# "All properly designed amps sound the same"



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

I've heard this statement so many times I'm beginning to think there might be something to it. What would be the teory behind this?


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

A more appropriate way to state the question would be to ask what assumptions are behind this statement.

The idea is that an amp should not change the signal other than to amplify it. An ideal amp should not introduce any distortion and should be able to amplify all frequencies identically without being affected by the load.

The problem with the statement is that there is no perfect amp. The point at which you decide that performance is adequate and differences are irrelevant is a very subjective decision and based largely upon one's perspective. 

There are lots of amps that many would assume to be well designed and adequate, and may or may not sound the same. This is a matter of debate and you have opened a proverbial "can of worms."


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

Essentially, there are a variety of measurements that correlate directly with perception (there is an entire field of science dedicated to this). With modern technology it is no longer a challenge to design and build a unit that far exceeds these thresholds for audibility such that all amplifiers, if properly designed and working within their specified parameters*, will amplify a signal with no audible coloration.

*This assumes the amplifier is not broken, or is not being pushed to clipping etc...


----------



## maikeldepotter (Jan 10, 2008)

avaserfi said:


> Essentially, there are a variety of measurements that correlate directly with perception (there is an entire field of science dedicated to this). With modern technology it is no longer a challenge to design and build a unit that far exceeds these thresholds for audibility such that all amplifiers, if properly designed and working within their specified parameters*, will amplify a signal with no audible coloration.
> 
> *This assumes the amplifier is not broken, or is not being pushed to clipping etc...


If so, then how is it possible that my wife and I hear the same difference in sound when comparing two high-end intergrated amplifiers when using a switch board in a dedicated listening room of our local hifi shop?


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

Please note, I have no interest in arguing subjectivity versus objectivity. My stance has clearly been made, its even my title on the forum . It is rare for either side to budge on this issue, so I just intend to answer non-inflammatory questions.



maikeldepotter said:


> If so, then how is it possible that my wife and I hear the same difference in sound when comparing two high-end intergrated amplifiers when using a switch board in a dedicated listening room of lour ocal hifi shop?


Amplifiers can be designed to have a specific sound. From adjusting tonality to introducing various distortions etc... There are some esoteric companies that even do this on purpose, actually. In fact, it is one reason many tube amps are so popular.

Additionally, in a sighted, uncontrolled, listening test there are a variety of confounds that would cause non-existent differences to be heard. This is not my personal speculation, but rather, the results of scientific study.


----------



## salvasol (Oct 31, 2006)

maikeldepotter said:


> If so, then how is it possible that my wife and I hear the same difference in sound when comparing two high-end intergrated amplifiers when using a switch board in a dedicated listening room of our local hifi shop?


Do you know if they're using any EQ on each unit??? ...How are they set up??? ... That could be the cause :yes:

Maybe they're trying to sell a specific brand and that's why it sounds better (I read that they do it in some stores with the TV's) :yes:


----------



## thxgoon (Feb 23, 2007)

This is an interesting discussion that I've wanted to investigate for a long time. From a science standpoint (including double blind listening test proofs) there is no distinguishable audible difference between amplifiers operating with negligible distortion. This doesn't however, keep me from thinking that some amps do sound differently depending on the speaker they are paired with. This comes from a number of years working with different amplifiers both in home and pro audio in which a difference was noted every time and the opinion was common amongst other people. This is no way qualifies as an objective or scientific test, but is based on experience telling me there may be some (albeit very very little) merit to the thought of amplifier designs sounding different. Some day when the tools and the time permit I would love to conduct some tests.


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

So would I! 

My reason is that the EP2500 that I use for my subs is rated way better than my main amp (NAD M25), and also very much cheaper. If I could lose my main amp and get a stack of EP2500 my system could be hidden better, be more flexible and alot cheaper. I think I'll do some experiments. Too bad there's no easy way to A/B test two amps on one set of speakers...


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I would be very surprised if you noticed any audible difference. However, I cannot tell you how many times I have read from NAD owners the words "that NAD sound"... of course always in a positive manner. I know the NAD T785 worked very well for my Martin Logan's... it was not lacking in power.

Keep us posted on what you do and your findings.


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

I know the NAD sounds different from other brands, and probably by design. I know I like the 'NAD' sound, coming from other brands (Denon and Lyngdorf mainly).
I'll try the EP2500 sometime. I have a big system demo for some clients tonight so I won't mess it up today, but I might try it this weekend. Problem is I need to run my system without the subs then, so it'll be very different from what I'm used to. Hm, maybe I could hook the NAD up to the subs just to see what happens. If I don't run it too loud I should get a feeling for what it does...


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

One thing about the most recent NAD units that I heard rumored is that Audyssey developed a different curve for NAD than they do for other brands. Of course it may be true... just roused my curiosity when I read it. I did not investigate if it was actually true.


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

They did. NAD played with the PRO software and developed a new target, and had it implemented in the receiver and processor range. It's plainly called NAD in the target curve selction. It's basically a target with a 'party-hump' in the midbass area and a little more HF rolloff than the regular Audyssey target.

This will not apply in my case though, the M25 is a pure power amp. But the same sound philosophy still apply, I guess.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

How about the difference in Carver amps, particularly there older magnetic field amps I owned two of them and they defiantly had a different sound than a more standard capacitor based amp. They sounded brighter and had lots of power right up to there maximum output but look out if you clipped one, they really "snaped"


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

There can be situations where amplifiers do not sound the same. As I have mentioned previously, amplifiers, just like speaker cable, can be engineered to sound differently. This is not a hard task and is most often found in esoteric brands, but I have also read that some Carver amps equalize the signal as well.

With regard to some speakers sounding differently with some amps: Current requirements are based not only on impedance, but also on phase, both of which are dependant on frequency. So, if a loudspeaker has impedance drops to four ohms at 90 degrees it will present a far harder load than 4 ohms at 45 or 0 degrees (more common). In scenarios such as this an extremely robust amplifier is required to prevent (possibly pleasing) distortion from being introduced. One requirement of the stipulation of amplifiers sounding the same is that they are working within their limits, such a scenario is a perfect example of where an amplifier is not.

If one is interested in properly conducting such a test for valid, generalizable, results. I would be more than willing to discuss proper methodology.


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

And such a load (4ohm, 90deg) would not be measured by a standard frequency sweep, right?


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

atledreier said:


> And such a load (4ohm, 90deg) would not be measured by a standard frequency sweep, right?


Impedance and phase must be measured to gain such information. Frequency response is a different measurement.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

A while back I did a blind listening test with 2 other people comparing a $270 Carvin HD1800 pro amp vs a $1700 PS Audio HCA-2 home stereo amplifier. Our results were that there was no discernable difference. In a later test, we also compared the built in amp section of a Harmon Kardon AVR 635 vs the same PS Audio HCA-2, and again, no discernable difference. And while I'm at it, we also conducted a test at a later date to determine if different DACs resulted in discernable sound quality differences for stereo music playback. We used a "cheap" Pioneer VSX 1014, a "medium" Harmon Kardon AVR 635, and an "expensive" Audio Refinement Pre-2DSP to handle processing with all signals output to a discrete, dedicated amp. Results, yet again, were that there were no discernable differences.

As avaserfi stated, electronics today are to the point where unless someone intenionally creates a design that will alter the sound with a non flat FR or some other "trick", there shouldn't be any discernable sound quality differences. In fact, you should worry a whole of a lot more about the boutique or small "audiophile" companies screwing something up in the design than a big player like Yamaha, Denon, or Pioneer, who have countless engineers, years of research, and big R&D bucks at their disposal.

If you are curious about this topic and are at the point of potentially spending several thousand dollars, I'd highly recommend you do your own well conducted blind listening test. You'll probably find that you can put your money towards other areas which will actually yield a real sound improvement, or at the very least, a much more noticable one.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

ya know, i think we should conduct a poll, and see what members think.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Why not just say what you think? Isn't it more interesting to discuss complex matters and get varied reasoning and perspectives than to get poll numbers that allow someone to give an opinion anonomously that may or may not be well informed or thought out?


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

...idk, to get actual numbers on this as well.

I don't know if I agree with that statement, cuz my KLH receiver and my dads yamaha receiver are roughly the same age in terms of build date, and they have different sound characteristics. Now mine was 189$ his was 500$. It has many similar abilities, but it sounds alot different in terms of playback.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

And so we get to the heart of the posed question, what defines a properly designed amp and which amps qualify? Do you consider both receivers to be properly designed? What model is the Yamaha and what differences have you found?


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

After a little bit of searching, I found it. He has a Yamaha RX-V620, and I own a KLH Receiver R5100.

- The surround quality wasnt up to par on my KLH compared to my dads Yamaha.

- The "Full range signals" not sent to my mains when selected large on speaker settings

- The Dolby Pro Logic playback had better bass response on my KLH compared to the Yamaha.

But its hard to describe, overall the KLH wasn't up to par in terms of quality surround at moderate spl levels.


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

To go to specifics, I'm considering switching my NAD M25 7-channel amp for a Behringer EP2500 and my Denon AVR-4308 on center and surrounds. Just so you have some numbers to crunch..  It's save me a bunch of money, and get me a Full-HD projector too (BenQ W5000).

It's going to drive a set of Dali Euphonia MS4 fronts, CS4 center and Mentor2 surrounds.


----------



## thxgoon (Feb 23, 2007)

Just to be sure that the differences you are hearing are due to the design of the amplifier itself, you need to rule out all other variables.



the_rookie said:


> - The surround quality wasnt up to par on my KLH compared to my dads Yamaha.


There are a lot of variables that could play into this such as level settings, speaker type and orientation to the listener, connection from the source (digital or analog) and of course room interactions.



> - The "Full range signals" not sent to my mains when selected large on speaker settings


This could be a setting issue. Make sure that not only are the mains set to large, but that the LFE is being directed to the appropriate places. Sometimes LFE is sent to the mains as well as the sub and on some receivers bass in the mains can be duplicated in the sub as well.



> - The Dolby Pro Logic playback had better bass response on my KLH compared to the Yamaha.


This could be settings or could be in how the receiver handles pro logic, but in either case it is not necessarily an issue of amp performance.

To really narrow things down, you would need to compare your KLH with your dad's Yamaha on the same system in the same room with the same settings. And even then it would be next to impossible to interpret a difference due to the time involved with switching out the receivers.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

I personally think that there is very little difference but that little difference is sometimes audible. That 0.05% harmonic distortion could be at differing frequencies on different amps. Why, because different manufacturers use different components. Some capacitors are supposed to sound better. Some transformers are supposed to be better (ie: Toroidal). Some power supply designs are better. And so on.

Their THD% measuring can differ and there is no set regulation on how they need to report it. Some are more accurate than others. One may only state tests at 1KHz where as another might be 20Hz to 20KHz. It's the manufacturer that is doing the measurements so they can weight them which every way to give them the most favourable results.

There will always be distortion in an amplified signal. It is inherent. Slight distortions in the mid and upper frequencies could explain why one amp is considered "Bright" where as another is "Warm". The amp might not distort much at all except at a few given points. Average it out over the whole frequency spectrum and it still looks low.

It would be nice if there was a standard and one that was enforced or measurements were performed by a third unbiased party. I'm surprised that there are more reviewers on the NET that take things to that Nth degree.


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

MatrixDweller said:


> There will always be distortion in an amplified signal. It is inherent. Slight distortions in the mid and upper frequencies could explain why one amp is considered "Bright" where as another is "Warm". The amp might not distort much at all except at a few given points. Average it out over the whole frequency spectrum and it still looks low.
> 
> It would be nice if there was a standard and one that was enforced or measurements were performed by a third unbiased party. I'm surprised that there are more reviewers on the NET that take things to that Nth degree.


The problem is people almost always, 99.99% of the time, make these conclusions of 'warm', 'bright' and so on in sighted conditions in which the psychological factors are more relevant than the actual amp performance. Such conclusions are meaningless when made under sighted conditions with no bias or variable controls. An amplifier, to be audible in distortion on music program, would have to be: (1) very poorly designed [or] (2) driven past it's capabilities; clipping [or] (3) broken; defective.

Psychological influence is so strong that Toole(_former JAES president, most highly contributing member in the field of perceptual research as it relates to loudspeaker reproduction_) found and wrote about blind tests that were performed and speakers were consistently rated in an order of audible quality compared to each other on sound alone. When the tests were repeated sighted, some speakers that had less actual sound quality scores blinded were rated above some that had previously been rated as higher, when the speakers had a well regarded reputation or impressive appearance. It's incredible -- but psychological factors in your sub-conscious are THAT powerful.

If the psychological impact can be this influential on something with such large actual differences as speakers; what do you think the level of bias is on something as closely performing as amplifiers?

-Chris


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I wonder... if psychological factors in our sub-conscious are so influential on us, is it not something that we have to accept? Or do we need to keep the blinders on permanently? How do we get around this? :dontknow:


----------



## Bob_99 (May 8, 2006)

Sonnie said:


> I wonder... if psychological factors in our sub-conscious are so influential on us, is it not something that we have to accept? Or do we need to keep the blinders on permanently? How do we get around this? :dontknow:


Acoustics and psychoacoustics is one of several factors involved when listening to reproduced sound and the individual's ears and brain are obviously something that cannot be changed. That is not to say though that if you listened to music all your life on a bad system and thought it was good, you couldn't learn to enjoy the same sound on a better system even though initially it may sound different or lacking something. However, if you enjoy rap music, I doubt that listening to great speakers is going to make your taste change to classical.

onder:

Bob


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

WmAx said:


> An amplifier, to be audible in distortion on music program, would have to be: (1) very poorly designed [or] (2) driven past it's capabilities; clipping [or] (3) broken; defective.
> -Chris


All amplifiers will have some distortion, better ones have much less, but it is still inherit in amplifier design. It can't be eliminated, but it can be minimized. It's not that they add huge amounts so that it sounds like an electric guitar run through an effects pedal (clipping, overdrive, etc). The distortion is very very slight. It is very very small and almost non existent at very low amplification levels (say 1 watt). Playing at reference levels though starts to add a bit more distortion with the increased amplification.

Here is an interesting link to check out on amplifier distortion (with .wav samples)
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Amplifier_distortion.htm

You should also check out this link to become more informed on distortion and feedback in amplification
http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

Sonnie said:


> I wonder... if psychological factors in our sub-conscious are so influential on us, is it not something that we have to accept? Or do we need to keep the blinders on permanently? How do we get around this? :dontknow:


If the question is what does X really sound like? Where X stands for loudspeaker, amplifier or any other component. The only way for a human to analyze it via playback is in blinded situations. Any other circumstance would cause enough confound effects such that the results of the listening tests are biased even if the listener had no preconceptions about the product(s).

The alternative would be taking measurements of these items and correlating them directly with human perception if proper knowledge is had. Of course, both of these methodologies are extremely time intensive.



MatrixDweller said:


> All amplifiers will have some distortion, better ones have much less, but it is still inherit in amplifier design. It can't be eliminated, but it can be minimized. It's not that they add huge amounts so that it sounds like an electric guitar run through an effects pedal (clipping, overdrive, etc). The distortion is very very slight. It is very very small and almost non existent at very low amplification levels (say 1 watt). Playing at reference levels though starts to add a bit more distortion with the increased amplification.


Implied in your statement is that these differences within distortion are audible. This simply is not the case as shown by research specifically directed at measuring the thresholds of distortion. Rather these small differences in distortion between amplifiers are not audible unless the amplifier falls into one of the three categories WmAx listed above.


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

MatrixDweller said:


> All amplifiers will have some distortion, better ones have much less, but it is still inherit in amplifier design. It can't be eliminated, but it can be minimized. It's not that they add huge amounts so that it sounds like an electric guitar run through an effects pedal (clipping, overdrive, etc). The distortion is very very slight. It is very very small and almost non existent at very low amplification levels (say 1 watt). Playing at reference levels though starts to add a bit more distortion with the increased amplification.
> 
> Here is an interesting link to check out on amplifier distortion (with .wav samples)
> http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Amplifier_distortion.htm
> ...


[/quote]

Distortion of the magnitude in properly operation amplifiers simply is not even near audibility. I am not even going to bother reading the links because I am well aware of distortion structures and human perception of such. The links may or may not have highly valid information. 

When it comes down to blind testing... no one can tell the difference unless one of the conditions I listed in the prior post is met... there is no long technical explanation needed to explain this one most pertinent fact. From the infamous Steve Zisper ABX trials to the Richard Clark amp challenges ..... no one has demonstrated properly operating amplifiers to have any audible signature that makes them identifiable without sighted listening. Then some(usually people that like to claim blind tests are invalid) like to point out the Stereophile blind tests that were done years ago that showed that some people could hear a difference(though not many) between two SS amps. Then when one bothers to look at the details, one of the amps has broad frequency response errors that are well within known audible thresholds of sensitive listeners. A 'little' detail ignored by the ones that post it as evidence.

Why do people need their eyes to hear the difference if it's really there? 

-Chris


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

I would like to weigh in with an opinion. Yes, generally if you are way within the amplifier's rated wattage output and the amp has decent other specs like power bandwidth and noise level -- then they sound the same.

But a kicker to this is music transient peaks that exceed the final driver's linear operation capabilities. For these vacuum tubes and power FETs have a linear overdrive characteristic that is superior to bipolar power transistors. Smoother clipping with nicer harmonics produced. Just plain physics in operation.


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

And once again, we're talking about amplifiers that are within their limits, not how nice they are outside the envelope. Let's not go the tube vs solid state route, please.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

So would it be safe to say that getting a Amp; just for example; with 125+watts per channel, and all your channels are rated at 125 or a little bit over. And if a Yamaha 125 wpc, would be theoretically just as good as a Onkyo 125wpc AVR? And it came with the same digital decoders as well as number of inputs and outputs on all aspects.


----------



## thxgoon (Feb 23, 2007)

the_rookie said:


> So would it be safe to say that getting a Amp; just for example; with 125+watts per channel, and all your channels are rated at 125 or a little bit over. And if a Yamaha 125 wpc, would be theoretically just as good as a Onkyo 125wpc AVR? And it came with the same digital decoders as well as number of inputs and outputs on all aspects.


Yes :T


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

I am also coming to that conclusion. Audible differences can be intentional, though. Through EQ or whatever.


----------



## terry j (Jul 31, 2006)

my take is that even if differences do exist I feel that in comparison to, say, speaker abnormalities they truly become insignificant.

All that means is that the 'traditional' audiophile will chase down the 'minute' perceived differences in amps, cables, dacs etc yet often (when you look in the showcase section) have polished wooden floors, a speaker tucked wherever SWMBO dictates, no room treatment or eq etc etc.

hey, as this is a forum that well knows the value of eq, I wonder why people accept a 'colouration/difference' (lets say it exists) that they cannot turn off? , if you want a bit brighter for this track, turn it on. Cause as sure as toast falls buttered side down (notwithstanding any mythbuster findings!) the very next track you hear will be overbright and needs to have the treble attenuated (all just as an example of course).

, you want to 'change' the sound at least do it rationally. I can GUARANTEE you that with (say) a deq I can change the sound such that it will be picked 100/100 in a dbt!! (might not sound good heh heh, but the point is you can change things to taste)


----------



## superchad (Mar 7, 2008)

While I do not plan on changing anyones opinions I will say that recently I replaced my Aragon 4004MKII with a pair of Classe CA150 amps and while the Classe is a touch sweeter the speakers really disapear now in that before they had a pinpoint image and now you get this entire presentation between the speakers and have had 3 friends shocked that the sound wasnt indeed coming from the center channel speaker along with mains. Say what you will and to each his own but I for one whole heartedly believe in amps sounding brighter, sweeter, deeper, wider and some have much better bass slam than others.
For those that believe all sound the same, thats great but others who enjoy the percieved or actual difference in amps have it great too...its all what makes you happy...............and oh yeah THE MUSIC!


----------



## atledreier (Mar 2, 2007)

Well, if your speakers weren't transparent, and focus was off before, I'd say maybe your previous amp wasn't really in the 'properly designed' or 'within it's limits' category to begin with....


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

As I said before, the question is poorly posed until the assumptions regarding what "properly designed" is to mean. There is no doubt that amps sound different.


----------



## maikeldepotter (Jan 10, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> As I said before, the question is poorly posed until the assumptions regarding what "properly designed" is to mean. There is no doubt that amps sound different.


Fully agree. Good point that deserves to be supported!! :T


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

Properly designed amps operated well within their limits will have incredibly tiny variations on the sound that are inaudible for the most part IMOP. Properly designed meaning: low noise, channels match up, low THD, flat FR from at least 20hz-20khz (+/-0.5db), non-tube based and operated well within it's power limits. 

The differences that are often noted are due to preference, or bias towards one, whether unintentional or not. Also differences in input sensitivity, "voicing" added to the amps, small FR variations and other slight differences in hook-up could possibly cause one amp to be favored. Again this is my opinion. 

2 competently designed amplifiers have much less effect on the sound than your speakers, changes in their placement, EQ, the room, room treatment if used and possibly your psychological attitude toward the equipment.


In the end, even if a shiny new amp really only improves your sound to you through psychological means, so what! If it enhances your enjoyment of your system and makes you happy that's all that really matters.


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

SteveCallas said:


> . In fact, you should worry a whole of a lot more about the boutique or small "audiophile" companies screwing something up in the design than a big player like Yamaha, Denon, or Pioneer, who have countless engineers, years of research, and big R&D bucks at their disposal.
> .




:bigsmile:


----------



## Red Z (Jan 8, 2008)

I haven't used just a plain "amp" in quite some time. In my first audio set-ups, I used to run seperate high-end preamps and amps. Since the '80s I have primarily been using AV receivers for everything. What's the difference? Quite a bit of the newer good quality receivers seem to sound just as good, if not better, than my old seperate high-end systems. More importantly, I find the new receivers to be able to decode the latest dolby and digital signals where my others could not--in that effect, the new receivers sound better. 

I did need a seperate amplifier for an in-wall sub recently and found a novel way to acheive it. I found a complete powered subwoofer amplifier--the kind people use to build their own subs (from Parts Express @about $50) and mounted it directy into the wall near the receiver--it had auto on and all of the cross over functions with lots of power--saved a bundle compared to a seperate amp that I would have to figure out how to remote control, or a complete sub that I would have to figure out where to put. 

In another case I needed to add additonal channels to an existing set-up. I needed it to balance and blend in with the rest of a multichannel system and used the preamp outs fed into an older, slightly obsolete receiver to power the channels and was able to have a volume adjustment on it to dial it in just right. 

If you are using amps to biamplify or as seperate channels in a system, I do not think there is that much of a difference between good quality amps. Some, I have heard do have nuances, but I did not think of them as a desired feature for me. People have their own preferences in how they think music should sound and some high-end equipment manufacturers make equipment to fill this need.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2008)

In my experience, well designed amps can and do sound VERY different. The trick is either deciding which assembly is right - or more widely, which assembly YOU like best.

Tube vs. Solid State is a good example.

From here on out it is either your closely held opinion on your stuff - or it can be based on many hours of comparing live music to that as sent through (heard not just your) system(s) - and their well designed amps.

Most potential for what is important are the elector-mechanical links where you have the best opportunity for improved "bang for the buck" in a system (currently the speakers) - not amps. This may be where the position that all well designed amps sound the same originated - I really don't know.

Hope this helps. It matches what I have learned so far.

KIA:R


----------

