# Duel Sub woofer phase alignment check (yes again)



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

Sorry to ask this yet again I did do a search but a lot of the info was posted years back and is unclear.
There has been quite a few updates to REW since then.

Is there a clear written guide on how to use REW to determine if Duel Subs are both in phase with each other.
One is located Front Right corner and one located Rear Left corner.

I use Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 which should time aligns the subs but is inconsistent in the resulting distance settings.

The question of course also applies to checking if the mains and subs are in phase.

I use a UMIC-1 and ASIO4All on my laptop.

Also if possible some examples of what to look for as I find some replies assume prior knowledge and this is a learning curve for me at a late stage in my life.

Even using REW Help or Google can bring more questions then answers.

I would think a clear guide on how to use REW to determine phase and interpret the findings as a sticky would benefit many old and young members.

Thanks in advance 
Andy


----------



## TKNice (Jun 3, 2009)

I'd like to know this as well. :grin2:


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

lesmor said:


> Sorry to ask this yet again I did do a search but a lot of the info was posted years back and is unclear.
> There has been quite a few updates to REW since then.


The REW updates and time do not change the general measurement concepts that can be used. There are lots of possible methods to check the setup. Some are quick and easy and some very detailed for those that like to spend time measuring and learning about audio setup options. Even the easy ones are good when using Audyssey. If there are poor results the SW distance setting can be investigated as below, but not much else unless there is interest in moving SWs/LP around in the room.



> Is there a clear written guide on how to use REW to determine if Duel Subs are both in phase with each other.
> One is located Front Right corner and one located Rear Left corner.


Basically just measure with mic at LP:
> SW1
> SW2
> SW1+SW2

If the SW1+SW2 measurement SPL is higher than the others across the bass range then the SWs are 'in phase'. You could reverse the polarity of one of them and measure 'SW1'+'SW2(inverted)' also. That SPL should be lower than the others. 



> I use Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 which should time aligns the subs but is inconsistent in the resulting distance settings.


Audyssey using 2 SW outputs should work well. How much difference are you seeing? 1-2 feet is not an issue. The distance settings in the AVR should be near the actual measured distances. It may work just fine in come cases if they aren't however. The final smoothness of the SPL is the target.



> The question of course also applies to checking if the mains and subs are in phase.


Similarly, Mic at LP (with REW acoustic timing turned on if possible):
> LMain (channel-1)
> RMain (channel-2)
> SWs (channel-1)
> LMain+SWs (channel-1)
> RMain+SWs (channel-2)

We are looking to see if there is good SPL support through the XO range.



> Also if possible some examples of what to look for as I find some replies assume prior knowledge and this is a learning curve for me at a late stage in my life.


If your current LMain+SWs and RMain+SWs measurements are reasonably smooth with Audyssey then there is not much to gain in going further. A sharp SPL dip in the XO range may be due to room mode or possibly a SWs timing/distance setting issue. We can help comment on the results given some charts to look at.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

@jtalden

Many thanks for responding its much appreciated

I have some existing charts which I will now look at again with the info you have provided.

As I have moved my speaker positions since then, and also used a single point close spaced Audyssey calibration method 101 I intend to do some more REW sweeps this weekend.
I will then post the charts/files to see if there are any obvious issues.

To add I had thought I was using timing reference (although I dont actually know what it means) but I now realise I didn't have it enabled in preferences.
Is there an explanation of what using "Timing reference" actually does, and the benefits it brings.
Thanks again
Andy


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

The relative arrival time of the sound from 2 sources is important to know for advanced timing/distance analysis. That way the Impulse, phase and group delay charts are correct for more detailed analysis by the advanced user. Arithmetic Math can also be used on the measurements to predict what will happen if the timing is changed.

If REW time feature is not activated then REW places the arrival times at 0ms. This is best for most other types of analysis. It's still possible to adjust the SWs timing/distance just with tape measure and an making some SW distance changes to see the impact on SPL. Fine tuning to extreme levels not necessary for good results. The SPL chart tells most of the story.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

lesmor said:


> I use Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 which should time aligns the subs but is inconsistent in the resulting distance settings.


I've found most room correction suites to have inconsistent distance settings... interesting, but frustrating at the same time since it's hard to discern between an error and normal operation.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

Over the last four calibrations these are the distances as set by Audyssey
Mike at MLP near enough in the same position within 1"
Sub woofers in exactly the same position
Physical distances from MLP approx

Sub1 13.6ft
Sub2 8.4ft


Calibration 1 2 3 4
Sub1 18.70	13.64 18.40	18.70
Sub2 18.79	13.28 13.18	13.48

The last two appear to have a 5 Ft error between Sub1 and Sub2
Although acoustic distance can be different from physical distance


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Yes, it is also hard to the do the job manually sometimes. If the room acoustics and/or LP and speaker positions result in a very chaotic impulse response then it is difficult. Sometimes there is no good clear answer for a given situation.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: Dual Sub woofer phase alignment check (yes again)*

As previously discussed I have taken some REW readings of the subwoofers
Also Front Left and + dual subwoofers.

I have also adjusted the dual subwoofer distances so also include a Front Left and adjusted subwoofer distance graph
I imagine my dual subwoofer gain is a bit higher than the mains,I have left it as per the Audyssey calibration

The peak at 26Hz is causing ringing it would be great if I could address that and also close the hole in the response.

I did eleven changes to distance settings some knocked down the peak but IMO a bit too far and failed to fill the hole.
I do wonder if slightly increasing the gain on one of the Subs might actually do that?

I would appreciate some feedback on the results
Cheers
Andy


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

The SWs look great. No changes needed! :smile:
> The 2 SWs are timed perfectly now (great phase tracking) and the SPL support across the entire bass range is therefore very good.
> There is a strong room mode at ~110 Hz for both the SWs. This is far enough above the XO that it probably will not be a big issue when we look at the SWs+mains.
> There is a room mode at ~30 Hz in SW1 but not in SW2 that causes the minor SPL variation in that range. The overall variation is only ±3 dB 20-100 Hz. This is very good.
> The 'slow' decay (ringing) at 26 Hz is not an issue. It is still down about 18 dB in 300 ms. It takes lots of SPL to perceive 26 Hz so an 18 dB drop in only 300 ms will likely place it below the threshold of perception for most small room listening levels. There no content there in most all music so we are mostly thinking about sound effects anyway.

I still need to look at the timing with the FL. It appear there may be an opportunity to improve that. I'll be back soon.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

@jtalden
Many thanks for the feedback much appreciated
I have added the FL Centre and FR metadata

These do not show the Subwoofer distance changes

The FL FR speakers are not symmetrically positioned due to an alcove at the Front Right of the room.

The centre speaker may be suffering from SBIR

A combined file was too large to post


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

There is lots of overlap of the SWs and the FL that is not helping the XO range. Also the Mains do not roll-off nearly as fast as would be expected.

Confirming:
What is your current XO frequency setting? Is it done in an AVR or some other box?
The measurements you posted were with 'redirected' bass and not 'LFE' bass... correct?
The FL main was with the XO active and mains set to 'small' not 'full range' or 'large'... correct?


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

jtalden said:


> There is lots of overlap of the SWs and the FL that is not helping the XO range. Also the Mains do not roll-off nearly as fast as would be expected.
> 
> Confirming:
> What is your current XO frequency setting? Is it done in an AVR or some other box?
> ...


Audyssey consistently reports a 40Hz crossover to the AVR for the 7 main speakers which are all the same design/spec and from the same manufacturer

XO set at 80Hz in manual using a Denon 7200WA

All speakers set to small so all bass should be redirected to Subs below 80 Hz 

I have found that if I change the crossover in the AVR either up or down for some reason it is having no effect on the Subwoofer trend 
i.e. Changing XO to 250 Hz the subs still roll off around 100Hz


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Something seems wrong. It really should be sorted out. I suggest you confirm that the SWs roll-off changes with a changing XO setting. 

Your measurement of the SWs was with REW sent to channel 1 and the FL speaker unconnected? [The music mode should be 'stereo' if we want the levels to be correct. If you are using the acoustic timing on a different main than the FL or FR then use 'Multi-channel stereo'. The SW level in that case will be 6 dB higher than if stereo was used, but that won't hurt anything. We just need to understand that.]

If this wasn't the problem then I suggest you try a reboot of the AVR to see if that helps - just unplug it for a few seconds. No settings will be lost when it is restarted.

We should be able to confirm that moving the XO freq does in fact change the SWs and main speakers roll-off accordingly. No need to prove that to me. When you are satisfied then just let me know.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

jtalden said:


> Something seems wrong. It really should be sorted out. I suggest you confirm that the SWs roll-off changes with a changing XO setting.
> 
> Your measurement of the SWs was with REW sent to channel 1 and the FL speaker unconnected? [The music mode should be 'stereo' if we want the levels to be correct. If you are using the acoustic timing on a different main than the FL or FR then use 'Multi-channel stereo'. The SW level in that case will be 6 dB higher than if stereo was used, but that won't hurt anything. We just need to understand that.]
> 
> ...


Agree seems to be a problem with the AVR which is not responding to XO change requests, it is always disconnected after use.

Just so happens there appears to be a firmware update today.

SW charts were with AVR Multichannel and REW Channel 4
FL charts Channel 1 and timing reference Channel 7 (Left Surround)

Hopefully firmware update will help although it is not a reported issue from any other user.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Okay, that is why the SW roll-off is not changing and why there is so much XO overlap of the SW and FL. Channel 4 is the LFE channel and it is not affected by the XO settings for the mains. The LPF on that channel is probably set to 120Hz as is standard. Only the Mains channels will effect the SWs roll-off freq. I cannot use the provided channel 4 SWs results for evaluation of the XO handoff to the mains. It was fine to use that channel to confirm the 2 SWs were cooperating properly (and they are) with the original distances of 19ft and 13.7ft. Continue to use settings with that same relative difference (19-13.7=5.3), but I will no doubt have you shift them both together after my analysis.

Proposed path:
> Firmware installation
> Set 60 Hz XO for FL, FR (** See below)
5 measurements:
> SWs (Channel 1)
> FL (Channel 1)
> SW+FL (Channel 1)
> FR (Channel 2)
> SWs+FR (Channel 2)

[The SWs on Channel 2 are identical to the SW on Channel 1 so only these 5 are needed.]

That is all that I needed determine the best timing. There is no need for you try to adjust the SWs distances yourself if you want me to provide a recommended SW's setting to use. I can model the impact of the change in distance settings using REW Trace Arithmetic.

** You can continue to use the 80Hz XO if you like, but I am anticipating from the data you already provided that 60 Hz will work better to avoid the dip around 100 Hz. 

The solution from your experiments on SW distance at 80 Hz XO probably provided the best SPL result possible given that XO setting. They took pretty typical as room modes in that range are very common and often cause a sag or dips in that range. There is no guarantee that 60 Hz and the timing I suggest will work better. I'm thinking it will, but...

This is a lot of work so if you are satisfied with the you current adjusted settings I that's fine.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

@jtalden
Many thanks again
I didn't realise Channel 4 is the LFE and as it is set at 120Hz I would have expected the trend to extend higher than 100Hz
If there is a crossover issue hopefully the firmware update will sort that out.

I have just realised that when you say 
>SWs (Channel 1) you mean disable FL so I will do that when I next run REW
I will come back with the requested data in due course.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Good!


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

AVR Firmware updated
Requested metadata attached
I also added the centre speaker metadata

The AVR crossovers appear to be working Ok at 60Hz but with a 250Hz crossover both Subs roll off at 100Hz
These are brand new subs from a new manufacturer so I will be getting in touch with the company for some feedback
Thanks
Andy


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

I have not yet looked at the CC, but will do that a little later. 
There are 2 solutions that provide excellent phase tracking through the XO. Either one should provide excellent results. The SPL support is a noticably better on the FL, but only marginally improved on the FR compared to your current settings. Your current settings provides reasonable SPL support already, but the SWs are delayed more than optimal for good phase tracking. These new settings may not provide a noticeable difference in sound quality, but they do provide a improved phase tracking. 
The change to 60Hz did help a little in the 100Hz area I think, but that cannot be proven with an A/B comparison. Again, the improvement is probably modest, but directionally correct.

I will post some charts and review the CC possibly later today. 
The 2 new Options are:
1. Current SW1 and SW2 Distance Settings + 15.8 ft.
2. Current SW1 and SW2 Distance Settings + 4.5 ft. (Invert both SWs polarity)

This seems like a lot of distance increase given that you indicated the current settings were: SW1/SW2 = 19.0/13.7 ft. I was envisioning a small room and thus expecting reductions. Did you make a change to these settings? Are the current distances near the measured distances for all speakers (SWs and Front mains)? Maybe I got confused on direction again - that's a too common occurrence here.  I'll hold my post of the charts until you confirm your current distance settings to see if these changes make sense.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

@jdalden
Hi Thanks for the fast reply

I did a Audyssey restore before taking the readings which puts all settings back to my last calibration.
This includes the Subwoofer and speaker distances which are 
Sub1 19 ft 0"
Sub 2 13 ft 7"
Physical distances
Sub1 13ft 6"
Sub 2 8ft 4"

FL&FR 11ft 2"
Centre 9ft 9"
as measured by Audyssey 

The room is 20ft 0" x 17ft 1" x 8ft 0" 
The front wall widens into an alcove so front wall width is 20ft 0"

The MLP is at 38% of the room lenght and L/R speakers are at a 30 deg angle

L/R Baffles are 31 1/2" from the front wall

Centre Speaker Baffle is 29 3/4" from the front wall


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Okay, I confirmed the analysis. It was correct.
Audyssey suggestions are good and provide a reasonably good SPL fill in the XO range from maybe 40-100 Hz. Shown below is the FL SPL showing the roll-off of the SWs and the FL main. The Audyssey full range Response is also plotted along with the SWs+4.5ft setting which provides a little better SPL fill in the XO range. This +4.5 ft setting requires that both SWs are inverted in polarity. 









Below is the FL and FR comparison for the current settings vs the -4.5 ft setting.

















Below is a series of charts that show the phase tracking of the current settings vs the +4.5 ft setting. Focus on the XO range from 40-100 Hz.

































Recommendation:
Audyssey did a good job here. You may want to compare the current settings verses the +4.5 ft settings for sound quality. I would prioritize these 2 settings, but the +15.8 ft should also be good if the AVR will allow such large distance settings. Just choose the setting you prefer.

When using the +4.5 ft settings do *not *forget to invert the polarity of both SWs!


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

@jdalden

I can't thank you enough for the time you have spent on this.
As I previously said I am new to REW and tweaking my system so I hope you forgive me for asking clarification.

So I should add +4.5 feet to *Both * subwoofers?
So Sub1 23 ft 8"
Sub 2 19ft 1"

Turn the Phase dial from 0 to 180 again on both subwoofers?

Does this only apply to a 60Hz XO, or is it good up to a 100Hz ?

I am looking forward to trying this out

Cheers
Andy


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Both SW:
> Add approximately 4.5' so 4'-6" to the current distance settings. So: 19'-0"(?) to 23'-6" and 13'-7" to 19'-1". Typically ±1 ft from the target has no significant impact for 60-100 Hz XOs.
> The phase dial on the SWs may, or may not, have the affect of reverseing the polarity. Sometimes it may just shift the phase near the XO range. My analytical method uses a full polarity reversal. If there is no switch marked 'polarity' on the SWs just reverse the wire connections. [While I can't model the exact impact of a phase dial that only impacts the phase in the XO range, I might guess that a 180° setting may work as well. I have no practical experience with that control however.]
> I would expect same distance adjustment is probably very close to ideal for an XO setting from 60-100 Hz. [Since the roll-off rates are a little different at the different XOs frequencies there is likely a small theoretical difference, but it is not likely to be significant.] the only reason I had you move down to 60Hz is that both the SWs and the FL have room mode nulls that are close to each other around 100-120Hz. I was anticipating that the sag/null in that range may be worse if the XO is close to that since then both drivers will be fully active. You can measure with that setting and see if the sag there is worse or not. I like to minimize any SPL sag there as it can a big impact on sound quality.

CC Measurements:
I took a quick look at the CC and with the 4.5' Inverted SWs setting the phase tracking is good. [The current Audyssey setting is good also.]


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

Excellent information as always thank you

I will implement your suggestions and watch a couple of movies both at 60Hz and 80Hz xo
I will eventually follow up with some more REW metadata showing how it looks with the changes.

There is no polarity switch on my subs
The subs are connected with RCA so reversing the wiring is not an option
I only have a variable Phase control from 0-180 so will have to try that

Again thanks for taking the time in helping me out it has been very informative and enjoyable and is much appreciated.

I will be back in due course
Andy


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Yes, Good.

If you run the full series, I will be able to confirm if the phase tracking is as expected. [You may also tell also just seeing if the SPL response in the XO range is improved as predicted above.

Full Series to confirm +4.5' settings:
1. SWs (+4.5', Phase at 180°)
2. FL
3. FR
4. SWs+FL
5. SWs+FR


----------



## Talley (Dec 8, 2010)

so what a minute... i thought it was the vertical line on the phasing that had to match not the slope


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

To get good cooperation between 2 SWs we want the solid phase lines to track closely to each other through the bass range. For an XO between 2 drivers, as this SWs to Mains XO, we want the phase to track closely across the XO range. That way both drivers are working together at those frequencies.

Vertical line? The dotted vertical lines on the phase chart are just to show that the solid phase line hit the chart edge at ±180° and thus jumps (wraps, or picks up again) back at the other edge of the chart (top or bottom). Those dotted lines are imaginary and best ignored. If we unwrap the chart we more easily see the actual phase without the wraps. That works well if we have a chart without any rapid phase shifts due to room modes or reflections. Those room effects make an unwrapped chart hard to properly interpret so the wrapped chart is more commonly used. Once we learn to recognize the phase path of the direct sound from the speakers among the clutter of room effects the charts are very useful. Applying a FDW of about 5 cycles often helps greatly for LP measurements particularly for higher frequencies. It also helps to avoid applying any smoothing when viewing phase charts.

If this was your question and this doesn't explain well enough, I can post some examples charts that may help.


----------



## FargateOne (Mar 3, 2015)

Talley said:


> so what a minute... i thought it was the vertical line on the phasing that had to match not the slope


as do I ! Thanks for asking !


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

@jtalden
Finally got round to taking readings so here is the metadata 
see what you think


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Hmm... Did you remember to set the 2 SWs to 180° on the phase control?


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

jtalden said:


> Hmm... Did you remember to set the 2 SWs to 180° on the phase control?


Yes both set as instructed
In the meantime.
I have been trying both subs upfront but the one on the left as a huge dip between 25Hz and 50Hz
Both together and with the Right Sub at 180 the dip improves but it is still a wide hole


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

lesmor said:


> Yes both set as instructed


Well, a comparison between the SWs from Posts 19 and 30 does not show the calculated differences. The only difference is that the Post 30 SWs are arriving at ~-2 ms (earlier). There is no evidence of any phase shift. [When the IRs are aligned the phase rotation is identical.] 

The -2 ms shift is also a puzzle as that represents about a +2'4" shift in the LP distance. We expected a +4'6" distance shift. Something is not following correctly. It is not a problem with the calculation. That was double/triple checked, but maybe we are not on the same page somehow?

My Understanding (Post 30 vs Post 19):
> The LP mic position was not changed.
> The SW were not moved.
> The SW distance was changed in the AVR by +4'6".
> The Phase control on both SWs was changed to 180°.
> The same reference channel was used for all measurements and it was previously confirmed that the IR positions are repeatable with acoustic timing engaged.
> 60 Hz XO used for both series.

I can't think of other things that could create this problem at the moment. I will give it some more thought. I am not sure where to go from here unless we can identify a possible cause of the issue.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

jtalden said:


> Well, a comparison between the SWs from Posts 19 and 30 does not show the calculated differences. The only difference is that the Post 30 SWs are arriving at ~-2 ms (earlier). There is no evidence of any phase shift. [When the IRs are aligned the phase rotation is identical.]
> 
> The -2 ms shift is also a puzzle as that represents about a +2'4" shift in the LP distance. We expected a +4'6" distance shift. Something is not following correctly. It is not a problem with the calculation. That was double/triple checked, but maybe we are not on the same page somehow?
> 
> ...


All the suggested changes were made as instructed.
As advised since making the changes I then watched a couple of films.

You will note that the original graphs were on the 28th June and the latest on the 5th July.

>I can confirm that the LP mic position was measured the same as Post 19
> Subwoofers were not moved at that time.
>Distances were set as agreed
>Phase controls on both Subs turned to 180
>Same timing reference used can be confirmed by clicking the info button
>crossover 60Hz is clear on the subs chart.

Concerned that I may have sent the wrong data I have double checked
The Subs chart of 7/5/16 shows a 60 Hz XO
Looking at the FL +Subs dated 7/5/16 it is visibly different from the one done on the 28th but is not quite as good.

I really appreciate your time taken to advise and I would not compromise that by not following your instructions to the letter.
Sorry I can't be of more help
Andy


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Okay, that confirms we are on the same page. 
I am unable to ascertain the root cause of the issue. If you are willing to try again, we can take what we learned and move forward again as efficiently as possible.

We know that:
> The Phase controls on the SWs do not reverse the polarity nor does it change the overall phase rotation. It's possible that it does change the SW delay slightly, but the evidence doesn't seem to really support that explanation either. 
> There is thus no practical way to change the phase of the SWs in a helpful way.
> The 3 front speakers are reasonably well aligned at the LP and their phase tracks accordingly. No problem there, so if we get one of the 3 fronts aligned properly with the SWs, then the others will be correct also.
> The 60 Hz XO is in a quiet portion relative to the room modes and thus a good choice for the XO setting. All 3 front mains have similar phase tracking in that range.

One reasonable path from my perspective is:
> XO's remain at 60°
> SWs Phase controls both back to 0° setting.
> Reverse the polarity on all the mains instead. [That gives the same impact and reversing the polarity of the SWs.]
> Current AVR Distance settings - per Post 30.
> SWs at same locations as in Post 19 and Post 30 .

Measure:
> SWs
> FL
> SWs+FL

Optionally, each of these 3 can initially be measured 3 times to confirm to you that the 3 IR locations all fall on top of each other. If the 3 IR locations coincide properly when zoomed in then the extra 2 measurements can then be deleted. This will just confirm that the REW time lock is working properly. If you have already done something similar then... never mind.  We just need the 3 good measurements. The previous data didn't suggest a problem in this regard so I do not really anticipate that there is one.

Other Comments:
> This should put us at the correct timing if Post 19 measurements are considered, or within roughly 2 feet away if Post 30 measurements are considered instead.
> We can then determine from this data if a fine tuning adjustment is still needed.
> The FR and CC will be correct when the FL channel is. There is no real need to measure them as well. Once the FL is confirmed correct then the others can be test as well if that helps with the peace-of-mind.
> The other excellent alignment mentioned in Post 20 is possibly an option if you determine if the AVR will actually allow such a large SW distance settings. If it does, you may prefer that target. It doesn't involve reversing the wiring of the mains. Option 3 is still the original Audyssey setting which also provides reasonably good SPL support through the XO.


----------



## lesmor (Dec 30, 2009)

@jtalden
Glad we have agreed on the data
As I am now gathering data with subs at the front, depending on the outcome, then I am quite happy to revert back to one sub front and one at the rear.
That being the case once I have checked we are back on track with those readings I will return to the thread for further advice.

Again I can but thank you for the time and effort you have given to me :clap:
Regards
Andy


----------

