The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Focal Shape 65 vs Shape Twin vs Solo6 BE Studio Monitors
Old 1st August 2018
  #31
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timeghost View Post
Checked out some Shape 65's at a local dealer recently, expecting to buy them that day. Great imaging and depth, but the low mids were a bit muddy, and upper mids were lacking. I ended up getting the Adam A7X's in a shootout against them.
Well actually the low mids are their particular strenght compared to other monitors. Must have been the room you were in. And Adam? Arent they bankrupt?
Old 1st August 2018
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex View Post
Good design is not outdated. ATC and Genelecs are doing the same designs for decades. Also Focal 6 are great and quite a lot better than Shapes. Passive radiators instead of reflex ports are not a new technology. Besides D-class amps in Solos are newer technology than A/B in Shapes. I wouldn’t see a need for an upgrade, if Solos work for you, because they are still as great speakers as they were when released. They are only not “flavour of the month” anymore.
I did upgrade some time ago to Barefoot MM45's, and haven't looked back, but I remain a big fan of Focal, and find their sound signature very enjoyable. My Solo's are currently in boxes stored away, but I have heard the Shape line, and completely agree, the Solo's are still a superior speaker in every way. I just don't think superior enough that the average enthusiast or prosumer would be able to self-justify spending the extra cash when making that ever-to-common margin call. I guess I'm speaking more from a marketing perspective than an apples to apples performance comparison.

I could see how the perception of the Shapes, and the way Focal are often messaging them in-market as not necessarily lower tier, but "different" than the SM6 can lead to a bit of consumer confusion, and the Shapes cannibalizing SM6 sales. The passive radiator is not new or an innovation, but there are other small improvements that I would be very interested to hear applied to their top tier components, the new TMD surrounds, and N.I.C., and the M-shaped tweeter (if actually applicable to a beryllium design)

To counter my own argument, speaking to Simon Cote at AES, he said they don't have any immediate plans to refresh the Solo6/Twin6, because they haven't really found a compelling enough design improvement to justify one. I very much respect that philosophy. I guess given their OEM roots and their shear design potential, I expect the moon from Focal, and really do root for them to push boundaries, and lead the design and innovation charge. I want to see some Genelec-style innovation from team-Focal in coming years. Although, I feel like they are on a very good path, and their growth in consumer and enthusiast/prosumer markets is what will help fund the higher end innovations and R&D.

Focal is always flavor of the month for me their products have done nothing but serve me well both personally and professionally.
Old 1st August 2018
  #33
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex View Post
These were my finding which I later on confirmed via some creadible measurements:

Measurements for Focal Twins, which measure very very similar in termps of time domain response and even actually worse in terms of directivity (I like Solos more):

https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-con...l-Twin6-BE.pdf

Measurements for Focal Shapes:
Focal Shape 65 – Studiomonitore im Test | SOUND & RECORDING

Mind you, SM series has amazing time response for a speaker with reflex port and amazing transient response in the low end. And don't get me wrong, Shapes are very good speakers, but Solos clearly show the lead in performance. If Shapes and Solos were positioned one next to another, this might be a reason why your comparison might be misleading, 10cm in a less than optimal place might make all the difference.
I spent years on Solo's, and also preferred them to the Twins due to what I perceived as a more honest stereo image and directivity in comparison, which is why a lot of people prefer the Twins in a vertical orientation.

Also, can definitely attest that in any given room, small adjustments in positioning on either plane can lead to drastic changes in perception depending on the room's geometry, and should definitely be taken into account when demoing. I find it best to put up one set, work on them and live with them, and then take them down, and give the other pair the same shot in the same position. Flipping back and forth between two sets isn't the best method, and skews your perception based on psychoacoustic wow-factor, rather than real-life translatability.
Old 2nd August 2018
  #34
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnBoy View Post
Also, can definitely attest that in any given room, small adjustments in positioning on either plane can lead to drastic changes in perception depending on the room's geometry, and should definitely be taken into account when demoing. I find it best to put up one set, work on them and live with them, and then take them down, and give the other pair the same shot in the same position. Flipping back and forth between two sets isn't the best method, and skews your perception based on psychoacoustic wow-factor, rather than real-life translatability.
Definitely I got the Shape65 tested this way with actually taken impulse responses with REW to align them as a good as possible to have them also on the same spot like my Gens 8040. It of course not so easy like back and forth comparison. You have to memorize your findings till you set them up.
Anyway. On the spot where my Gens deliver and are so easy to work with the Focals disappointed really bad. Was taking around 2.5db of the highs on them but was still disappointed (they were already burned in). I put them back for some weeks and thought I give em a chance again. Build some stands and positioned them on the outer triangle near by my Gens. Really happy I tried it. The stereo image and depth is really what makes them stand out now. Still the low mids are great like on the first position. Made a huge difference though I still have the twetters down by 2.5db. I think I keep them as a second reference. Was really close to sell them. Position and room treatment what its all about.
Old 9th August 2018
  #35
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarsonis View Post
Definitely I got the Shape65 tested this way with actually taken impulse responses with REW to align them as a good as possible to have them also on the same spot like my Gens 8040. It of course not so easy like back and forth comparison. You have to memorize your findings till you set them up.
Anyway. On the spot where my Gens deliver and are so easy to work with the Focals disappointed really bad. Was taking around 2.5db of the highs on them but was still disappointed (they were already burned in). I put them back for some weeks and thought I give em a chance again. Build some stands and positioned them on the outer triangle near by my Gens. Really happy I tried it. The stereo image and depth is really what makes them stand out now. Still the low mids are great like on the first position. Made a huge difference though I still have the twetters down by 2.5db. I think I keep them as a second reference. Was really close to sell them. Position and room treatment what its all about.
I had Genelecs 8040s and I'm thinking about getting the Focals?
What can you say about the lowend?
Old 9th August 2018
  #36
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaki View Post
I had Genelecs 8040s and I'm thinking about getting the Focals?
What can you say about the lowend?
Definitely less subbass there. Rolls of pretty step. But also a bit easier to read. Of course highly depends on the placment and room treatment.

Actually I bought the Focals to replace my old 8040. The good thing was buying the Focals made me sure never to sell my Gens. They compliment each other so well and renewed my trust in the Gens and the more or less new room in my case.
The Focals for me are like a good pair of headphones with spotting macro details where the Gens let you see the hole picture better. Its easy to spot compression flaws and low mid mess on them as well.
Old 10th August 2018
  #37
Gear Addict
 
Al Rogers's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaki View Post
I had Genelecs 8040s and I'm thinking about getting the Focals?
What can you say about the lowend?
I recently sold my Solo6 Be monitors (after having one of them repaired twice by Focal) and replaced them with a pair of Genelec M040 monitors. In my small work room the Genelec monitors have proved to be the better speakers.

My Solo 6Be monitors were tubby and wooly in the mid-bass. My new Genelecs are easy to balance for a small room which makes them easy to mix on. No woofiness. Faster mixes. The mixes are translating better. The M040 monitors come with a 5 year warranty although I kinda doubt they'll break. Reliability counts with me as much as sound quality.

Last edited by Al Rogers; 10th August 2018 at 04:36 AM..
Old 11th August 2018
  #38
Lives for gear
Genelecs and Focals are very different speakers, and also interact with rooms in very different ways. I'd def recommend demoing before settling either way.

I'd pick Focal 9/10 of ten against comparable Genelecs in my room, and that's not a knock on Genelec, it's just that it's not apples to apples, and they are both very capable speakers depending on the setup. Between them, it's more your room and voicing preferences than the speakers themselves.
Old 11th August 2018
  #39
Gear Addict
 
Al Rogers's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnBoy View Post
Genelecs and Focals are very different speakers, and also interact with rooms in very different ways. I'd def recommend demoing before settling either way.

I'd pick Focal 9/10 of ten against comparable Genelecs in my room, and that's not a knock on Genelec, it's just that it's not apples to apples, and they are both very capable speakers depending on the setup. Between them, it's more your room and voicing preferences than the speakers themselves.
Agreed! That's why I qualified my statement with "in my room". It's a small room and the monitors are on desktop stands place either side of the monitor. Nearfield. They work OK. I do a lot of my mixing on a mono Avantone MixCube and then use the Genelecs for the final stereo mix.

If I could put the monitors on stands away from walls and desks then I might choose different speakers. In fact I did go with something different in my analalog vinyl listening room. I listen to Harbeth mini monitors and they kill any of the other small monitors I've used. They are my reference for checking mixes done on the Genelecs.
Old 12th August 2018
  #40
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Rogers View Post
Agreed! That's why I qualified my statement with "in my room". It's a small room and the monitors are on desktop stands place either side of the monitor. Nearfield. They work OK. I do a lot of my mixing on a mono Avantone MixCube and then use the Genelecs for the final stereo mix.

If I could put the monitors on stands away from walls and desks then I might choose different speakers. In fact I did go with something different in my analalog vinyl listening room. I listen to Harbeth mini monitors and they kill any of the other small monitors I've used. They are my reference for checking mixes done on the Genelecs.
Yea, when I still used my Focals I always had them on speaker stands and on isoacoustics. The few times I had them directly on a desk for some reason or another, with no decoupling, it was astounding how different they sounded in the lows and low mids. If I had demoed them in a store on a shelf surrounded by other speakers I may not have bought them. On stands they are a different animal (as are most speakers, of course), but with the Solo6, something about their design definitely transfers significant acoustic energy to whatever it is sitting on.

When I switched to Barefoots I was extremely impressed upon first listen, but I was also very impressed by how well the much cheaper Solo6's held their own overall.
Old 12th August 2018
  #41
Gear Nut
Thanks for your replies guys. I was assuming already what you've stated. I've yet to experience such a small speaker like the Genelec 8040s that have such a huge low end. In my case super low frequencies are more important than super accurate mixes, but I need to hear what's going on there at 35hz and the 8040s just do that in a very pleasing way. I really have to search for alternatives to the 8040s that provide such a lowend
Old 26th August 2018
  #42
Here for the gear
 

I briefly heard some 65s and liked them - then the Twins came out and I was stoked but found it really hard to do some sensible comparative listening. In the end I found a place that had the Adams, Focals and Dyns and were amenable to me spending a few hours comparing them. All pretty good, but definitely some standouts . . .

Focal Shape 65: quick and truthful but a bit lightweight. Great tweeter. Bass is quality over quantity. Good with sub(s).
Focal Shape Twin: Benefits from greater power handling and effectively being a three way. Like it a lot.
Focal Solo/Twin Be: stellar tweeter. Testimony to the Shape that the cheaper Magnesium alloy version only lags in refinement, not resolution. But overall, warm and tubby. Not a big fan of either compared to . . .
Focal Trio Be: Big step up from the Twins: neutral like the Shape, refined like the smaller Be's. Much better balanced low end: could be used without a sub. Much more detailed midrange.

ADAM A7X: Meatier-sounding than the Focal, but a bit screechy and scooped. Sounds dated - ADAM's newer ribbons have less distortion.
ADAM T7V: Surprisingly good: better balanced than the A7X but clearly less powerful and not as insightful as the more expensive Focal's.
ADAM S2V/S3H: Really good. Fantastic with AES input. Toss-up between S3H and Focal Trio for best overall.

I get now why IDM/Dance folk love ADAM's: the S-Series in particular are all powerhouses. The Shape Twin and Tro Be and standouts from Focal: very easy on the ear but totally revealing.
Old 26th August 2018
  #43
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubsand View Post
I briefly heard some 65s and liked them - then the Twins came out and I was stoked but found it really hard to do some sensible comparative listening. In the end I found a place that had the Adams, Focals and Dyns and were amenable to me spending a few hours comparing them. All pretty good, but definitely some standouts . . .

Focal Shape 65: quick and truthful but a bit lightweight. Great tweeter. Bass is quality over quantity. Good with sub(s).
Focal Shape Twin: Benefits from greater power handling and effectively being a three way. Like it a lot.
Focal Solo/Twin Be: stellar tweeter. Testimony to the Shape that the cheaper Magnesium alloy version only lags in refinement, not resolution. But overall, warm and tubby. Not a big fan of either compared to . . .
Focal Trio Be: Big step up from the Twins: neutral like the Shape, refined like the smaller Be's. Much better balanced low end: could be used without a sub. Much more detailed midrange.

ADAM A7X: Meatier-sounding than the Focal, but a bit screechy and scooped. Sounds dated - ADAM's newer ribbons have less distortion.
ADAM T7V: Surprisingly good: better balanced than the A7X but clearly less powerful and not as insightful as the more expensive Focal's.
ADAM S2V/S3H: Really good. Fantastic with AES input. Toss-up between S3H and Focal Trio for best overall.

I get now why IDM/Dance folk love ADAM's: the S-Series in particular are all powerhouses. The Shape Twin and Tro Be and standouts from Focal: very easy on the ear but totally revealing.
I'm not surprised to read your findings with the Shape Twin. I've taken a strong liking to most of the dual 5-inch designs I've heard. They tend to have a great balance between the mid-range pedigree of a smaller speaker, with the low end heft of a larger one, but also with a quicker transient response. That's why I personally found the Two15 from Amphion to be the standout of their lineup as well
Old 26th August 2018
  #44
Here for the gear
 

Ye cannae change the laws of physics. The stiffer/lighter the tweeter, the better; a midrange driver wants to be 3-5 inches - and can't be asked to output bass. Low mids need 8-10 inch of cone area, and to get below 50Hz needs as much power/cone as you can throw at it - ideally no less than 12 inches.

Active speakers with multiple bass drivers often sound 'quicker' than an equivalent cone area with one magnet and amp - for instance, the ADAM S3V is less nimble than the S3H, but the single driver model does seem to dig a bit deeper.

So, yes, the Shape Twin and Trio definitely sit in the sweet spot for balance and detail. The S-Series ADAMs are beasts, though! I had the chance to compare the S3H to the HEDD Type 30 in a listening session on a different visit - if you have the money, that's a tough call.
Old 26th August 2018
  #45
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubsand View Post
Ye cannae change the laws of physics. The stiffer/lighter the tweeter, the better; a midrange driver wants to be 3-5 inches - and can't be asked to output bass. Low mids need 8-10 inch of cone area, and to get below 50Hz needs as much power/cone as you can throw at it - ideally no less than 12 inches.

Active speakers with multiple bass drivers often sound 'quicker' than an equivalent cone area with one magnet and amp - for instance, the ADAM S3V is less nimble than the S3H, but the single driver model does seem to dig a bit deeper.

So, yes, the Shape Twin and Trio definitely sit in the sweet spot for balance and detail. The S-Series ADAMs are beasts, though! I had the chance to compare the S3H to the HEDD Type 30 in a listening session on a different visit - if you have the money, that's a tough call.
I heard the Adam S series at Germano. Def found them to sound good, and heard the HEDD line as well. HEDD would get my money over Adam easy. End of the day the Adams still sounded like Adams to me (I've never been a fan of Adam's sound signature), while the HEDD voicing felt natural, with the AMT sounding effortless, and with a more convincing low end character.

Of the S series I definitely preferred the S3H though, for their more nimble low end and overall balance. Not gonna be in market for monitors for a long time though, me and my Barefoots are in a very happy relationship.
Old 13th March 2019
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Sorry to revive an older thread, but I have a similar question to the OP.

I am trying to decide between the Solo6 and Shape Twin for my room. I am sure either would be a major upgrade for me, but I think maybe the Shape Twin would suit my room better.

My room is a home studio that is a bit tight on space where I would need to place the monitors. It's an L shaped room with some treatment and lots of irregular shapes. It is pretty dead, actually, but not toally ideal.

Genre-wise I do primarily guitar-based rock and psychedelic music but also some soundtrack type stuff.

I also would unfortunately need to have the monitors relatively close to the wall due to the layout of the room. Based on what I've read, it seems like the Shape Twins would probably suit my situation better, but the Solo6 is also in my price range so I figured I'd ask a second opinion.
Old 13th March 2019
  #47
Seeing as the Solo’s are front ported, I don’t think the boundary with the front wall is too much of a determining factor. It’s a difficult one. I think there’s a chance the Twin, may give more clarity and depth, due to the 2.5 way speaker. If you were doing music with a lot of bass, I’d say go Twins as the low end on the Shape 65’s was definitely tighter and more revealing to my ears when I compared them, I could easily hear mixing errors on the 65’s, compared to the Solo.

My 2 cents.
Old 13th March 2019
  #48
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoepedals View Post
Sorry to revive an older thread, but I have a similar question to the OP.

I am trying to decide between the Solo6 and Shape Twin for my room. I am sure either would be a major upgrade for me, but I think maybe the Shape Twin would suit my room better.

My room is a home studio that is a bit tight on space where I would need to place the monitors. It's an L shaped room with some treatment and lots of irregular shapes. It is pretty dead, actually, but not toally ideal.

Genre-wise I do primarily guitar-based rock and psychedelic music but also some soundtrack type stuff.

I also would unfortunately need to have the monitors relatively close to the wall due to the layout of the room. Based on what I've read, it seems like the Shape Twins would probably suit my situation better, but the Solo6 is also in my price range so I figured I'd ask a second opinion.
If I were in market exclusively for Focal monitors today, I'd rank my consideration set as follows (not the entire lineup, just what I would consider in my space or a space like you describe):

1. Twin6
2. Shape Twin
3. SM9 (not ideal, but I've seen these kind of work in a smaller room with a ton of LF treatment)
4. Solo6 (Use them in my production/writing room, still love them)
5. Shape 65
Old 13th March 2019
  #49
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnBoy View Post
If I were in market exclusively for Focal monitors today, I'd rank my consideration set as follows (not the entire lineup, just what I would consider in my space or a space like you describe):

1. Twin6
2. Shape Twin
3. SM9 (not ideal, but I've seen these kind of work in a smaller room with a ton of LF treatment)
4. Solo6 (Use them in my production/writing room, still love them)
5. Shape 65
Interesting! I would probably love a Twin 6 but I think it's a bit outside my budget (approximately double the Shape Twin). You mention you have other speakers you might prefer, though. What might those be?
Old 13th March 2019
  #50
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoepedals View Post
Interesting! I would probably love a Twin 6 but I think it's a bit outside my budget (approximately double the Shape Twin). You mention you have other speakers you might prefer, though. What might those be?
Honestly I get along with Focal very well. If it wasn't for my Barefoots, I'd still be Focal user to this day, with the only exception possibly being a pair of HEDD Type 20's.

Shape Twins are elite monitors by any measure, especially when you factor in what you get for your money. That list was just my personal ranking of Focal monitors, but many people are reporting they find the sound signature and performance of Shapes to be on par with or personally preferable to the Twin6/Solo6.

You might also be able to snag some used Twin6's at around the price of new Shape Twins if prefer, but honestly if the Shape Twins were around at the time I purchased my Solo6's I likely would've gotten the Shape Twins.
Old 14th March 2019
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnBoy View Post
Honestly I get along with Focal very well. If it wasn't for my Barefoots, I'd still be Focal user to this day, with the only exception possibly being a pair of HEDD Type 20's.

Shape Twins are elite monitors by any measure, especially when you factor in what you get for your money. That list was just my personal ranking of Focal monitors, but many people are reporting they find the sound signature and performance of Shapes to be on par with or personally preferable to the Twin6/Solo6.

You might also be able to snag some used Twin6's at around the price of new Shape Twins if prefer, but honestly if the Shape Twins were around at the time I purchased my Solo6's I likely would've gotten the Shape Twins.
Ah ok. Yeah some of those are out of my current budget.

I decided to give the Shape Twins a try, so I'll know soon enough

Now my other problem...I need some decent desktop speaker risers. I suppose I can sit them on my old monitors for now, lol.
Old 14th March 2019
  #52
Gear Head
 

These Hedd 07's intrigue me. I have a small room and the amount of low end on these seems unmatched by monitors their size. Anybody have some input on these?
Old 15th March 2019
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoepedals View Post
Ah ok. Yeah some of those are out of my current budget.

I decided to give the Shape Twins a try, so I'll know soon enough

Now my other problem...I need some decent desktop speaker risers. I suppose I can sit them on my old monitors for now, lol.
Iso Acoustic’s are pretty good for their price. There is another brand I read about on the Producer Expert web site where some the reviewer thought they smoked the Iso Acoustics, I’ll drop a link when I find it. They are a lot more expensive though.
Old 15th March 2019
  #54
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by blayz2002 View Post
Seeing as the Solo’s are front ported, I don’t think the boundary with the front wall is too much of a determining factor. It’s a difficult one. I think there’s a chance the Twin, may give more clarity and depth, due to the 2.5 way speaker. If you were doing music with a lot of bass, I’d say go Twins as the low end on the Shape 65’s was definitely tighter and more revealing to my ears when I compared them, I could easily hear mixing errors on the 65’s, compared to the Solo.

My 2 cents.
As we all know - bass is omnidirectional so it's not really a deal with port from the front, but boundary is in effect anyway. Different thing is that when you have closed box or with passive radiators there's no problem with room amplifing resonance frequency of ports.

From my experience Solos are VERY sensitive to positioning (5 cm lower, 5 to the left and ) and they can sound wonderful and beat the **** out of many monitors in same budget, but also with being careless they can sound mushy and kinda wooled.
Old 17th March 2019
  #55
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taivanski View Post
From my experience Solos are VERY sensitive to positioning (5 cm lower, 5 to the left and ) and they can sound wonderful and beat the **** out of many monitors in same budget, but also with being careless they can sound mushy and kinda wooled.
This is absolutely true. They need to be well isolated from any desk, have sufficient distance from the back wall, and I'd say a minimum distance apart of 1.5 meters for the stereo image to be optimal.

Solos sound like COMPLETELY different speakers when they're sitting directly on a desk/meter bridge, are not far enough apart, or not thoughtfully positioned in the room. Focal monitors in general are some of the best monitors you will hear when they are in a professionally treated room and thoughtfully positioned. I suspect most of the negative feedback I've ever read about any Focal speaker stems from a less than desirable acoustic scenario, and not the actual monitors.

My dream monitor would be a Barefoot and Focal collaboration. A sealed monitor with Barefoot's design philosophy, but Focal's drivers and beryllium tweeters.
Old 31st March 2019
  #56
Here for the gear
 

I have alpha 80. Does it make sense to upgrade to Shape Twin? How are they with low frequencies?
Old 31st March 2019
  #57
Well, I feel that I'm now able to chime in on this as I bought a set of Shape Twins before Christmas. This won't be a super-tech opinion as well, it doesn't matter really.
As a precursor, I've also got some other monitors to play with:
  • Alesis Monitor 1 mk2 (passives)
  • Rogers LS2/a
  • PMC TwoTwo6

After the run-in period, and of course the festive period, I didn't take too much of what I heard as gospel, but played a lot of programme material and writing sessions through them just to get used to them.

Some 3 months of constant use and I love them. The detailing is very impressive (I've got them on stands and some basic foam isolation, angled down slightly due to my seating position).
The bass end is punchy, and tight. And my mixes translate well when using them - which is kind of the point!
I have total faith in them, and I actually prefer them to the TwoTwo6s.

The only *annoyance* is the auto-standby mode. But aside from that, they're pretty plug-n-play. There's some filters on the back to cater for your room and placement, and react very well to being setup (unlike the TwoTwo6 - accidentally plug the xlr into the digi input, and it's a total PITA to reset the things)

I was also looking at the Shape 65 and Twin6be. I'm glad I went for the Shape Twins.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump