your money's worth in terms of that deliciously rich sound field?
For a point source... well, I think it depends on what the radiation pattern is like. If it varies a lot, for instance such that there's excess off-axis energy going out into the room at the bottom end of the tweeter's range (usually 2-4 kHz ballpark), then we may have a problem. It's hard to selectively absorb the lower treble region without over-absorbing the upper treble region. It can probably be done, but I don't know how to do it.
The grand piano analogy applies even more to the MBLs than to the SoundLabs. Bass trapping may indeed be beneficial in many if not most cases, but we don't want to alter the spectral balance of the reverberant field by absorbing the high frequencies... and of course the shorter the wavelength, the more vulnerable to absorption it is.
Note that the smaller the room, the more effective a given amount of absorption is at altering (and potentially ruining) the in-room spectral balance. This is for two reasons: First, a square yard of absorptive material is a larger percentage of the room's surface area in a small room than in a large room. Second, because the reflection path lengths are shorter in a small room, (within a given time interval) more reflections will hit (and be killed by) our square yard of absorption in the small room.
I'm harping on absorption because many people's idea of room treatment is thick slabs of egg-crate foam stuck on the walls. Very few people go overboard on diffusion or bass trapping. Since having the good fortune to work with a real professional in this area (Jeff Hedback), I have gained a great deal of respect for the disproportionate benefits of using the right material in the right amount in the right place. It's sort of like crossover design - you can't just add capacitors at random and expect to improve things. It takes the right amount of inductance, capacitance, and sometimes resistance in the right places to get really oustanding results. And when room treatment is done right, your room literally sounds twice as big as its physical dimensions. I heard that in a recording studio that Jeff Hedback designed. (I also heard that my crossover design still had a problem, which had completely eluded me up until then!)
Ah tell ya what.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |