Jump to content
IGNORED

Hunt for RFI offenders


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, One and a half said:

The noise picked up by the radio is energy that's escaped the Faraday cages, so fat lot of good that does, and the 'best of intentions' as far as EMC Class B emissions for conducted noise. The reason for the 'best of intentions' statement, for testing EMC from equipment statements is dubious to non existent in the real world. Ever noticed the first part of an IT device packaging that has printed material is not the user manual, but the obligatory EMC statement, that the device complies with FCC et al. Throw this in the recycle bin amid all the other packaging materials. 

If that energy is picked up by the radio, how much of that energy is capacitively coupled to the ground plane at the source, where the energy is lot more intense. 

Some may argue that RF frequencies don't matter for audio bands, however, audio relies on very small voltages to extract minute details of recordings, and if coupled RF/common mode noise/differential mode noise is added to signals, then RF emissions do matter. SMPS are a classic noise generator, they have no place near audio systems. Sure, some SMPS are just as quiet as a linear (like one in a million designs), the piece of paper shipped with it says so, hahahahaha! Pull the other one.

 

Another classic example is to use a laptop -> (any) USB cable -> DAC and listen. Add in a (ISO)Regen/Intona/Micro 3.0/sOTMxxx to the chain and listen again. There's a reason why USB fixers still sell. Ethernet is not off the hook either.


The Jim Brown site is quite a good reference, it will take some time to digest. Hams are very keen to remove RF as it impacts on transmissions, however 'small' these usually IT devices are, they create a lot of havoc. I doubt an SMPS is in the same radio shack as the rest of the gear they use.

Well yes, if you are talking about noise generated inside  each

Link to comment
4 hours ago, One and a half said:

The noise picked up by the radio is energy that's escaped the Faraday cages, so fat lot of good that does, and the 'best of intentions' as far as EMC Class B emissions for conducted noise. The reason for the 'best of intentions' statement, for testing EMC from equipment statements is dubious to non existent in the real world. Ever noticed the first part of an IT device packaging that has printed material is not the user manual, but the obligatory EMC statement, that the device complies with FCC et al. Throw this in the recycle bin amid all the other packaging materials. 

If that energy is picked up by the radio, how much of that energy is capacitively coupled to the ground plane at the source, where the energy is lot more intense. 

Some may argue that RF frequencies don't matter for audio bands, however, audio relies on very small voltages to extract minute details of recordings, and if coupled RF/common mode noise/differential mode noise is added to signals, then RF emissions do matter. SMPS are a classic noise generator, they have no place near audio systems. Sure, some SMPS are just as quiet as a linear (like one in a million designs), the piece of paper shipped with it says so, hahahahaha! Pull the other one.

 

Another classic example is to use a laptop -> (any) USB cable -> DAC and listen. Add in a (ISO)Regen/Intona/Micro 3.0/sOTMxxx to the chain and listen again. There's a reason why USB fixers still sell. Ethernet is not off the hook either.


The Jim Brown site is quite a good reference, it will take some time to digest. Hams are very keen to remove RF as it impacts on transmissions, however 'small' these usually IT devices are, they create a lot of havoc. I doubt an SMPS is in the same radio shack as the rest of the gear they use.

Sorry, my post above  screwed up and I can no longer edit it.

 

Well yes, if you are talking about noise generated inside  each box then a Faraday cage won't stop it interfering with itself.

And as has been pointed out, RFI is so far outside the audio band, and the usual frequency response of amplifiers etc. that it simply won't have any effect.

 

Regarding 'minute details' the only 'minute detail' involved is the output from a moving coil cartridge, which I have already covered.

 

As we are mostly talking about computer audio, a sample of a 'minute detail' is just as large voltagewise  as a sample of an orchestra at full throttle  with the 1812 cannons going off  at the same time.

 

A personal example:  I use a totally 'untweaked' Lenovo tower PC with an i7 processor, three spinning disks, and a fancy graphics card, so it is quite high on the 'RFI scale'. It's in the next room and the cables go though a hole in the wall so  it's inaudible. There are no  little 'improvers' anywhere and it's connected by USB  and Ethernet  cables from the local supermarket as my thirty years plus in the computer industry tells me that 'special' cables for digital working are a complete waste of money.

I use  big Tannoy dual concentric speakers so if take the grille off and  put an ear in one  I can hear all frequencies.

And there's a permanent WiFi signal  from the internet router that covers the whole house and most of the garden, maybe all of it.  And a couple from the neighbors too.

The 'worst case' for a test is JRiver playing 'silence' (which produces the same bit stream voltagewise  as a full orchestra or whatever at full throttle) and the amp at full volume. I hear nothing at all  from the speaker my ear is in  (and my hearing is  tested regularly for 'professional' reasons.)

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

I was told by someone much smarter than me, that just seeing a metal box doesn't automatically mean the housing approximates a Faraday cage... It's obviously a good start, of course.

 

"Devices with metal enclosure do not approximate faraday cages–remember, bluetooth, wifi, and air are passing in and out–at least. Computers are designed to be permeable."

 

There's nothing special about a Faraday cage, it's just a grounded metal screen in the shape of a box so it works against interference from any direction. Holes don't matter as long as they are smaller across  than the shortest wavelength you want to exclude. Which is why chicken wire works fine in  most instances.

 

I did a lot of 'space' stuff. Some of our cages were big enough for what we were testing, test instruments, and several of us. Obviously we had to be careful about what instruments we brought into the cage. Some we left outside and just fed the probe leads in.

 

Computer aren't usually permeable.

Except for the fan inlets and the air exits. And as the fan sucks stuff in it usually has a fine grille over it often made of metal,  and the outlets are usually small slots. In most laptops the inside of the case (if made of plastic) including the part the keys poke through is sprayed with paint containing copper to make a shield..

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, One and a half said:

 

Here's a table taken from a you tube video from Hans Beekhuyzen "Audio Hygiene 3 Interconnects".

 

This table, very simply stated is a dynamic range table and the bits required to create that range. We only have 2V nominal to work with as a line out, so here's the able to the bare minimum of 20bits, of course most hires audio files are 24bit PCM.

 

image.thumb.png.46da6f8dff4c2066d4b195b6c6e29232.png

 

Fine details are specs of 'dust', and the audible ones, often discussed here at which level perception starts is another issue. At -72db these are mV and -96db in the microvolt ranges. For a DAC to produce these levels, it would infer that these values are clear of noise to be reproduced by the DAC correctly. When RF is free to propagate at will, what guarantee do you have that these voltages are out of the audio band and won't cause playback issues in a DAC?  A DAC of course is where D meets A.

 

That chart is interesting (and it explains something I never fully understood - the  bit position/decimal value's relationship to the DAC output voltage).

 

And incidentally, very few dacs do better than 20 bits resolution, no matter what they claim. It's certainly rare with dacs using an IC DAC chip.

 

But it comes down to that the dac.   We need good RF isolation from the 'outside world' and at a minimum the internal isolation of the USB receiver from the rest of the dac.  With a 'chip' dac it's near impossible to well-isolate  the digital parts from the 'conversion' as it's all on the same die.

 

None of this matters inside the computer. They HAVE to be designed to work fine in their self-created internal high RF environment  or they wouldn't work at all. And that's quite easy as neither internal 'bit' voltages nor timing  have to be particularly accurate, by design. Voltages aren't critical and the bit 0 or 1 value  is detected where the middle of the 'pulse' is expected to occur, not at the edges. The detector and the pulse chain both use the same clock and  there is a 'fake' reversal every so often to make sure the detector  has not moved  too far away from the middle of  the pulses.

 

I'm not sure I believe in the effectiveness of what you are doing but in an hour or so  I'm off to the local big supermarket to see if they have a very cheap radio with AM on  it :) 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

Computers usually used in domestic situations are exceptionally "permeable". 

The biggest problem is the aforementioned "slots". Slots are good aerials / antennas, acting as dipole radiators. A slot will form anywhere there is not continuous metallic contact between panels. (*)

Side access panels make poor contact along most of their edges, forming slots.

Grilles are usually only bonded to the cabinet at the corners, forming slots along the edges. The metal covers on the back panel covering the card slots usually only make good contact with the case at the ends. And ventilation slots are, well, slots.

 

(*) Old timers may remember when equipment such as computers used to have metal "finger" springs along the edge of the panels, which formed a continuous connection along the joins when the panels were closed. 

All true, though I assumed he meant permeable by design, maybe incorrectly. Within reason computers are designed not to care much about external influences, which are usually small compared to their 'self-created  and 'real close up' RFI.

 

At IBM we didn't give a rats ass about external RFI. We were far more interested in the operators dropping cigarette ash on the  'open' disk packs  as they inserted and removed them.  Later on we found that   didn't matter  much either :D 

 

What shielding there is on 'home' computers is more about passing 'RF radiating' regulations than anything else.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Em2016 said:

 

WiFi and bluetooth?

Of course, though the WiFi  (and presumably Bluetooth) frequencies are so far away from what our equipment can respond to that they couldn't  have any audible effect.

 

I'm no great expert of RFI, I just used to do some testing in  a hopefully RFI free environment which we could gradually increase to a large  but controlled amount.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Yup, in this case the housing is designed to be "permeable"

They do that on toy plane radio control too.

It operates nominally on 2.4 GHz but frequency hops about 1000 times a second  and also uses 'spread spectrum' so you can't really say it works at a particular frequency. Due to the 'spreading' its transmissions are  below background level so cannot be detected, but that's an 'accidental' side effect. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

23 years at IBM, myself...

There was the trick of putting an AM radio on top of the CPU, then running a program that ran various delay loops to generate musical tones.

There was no smoking in the computer rooms I frequented as a condition of the Maintenance Agreements, but I agree there was plenty of opportunity for contaminants to get in. I recall an operator putting a pack in a drive, lifting off the cover then sneezing mightily before closing the drive. One of my jobs as an engineer was to clean packs and heads.

 

Home computer shielding is a bit of a joke, especially with the fashion for windows in the cases to show off the tech. Manufacturers have had to resort to tricks like spread spectrum clocking to get the EMI down to allowable levels.

Most of it is at frequencies too high to have any possible effect on audio equipment, though.

Now you mention it I remember hearing about that radio trick.

 

And of course they weren't supposed to smoke, but our operators on night shift, when there was nobody about, certainly did.  And at    IBM France they did it openly - you won't stop the French smoking wherever they want. I used to be a member of the 'cable laying team' at weekends, three or four hours work Saturday or Sunday morning and then down to the local pub (we were in the 'country', close to a small village).  We crawled about under the false floors in the computer rooms making changes. And under the operating consoles there was always a pile of cigarette ends where the ops had put them through the grilles.

 

Incidentally, as we never bothered  to pull unused cables out as they were  all tangled up, the layer of cables got thicker and thicker and the space became less and less. As a development lab  we were constantly changing things around. At the time the main computer room at Hursley, UK, was the biggest computer room in Europe.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

And again, people just don't get it about what the impact of interference is on a digital rig - there's this concept that the interference generates an "extra noise", which one can hear as something distinct, over the speakers. Ummm, it just doesn't work this way - to this day I have never ever heard interference in this manner, unless I do something extremely savage like creating an arcing mains power link, close by.

 

What actually happens is that the quality of the reproduction is degraded - the sparkle, bite and life of the music gets dragged down, it becomes boring and listless to listen to - a "good" recording becomes, a "bad" recording. Of course, if one is not aware of what's happening, the easy out is to state the "bleedin' obvious" - gee, I didn't realise I had so many poor recordings ... :P.

I'm with you on the 'analog' side. But you mention 'digital rigs'. Unless I'm misreading you we are in agreement on that too.

 

My 30 plus years in the computer trade tells me it's completely impossible. 'Digital' stuff doesn't 'degrade', it works perfectly up to a point, and beyond that it just stops. And in a digital environment noise doesn't 'add up'.

 

Bits don't 'travel though the system'  like an analog signal does, where each signal is an 'as accurate as possible' reproduction of the previous one, brand new  bits are created at every point depending on what the received  one was, it's not a 'copy' of the received one. and that's true of the  USB (or whatever) transmitter - the DAC receives a bright shiny string of brand new bits. And it doesn't 'use'  those either, the bits coming out of the DACs USB receiver are brand new ones created BY the DACs USB receiver .'

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

What is exported from the USB Port to the DAC is an ANALOGUE  representation of the digital data, and subject to the usual analogue vagaries due to the length of the cable, the isolation between D+and D-, and +5V Vbus and 0 volts, correct impedance of the USB cable, noise on the PC's internal +5V USB supply etc. Some longer USB cables don't even have shields, presumably done deliberately to  extend the operating distance of the cable  !!!

 

https://www.audiostream.com/content/draft?page=1

http://www.audiostream.com/content/theres-no-such-thing-digital-conversation-charles-hansen-gordon-rankin-and-steve-silberman-p

 

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits

https://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-3-how-bit-perfect-software-can-affect-sound

 

 

While I agree about it being analogue, it's a representation, as you say. It's not somethin that you have to amplify or whatever accurately.

Silberman is only a snake oil cable  manufacturer so I take no notice of him. As for  the others, Rankin talks  pure bollox at times. Swenson  is better but I think he is mistaken on some things.

 

Anyway, "appeals to authority", of which you seem so fond, are a logical fallacy because they  prove nothing either way.

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, One and a half said:

Not at all. The 'analog' books are fine, from what I can see from the Amazon 'blurb'.

 

But the two 'black magic' books  with their calling 'high speed digital design' being from  10 Mhz up have an extremely low concept of the bottom end of high speed. But they might be useful, our  data rates are pretty slow.

 

One part I did note is where analog and digital circuits meet.  Which of course applies very much to our stuff (as your binary/decimal to voltage chart showed yesterday). That of course is in a DAC.

 

But in our stuff  it isn't anywhere else. 

 

And that's why I think these  USB 'improvement' devices and similar gadgets are a complete waste of money. As  is most of this stuff (maybe all of it) INSIDE the computer, such as using SSD's rather than disks..  And I include these software 'optimizers' in that.

 

Internally generated RFI. Don't use a 'chip' converter. It is impossible to separate the noisy digital  part from the output as they are too close together, the 'active' part of the chip  is probably only about 1/8 to 1/4  inch square.

 

Protect the DAC and amplifier from externally generated RFI. This must be part of their design of course, unless you want to shield each box in a faraday cage. Don't bother about the computer, it generates so much itself that it won't notice outside influences. 

 

And of course follow the ages old 'good electronic practice'. That can never do any harm, even if in some boxes it won't give much, if any,  benefit.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Possibly misreading ... I'm talking about any system that relies on the music source being stored in digital form - that data, while being considered as bits, is always fine - as you say. The troubles arise in the conversion to analogue, and anywhere from that point on. Those systems which are full analogue - tape, vinyl, etc - seem more immune to the particularly pernicious interference issues - hence, people talk of getting "analogue sound" ...

 

Further to that, I have a CDP here which is extremely flaky in pulling off CDR material - it struggles, the sound glitches like crazy at times, as the error recovery and interpolation circuitry does its best - but, it still manages to read the disk. So, the data integrity there is badly 'degraded', corrupted, from the interpolation - yet the music still comes through with full tonality ... I have no problems with even severe digital corruption, in terms of getting good sound.

"The troubles arise in the conversion to analogue"

 

Exactly. That's where it all matters. The analogue stuff  afterwards  has been fully understood for a very long time and is largely  'non-controversial'.

 

The digital part in front should not  be controversial either. But there are two problems that make it so.

 

1) There are many who don't actually know how computers work, so they figure out how they MIGHT work. And then try to 'solve' the problems their incorrect  'method' causes. 

They don't understand that  the design, which is not as they think,  was all figured out in the 1940's to AVOID those problems before anyone even picked up a soldering iron and got stuck in. Or it would never have worked at all. And the basic  principles have not changed since. (But they probably soon will so keep paying attention  :D)

 

2) There are some firmly stuck in an 'analogue' paradigm and refuse point blank to come out of it. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

It is no longer a case of the "  DAC receives a bright shiny string of brand new bits." and requires further processing, just as the stored binary waveforms on a HDD do.

If the Signal Integrity of the data received at the USB input of the DAC is so bloody good, why do so many members need to use USB widgets,  cleaner USB PSUs,  and higher quality USB cables with improved isolation between the Data and power leads to obtain half decent USB audio, with many STILL reporting that a good quality CD player still sounds better to them , despite the PC having the advantage of reading from System Memory ?

 

Perhaps you need to have a good read of the information in the links that one and a half and myself have provided too ???

"so many members"

 

With 100,000 plus 'members' and only a tiny number ever posting anything whatsoever you can  have no idea  what  percentage  of us use or even consider these gadgets.

 

Or know what percentage of us think  CD players sound "better".

 

And the received bits are not "further processed" they are read and bright shiny new ones are sent on.

Also as Mansr pointed out, and which you chose to ignore,  it's all about 'transitions' (and I will add that  the 'value' of the 'crossing point' is not at all critical).

NRZcode.png

Link to comment

That's inside the computer. This is what the USB port sends to the DAC.

Note that as it depends on transitions both one and zero can have an 'analogue value'  of either  a positive or negative voltage. Also the voltages   can wobble about a lot as neither the zero  high, or low are at all critical.

 

NRZI_example[1].png

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

So what ???

 That waveform is nowhere near as perfect when received at the USB input of the DAC via a USB cable that may be more than a couple of metres long. There is also noise riding along with the analogue representation of the digital data. 

Have you ever looked at the D+ and D- leads at the DAC end with a CRO ?   You will even see low level binary data on the +5V wire in the REAL world . 

It doesn't have to  be 'perfect' or even close. That's  the whole point. This stuff was all figured out before they built the first 'Colossus'  in 1943 or it wouldn't have worked.

 

As for your previous post:

 

You hold up  as a 'master'  anyone who agrees with you and dismiss, sometimes even insult, everyone that doesnt.

 

I can't speak for mansr (who knows far more than me about most things), but I am as 'up to date' as so far physically  exists, on computing stuff you probably can't even comprehend.  I'm actually doing it though supposed to be retired - they asked for me back, but I'm not doing it full time. Here's a picture:

 

Anyway it's all way of topic and I don't want to upset one and a half.

 

 

Image result for ibm quantum chip

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

Mr. Hansen was wrong. It's not the fine details that are lost. The result is total decoding errors or drop-outs.

He's not the only one. There's lots of garbage comes  from  'respected' DAC and associated stuff  manufacturers.

 

Most of 'em just buy Sabre DAC chips for a few dollars each, implement what's on the free Sabre data sheet, add 200-20,000 dollars, there ya go, you is a 'respected'  expert and the more you charge the more 'respected' you are.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 As you always do Mr. Pseudo Scientist  ?

I am quite entitled to reply to posts that were clearly directed at me, as I see fit.

 

 

They aren't and you don't.

 

You appear to  'trawl' the topics to see if there is an opportunity to ride your hobbyhorse, regardless of whether  your hobbyhorse is relevant to the topic or not. 

 

And as from what your posts say you seem to totally lack any understanding whatsoever  of how 'digital' actually works you find a lot (or those that can be bothered)  of the people that do understand disagreeing with you.

 

Lacking any coherent  arguments and finding we are not impressed by your tiny number of 'valued experts'   you throw insults that would have got anyone else kicked off years ago. Probably because you have a high entertainment value. That you frequency flounce off the stage with a "Bye!" and promptly come back five minutes later is also amusing.

 

(I'm quiet old too, though not fully retired, As you get older it is harder and harder to encompass ideas that leave any 'expertise' you might have a long way behind. You don't even try.

If we were 'wrong' there wouldn't be any computers, we wouldn't have got to the moon, there wouldn't be any space probes, and you wouldn't have a bank card or a mobile phone.)

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Here we go again, The God complex that some of you E.E.s  suffer from.

 

One thing we can't accuse you of being, is MODEST !

 E.E.s are no more infallible than any other human being, and they also become redundant like any other underperforming employee, and they also make quite a few mistakes on the way too, even  the great Intel, as was shown recently  !

 

3 hours ago, One and a half said:

The final reveal, like the reality renovation shows...

 

Here's the list

 

  1. HP Z800 tower style workstation
  2. Lenovo mini computer i7
  3. HP Laserjet M252 network printer
  4. Topaz 1000VA transformer
  5. TPlink 24 way network switch
  6. Generic 12V 2A SMPS
  7. Dell 24in monitor
  8. Mac mini 2010 vintage
  9. QNAP 419P NAS
  10. Asus wireless repeater
  11. Mutec MC-1.2 USB to S/PDIF converter
  12. Accuphase E-450 integrated amplifier
  13. iPhone 8 plus 

 

Without a signal strength meter on the radio, all I had was a this is noisier than thou and compared directly. The bad items are red, tolerable in yellow, made no noise are green.

 

Green Devices

Accuphase E-450 integrated amplifier

iPhone 8 plus 

Mac mini 2010 vintage

Topaz 1000VA transformer

TPlink 24 way network switch

 

Yellow Devices

Asus wireless repeater - Beyond 600mm distance it was dead quiet

HP Z800 tower style workstation - Only noisy if the radio was right up against the computer

 

Red Devices

Lenovo mini computer i7

HP Laserjet M252 network printer

Generic 12V 2A SMPS

Dell 24in monitor

QNAP 419P NAS

Mutec MC-1.2 USB to S/PDIF converter

 

Finally when the QNAP NAS was shutdown and off, there was still noise coming from the SMPS. Once the SMPS was disconnected from the AC,  and allowed time to discharge, did the noise finally vanished. This is now disconnected.

The LaserJet would be the loudest noise and several frequencies. It's on a different circuit in the house.

The Lenovo mini PC was let down by its SMPS 20V 5A, not used anyway.

The Mutec was very bad, very similar to the Generic SMPS, lots of frequencies and the strongest noise from the left of the device where the Meanwell SMPS is fitted. The MC-1.2 can work off USB power and this is how I left it. 

 

After this test was completed, I had to head off away from home, so couldn't check the before and after on the main system.

 

 

Much as I would expect, with a few anomalies.

1) Apple computers  are always made as cheaply as possible. The good performance of the Mac mini is probably due to its metal case., which is only there to 'justify' its price.

2) Maybe the good performance of the HP workstation is a leftover from when they were the finest instrumentation manufacturer in the world.  I would have expected it to be bad.

3) Your 24 way (far more ways than most) network  switch must be a particularly good one. 

 

iPhone. It will likely  be much higher when it is responds to a 'poll' from the tower to find out if it still in the area of the tower's coverage. That  will  be true when you are making a call or receiving one too of course, but you won't notice it  or measure it then.  May be worth leaving it on top of your AM radio for a while and listening to what happens, these 'polls' don't happen unless the tower 'thinks' it might have vanished as it has neither made a call nor received one for some time  and makes a check, as obviously those two actions 'alert' the tower.

 

Be interesting to see what these very expensive Microsoft 'Book' PCs are like, but I'm not going to buy one to find out..

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Neither would the world be the closest to the brink of total destruction as it has been since the Cuban crisis, or would global warming be such a problem. The list goes on and on, and on.

 Big Brother is intruding into every aspect of our lives, and guess who helped to facilitate it ?

 

You don't want me to keep posting in a thread ? Then stop trying to drag me back into it again by directing further replies to me.

Simples !

It doesn't start by anyone 'directing' anything to you, neither one and a half nor anyone else was asking for your 'improvements'. You just look for things  that  give you a chance to ride your hobbyhorse .

One and a half was just measuring stuff as it is now.

 

As for your 'moral' judgements, I take  it you don't have a PC or Mac?

 

You do know who 'kicked off' the home computer scene don't you? They did it only  to  increase  the 'man in the street's awareness of computers,  rather than leaving it to a small community of nerds,   so if he becomes an 'important  businessman'  he makes his company buy some big ones.

They never intended to stay in the home computer trade once  that was achieved, they just flogged the whole operation to Lenovo who of course pay Chinese wage rates.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...