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
How much space between leaves?
Old 7th August 2008
  #1
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

How much space between leaves?

Hey, I'm building and of course pushed for space. I'm wondering how much space is needed BETWEEN THE FOOTERS (BOTTOM PLATE 2X4S) of my outer leaf and my inner leaf? I figure TL increases as the space increases, but I'm scavenging for inches. Is there much difference between 2 inches of space and 4 or more? Or can I just put them 1/2 inch apart as long as they are decoupled? How much do I gain by increasing the space?
Old 7th August 2008
  #2
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Or can I just put them 1/2 inch apart as long as they are decoupled?
Correct. The idea is to decouple them.

Andre
Old 7th August 2008
  #3
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Andre!

Hey Andre, I actually PM'ed you yesterday about MLV. Did you get that?

So, about the wall. I know having more space as opposed to less helps, doesn't it?

(I beg you for a detailed, educational explanation!!)

P.S. I finished my B.S. in Music Tech and I have been studying acoustics/building for quite some time in preparation for my build. (I truly DON'T say this to brag but only to say I may understand a lot of your details. PLEASE, PLEASE TEACH ME!!)
Old 7th August 2008
  #4
Lives for gear
 
nosebleedaudio's Avatar
 

The bigger the space the better...
Old 7th August 2008
  #5
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nosebleedaudio View Post
The bigger the space the better...
I follow you on that, but I'm scrimpin' for inches here. If I frequently have loud airplanes, chainsaws, dogs, and ice cream trucks (i'm not kidding) can I go with just 2 inches +- of space and have very good TL. My original plan was for 4 inches, but if I'm not losing anything I'd like to push it back to 2 in order to stretch closer to a desirable room demesion ratio.
Old 7th August 2008
  #6
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
So, about the wall. I know having more space as opposed to less helps, doesn't it?

(I beg you for a detailed, educational explanation!!)
WARNING! TECHY TALK!

Okay, here goes the instant internet double wall explanation. A double wall's isolation is based on amongst other things, isolation of the individual layers and the coupling between them. Isolation is achieved by not having common physical connections like studs, plates, and at extreme levels, common ground. The latter referring to wall layers on separate springs as an example. The coupling is reduced by absorbent material within the cavity, and the depth of the cavity. The deeper the cavity, the greater the isolation. The isolation theoretically increases 6 dB for each doubling of the depth.

The two layers also act in a MAM system. doubling the distance reduces the MAM resonance point by half an octave.

In this case, the depth is 2 2x4s at 3.5" deep for 7", plus the gap between the plates, 2" in this case. To increase the isolation by 6 dB, you would have to increase the space between the framing by 7". It is more cost effective to increase the mass of the layers and use green glue instead of using up floor area.

I hope this helps.

Andre
Old 8th August 2008
  #7
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thanks Andre, for all your replies.

My next question is about room ratios. In school we used Alton Everests' Master Handbook of Acoustics as one of our text books. There he talks about certain room ratios that are expected to give better modal response (more evenly spaced and pile up of modes). I noticed you even gave a few on one of your posts, Andre.

I am striving to make those demensions work in my room, but I have a 23'x23' (roughly) garage I am converting and any way I divide it I end up with 2 long rectanlges. The demension ratios I get are way off the plots in A. Everests' book. I could shrink the rooms considerably to achieve the ratios, but in that event I also give myself less cubic footage and shorter cielings.

My question is should I just build it with larger rooms and bad ratios, or shrink the rooms to achieve better ratios? Do the ratios even matter in a smaller room? Could the issues that develop in a larger room with bad ratios not easily be treated with bass traps and the like?
Old 8th August 2008
  #8
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

MHoA is an excellent reference text. It is designed as a beginner's book, but every serious studio designer has it in their library.

With regards to your room, dimensions would be nice to give specific recommendations for it. The general guideline is to go for more volume over more standardized ratios. How do your proposed ratios compare with the EBU/ITU guidelines?

Bass traps are bass traps are long wavelength devices regardless of the size of the room.
If you need 50 Hz controlled, the trap has to large for the wavelngth. the size of the room does not change the wavelength. So as rooms get smaller, more area, as a percentage of the whole area available, is required for acoustic treatment. You could build a room 4'x4' end user space and require 4' per wall for absorbers. so your 4x4 interior is taking up 12'x12', or nine times the area of the working area. Hardly efficient.

Ratios are more important in small rooms compared to large rooms because the modal density becomes low at a higher frequency, affecting the sound more.

Andre
Old 8th August 2008
  #9
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

OK, here it is. My current plan of dimensions giving me the largest volume are as follows:

Height is an average because the ceiling is lofted from
8' to 10' in the middle section

Control Room H 110" (average), W 122", L 231"
Studio/Live Room H 110" (average), W 140", L 270"
But I have to consider that in the corner of the live room there will be a booth having the outside dimensions of approx.
H 110" (average, maybe a little less since it is under the lower sloped part of the ceiling)
W 91"
L 76"
I tried to account for the booth with several different approximations when I plugged the dimensions into Ethan Winer's ModeCalc on RealTraps.com

I worked with previous general dimensions on the ModeCalc untill all the axials seemed evenly spaced and numerous (as much as possible) and that is how I arrived at these dimensions. Even though they all look good on Ethan's graph, they are all quite a bit away from Bolt's Area. Is this due to Ethan's calc not displaying the tangential and oblique modes?

I just downloaded Google Sketchup and plan to use it to create a pic for you when I get a chance to mess with it. Never done that before so it may take a moment.

Any thoughts Andre? Ethan?
Old 8th August 2008
  #10
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

The differences in mode analysis are due to tangental and oblique modes. Try Bob Gold's mode calculator. Sketchup is powerful and easy to use. go through the tutorials first to make things easy.

Andre
Old 8th August 2008
  #11
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Here is an idea with shifted the rooms. I do not know details, but the concept is obvious.

Andre
Attached Thumbnails
How much space between leaves?-baethoven.jpg  
Old 8th August 2008
  #12
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thanks Andre,

I considered a setup similar to that, but figured having a lot of trianlges might not be best, and I tended not to have as much floor space.

I just checked out Bob Golds calc and it is wonderful! So much useful info! I readjusted my dimensions until the new calc liked them. Would you please take a look at the calc info on these and tell me what you think? Having your opinion/approval would make me a lot more comfy...


CR L 18.42' W 10' H (avg.) 8.42'
(is it bad that my above H+W=L ?)
(alternate L is 19.75')

Studio L 16.75' W 11.6666' (or exactly 140")
H 8.91666' (or exactly 107")

The reason for the alternate L in the CR is to gain mor cuFt and to avoid the dimensions adding up.

The original control room L passes 2 BBC tests and has less modal isolation between 60-80Hz. The alternate only passes 1 BBC test but has more cuFt and its dimensions do not add up. The gain in vol is 112cuFt.

Thoughts?
Old 9th August 2008
  #13
Gear Nut
 

Well, if I had a space like yours to work with this is what I'd do.

Try out 9' x 14'4" x 22' in the bobgolds calculator if you'd like to see why.

I'd make the Iso booth very dead (will be necessary given how compact it would be...) and use the back of the control room as a "live area" for recording if need be.

G.
Attached Thumbnails
How much space between leaves?-1-1.6-2.5.jpg  
Old 9th August 2008
  #14
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

I am not certain what you mean lots of triangles, but it is not bad. You just have to know what you are doing. One of the things on your c/r designs is that they are narrow. If made wider, the iso booth could go beside it on one side. Terrible description by words. On the design aspect, are you intending to flush mount your speakers? Strongly recommended if you are not.

Andre
Old 9th August 2008
  #15
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thanks for the suggestions guys.

Andre, I kindof like the looks of Graematter's drawing, don't know if the traking rooms are big enough though.

You commented on my design having narrow rooms. I could see that in theory being a problem, but if the mode calc shows good results, is the amount of "narrowness" really too much?

As far as flush mounting my speakers, I hadn't really given it much thought. I have Mackie HR824s and have always just set them on my mixing desk. If I keep the CR dimensions I have, is the "dead end" too narrow to flush mount? I haven't really researched flush mounting.
Also, I have only one pair of monitors, so if I flush mount do I have to buy more nearfields as well?
Old 9th August 2008
  #16
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

just had to share...

I was just talking to my ice cream loving wife about how many options there are to consider in designing the studio, and how it can feel overwhelming and she replies, "It's just like being at Baskin Robbins!"
Old 9th August 2008
  #17
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Andre, I kindof like the looks of Graematter's drawing, don't know if the traking rooms are big enough though.
I like it too. The tracking room size is why I went into the angled walls. Angled walls do not take up more space, just require a different thinking. Also, non-rectangular rooms only have oblique and tangental modes, which means no strong one dimensional modes. A more even modal response in amplitude.

Quote:
You commented on my design having narrow rooms. I could see that in theory being a problem, but if the mode calc shows good results, is the amount of "narrowness" really too much?
Did the designs pass the Bonello distribution and EBU specs?heh

More seriously, you have a great opportunity for fantastic bass traps in your ceiling, and significant lf absorption reduces the modes. This affects the real room behaviour as accounted for in ratio analysis that we are doing.


Things about narrow rooms. For a given area, they require more wall. The narrow width restricts the size of the speaker/listener triangle. Lost space is greater. Control of early reflections requires more absorption, possibly more than appropriate for the room overall. What will be done with the back space? It is too far for outboard gear, and a couch is a relative luxury if space is a premium.

Quote:
As far as flush mounting my speakers, I hadn't really given it much thought. I have Mackie HR824s and have always just set them on my mixing desk. If I keep the CR dimensions I have, is the "dead end" too narrow to flush mount? I haven't really researched flush mounting.
Another ice cream flavour to consider.

Quote:
Also, I have only one pair of monitors, so if I flush mount do I have to buy more nearfields as well?
Why if you have a good monitoring system (room/speakers)?

Andre
Old 9th August 2008
  #18
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Also, non-rectangular rooms only have oblique and tangental modes, which means no strong one dimensional modes. A more even modal response in amplitude.
Good point, I forgot about that...



Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Did the designs pass the Bonello distribution and EBU specs?heh
Actually, the Bonello graph looked quite good (though I am an unexperienced Bonello graph reader). I couldn't seem to find the EBU specs on the BobGold Calc, did I miss them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
More seriously, you have a great opportunity for fantastic bass traps in your ceiling, and significant lf absorption reduces the modes. This affects the real room behaviour as accounted for in ratio analysis that we are doing.
Where exactly for the bass traps?


Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Why (buy more nearfields) if you have a good monitoring system (room/speakers)?
Its just that in every studio I have ever been in (and I live in Nashville) they have had nearfields on the desk/speaker stands, either by themselves or complemented by larger flush-mounts. I have never seen flush-mounts by themselves. That's why I had never really considered it. I figured if everyone else mixes with speakers on the desk, it must be the way to go.

I'm working with learning Sketchup, I'll try and post ideas soon. I forgot to mention I'm trying to have a bathroom in the back end of the CR. The dimensions I gave earlier, however, did account for the space for the bathroom.

You guys rock
Old 9th August 2008
  #19
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Actually, the Bonello graph looked quite good (though I am an unexperienced Bonello graph reader). I couldn't seem to find the EBU specs on the BobGold Calc, did I miss them?
On the Bonello distribution, Bob has the expalnation right above it. You want a smooth upward trend.

The EBU spec was developed by Walker. Sorry, the title on the section is Wlaker, not EBU/ITU. It is about 3/4s of the way down on the right. In the section of computed information. I copied it below and added the red.


Quote:
Computed Information:
Room Dimensions: Length=18.42 ft, Width=10 ft, Height=8.42 ft
Room Ratio: 1 : 1.18 : 2.18
R. Walker BBC 1996:
-***1.1w / h < l / h < ((4.5w / h) - 4): Fail
-***l < 3h & w < 3h: Pass
-***no integer multiple within 5%: Pass
Nearest Known Ratio:
-**"10) M. M. Louden: 1971: 6th best ratio" 1 : 1.4 : 2.1
RT60 (IEC/AEC N 12-A standard): 230 ms
-**±50ms from 200Hz to 3.5kHz = 180 to 280ms
-**±100ms above 3.5kHz = 130 to 330ms
-**<+300ms at 63hz = 530ms
-**300<RT60<600ms
RT60 (ITU/EBU Control Room Recommended): 189 ms
-**±50ms from 200Hz to 4kHz = 139 to 239ms
-**<+300ms at 63hz = 489ms
-**200<RT60<400ms
Absorbtion to achieve ITU RT60: 399 sabins
Volume: 1550 ft^3
Surface Area Total: 846 ft^2
Surface Area Floor: 184 ft^2
Surface Area Ceiling+Floor: 368 ft^2
Surface Area Front Wall: 84 ft^2
Surface Area Front and Rear Wall: 168 ft^2
Surface Area Left Wall: 155 ft^2
Surface Area Left and Right Wall: 310 ft^2
Surface Area 4 Walls: 478 ft^2
Surface Area 4 Walls + floor: 662 ft^2
(sabins - front wall - carpet) / Left+Right+Rear wall: 33 %
(sabins - front wall) / Left+Right+Rear wall: 79 %
Schroeder Fc: 124hz
Frequency Regions:
*- No modal boost: 1hz to 30hz
*- Room Modes dominate: 30hz to 124hz
*- Diffraction and Diffusion dominate: 124hz to 496hz
*- Specular reflections and ray accoustics prevail: 496hz to 20000hz
Count (30.6-221hz) : Axials=13, Tangentials=51, Obliques=63
Count (30.6-100hz) : Axials=5, Tangentials=5, Obliques=1
Critical Distance (direct = reverberant field): 12.70ft
As you can see, a lot of useful information is calculated, including critical distance, which comes up in this post again. Also, the room volume is around 1,500 ft^2. I would not recommend going any smaller

Quote:
Where exactly for the bass traps?
In the ceiling. You have a sloping roof. If you build the visual ceiling flat, you have up to around 2' depth for bass traps.

Quote:
Its just that in every studio I have ever been in (and I live in Nashville) they have had nearfields on the desk/speaker stands, either by themselves or complemented by larger flush-mounts. I have never seen flush-mounts by themselves. That's why I had never really considered it. I figured if everyone else mixes with speakers on the desk, it must be the way to go.
Nearfields came about from the terrible Auratones that used to used for garbage speaker reference. Engineers noticed that the highs were much clearer than expected for such lousy speakers. The speakers were located closer than the critical distance (see, I wrote it would come up again!). It became standard in larger studios to have multiple speakers, including nearfields, to provide alternate monitoring systems. The prevalence of them as secondary monitors for recording has been mis interpreted by budget conscious (AKA home) studios as meaning they are preferred.

Some first class engineers mix on nearfields exclusively. However, what is overlooked by people reading that, is that the tracking was done with mains, or as Bruce Swedien does on remotes, he brings along lots of acoustic treatment (ASC Tube Traps) with him to treat the monitoring room and the tracks are first class to begin with.

If you are concerned about locking yourself into the current speakers by flush mounting them, you can use Barefoot's flush mounting method.

Quote:
I'm working with learning Sketchup, I'll try and post ideas soon. I forgot to mention I'm trying to have a bathroom in the back end of the CR. The dimensions I gave earlier, however, did account for the space for the bathroom.
Great! Then we can get into detailed specifics. You have the opportunity to make a fantastic recording space for the area you have. I am certain you have read this already, but for those who have not, good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction.

Andre
Old 10th August 2008
  #20
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

For you perusal, another flavour. The control is 1,500 ft^3 with 8.5' ceilings. The person is standing at the 38% back point. Ignore the speaker angles. The brick surface in the iso booth is a Geddes wall. A double sloped wall in layman's terms.

As before, this is an idea presentation.

For pictures of a control room with nearfields flush mounted, have a look here.

Lots of ice cream for you.

Andre
Attached Thumbnails
How much space between leaves?-naethoven-2.jpg  
Old 10th August 2008
  #21
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Andre,
That last pic is almost exactly what my original plan looks like. I am about to leave at the moment, but I will post a pic really soon. Thanks for the PM, sorry I wasn't available.

Nathan
Old 11th August 2008
  #22
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Here is my first attempt with Sketchup, pretty much to scale...

The tile floor area is the bathroom, next to it the equipment/mic room, and on the other side of it in the corner will be the HVAC air handler in a "closet" entered through the bathroom. Of course you see the CR, studio, and booth. heh

Oh, the wall thickness is not right in the pic, couldn't get things to line up correctly.
Attached Thumbnails
How much space between leaves?-top-view-studio-plan-1.jpg   How much space between leaves?-naethoven-studio-plan-1.jpg  
Old 11th August 2008
  #23
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Great! The design concept looks good! Welcome to Sketchup. How do you like now that have jumped intot the deep end with it? Would you send me the Sketchup file with dimensions so we start to detail it? Is the person in the 38% spot?

Impressed,
Andre
Old 12th August 2008
  #24
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Andre,
Before we went any further with that sketch, I wanted to send you a few more ideas I've considered and get you opinion. What do you think?

The two pics look similar, but they are two different designs. One has a little more width to the CR and Studio, but as a result the rooms are shorter. (Not drawn complaetely to scale). The wall between them is angled as opposed to being straight in the other design attached. Which do you think would be best between the three, all things considered?


P.S. The guy in the above pic is not at the 38% mark, he's just hanging out in his new CR.
Attached Thumbnails
How much space between leaves?-naethoven-studio-2-labeled.jpg   How much space between leaves?-naethoven-studio-4.jpg  
Old 12th August 2008
  #25
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Andre,
Another concern is how high to put the ceiling. I posted this pic for an example, but the dimensions are not exact. The boards that are green are what I have added to the building. Everything else you see was already there. (I took out the original beams that were at 8' and put these in higher at around 10' to maintain support yet try to gain ceiling hieght.) My question is, I'd like to go as high as possible to gain volume ft^3 and for aesthetics of a higher ceiling. But as I go up, the area of slanted ceiling behind the mix position increases. Is this a problem? I don't want to focus the sound with a concave ceiling. I drew in some Guides to show ideas for ceiling placement. You can see the lowest one keeps the ceiling flat and the highest creates the most angle behnd me. By the way, facing forward at mix position, the ceiling peak goes left to right. Also, that's not a door in the back left corner, its a mistake. The door is on the front left.
I PM'ed you a sketchup file of the ceiling on top of one of the potential studio plans for you to play with. The dimensions are not accurate b/c I used a prefab ceiling from the 3D warehouse and shrunk the studio to fit. But you'll get the idea. See edit.
Attached Thumbnails
How much space between leaves?-studio-ceiling.jpg  

Last edited by naethoven; 12th August 2008 at 08:23 PM.. Reason: Edit: I can't attach on a PM and I can't post a sketchup file, How should I send them to you?
Old 12th August 2008
  #26
Gear Nut
 

I actually had a thought on how to handle it with a smaller control room and larger studio proper in a way which turns out to be very similar to your second option, above.

There's one thing I'd be inclined to handle differently (granted though I don't know the specifics of your situation which may make this layout unfeasible...) Specifically I'd be inclined to have the main entry open into a soundlock, rather than straight into the control room, thus improving both isolation and security (of course neither of these may be of concern to you - it depends on what's on the other side of that door.)

This concept has a window separating the control and live rooms, with a door opening into the live room from the sound-lock; however, depending on the noise from your HVAC unit (which will ultimately need to be better isolated from the studio room than the control room) as well as the requirement to isolate studio noise from the outside world (i.e. lessen the chance that neighbors will have cause to complain about drums and loud guitar amps...) it may be preferable to have the studio open directly into the control room instead of the sound-lock (via a "patio door" type arrangement.) This may, however, come at the expense of isolation between the studio and control room, meaning greater care will be necessary to avoid accidental studio monitor bleed getting into your recordings (this is less likely to occur if access from one room to another is via a sound-lock.) On the other hand, if you are mainly recording yourself and/or recording others without an assistant engineer, faster access between the two rooms may be preferable.

Anyhow, just had some time to kill and another thought on how it could be made to work - you are welcome to take or leave it.

FWIW, I should mention that these control room dimensions are based on a room that I had myself for a time in a small modern workshop/shed outbuilding (it had a flat ceiling of drywall at 8ft. - though you'd probably be further ahead with a false, visually flat ceiling with bass trapping above, as Andre has suggested ... also it did not have splayed walls and I'd want to have a real acoustician verify what degree of splay and specific boundaries would be effective.) Anyway - it sounded "pretty good" and was at least usable for mixing. There's no way I'd consider going smaller than this with a conventional rectangular room with 8 ft. ceilings - I'd consider it to be a waste of time and money regardless of how much bass trapping you're prepared to throw at it. Also, in a room this small there is very little flexibility with speaker/listener positioning - the sweet spot will be miniature at best and you'll want to find a speaker that's capable of phase-coherent imaging at less than 4 foot listening distance, even if this comes at the expense of low frequency extension (arguably little point given the spotty modal support in the lowest octave - although if I had it to do over I would have considered adding a stereo subwoofer setup.) Of course flush mounting might be a better approach in these circumstances, but I don't personally have the knowledge or experience to be able to comment on executing that technique (though I have some subjective impressions of the pros and cons of doing it.)

G.
Attached Thumbnails
How much space between leaves?-1-1.3-1.9washroom.jpg  
Old 12th August 2008
  #27
Gear Nut
 

Oh ya, this solution would have the "mic closet" located at the back of the iso booth and other storage in the HVAC closet.

G.
Old 13th August 2008
  #28
Gear Addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Wow Graematter, I really appreciate the time and thought you took to type and draw all that!

I really like those ideas, the only thing that bothers me is that in relation to where the door presently exists on my building, if I followed your pic exactly it would put the control room on one side of the peak in the ceiling. So the left side of the CR would be taller than the right. I figure that would throw off the acoustic balance of the room. ????????


QUESTION: I notice when I put dimensions into the BobGolds ModeCalc I sometimes get remarkably different results by moving one wall or the ceiling only an inch or two. Is that accurate? Is there really a huge difference acoustically if my CR is 15'4" long instead of 15'6"?
Just seems a little strange.
Old 13th August 2008
  #29
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Lots has happened since I last posted!

I like your third drawing, and Graematter's second one also. Yes, little changes can make a huge difference in room sound quality. The roof asymmetry is not a big deal if there is sufficient space to have absorption behind a faux ceiling. I already wrote about this in the thread.

Most importantly, send me an accurate Sketchup file with all the details. I can not provide usefull advice without knowledge of all the details, and not getting "gotchas" all the time with little things like bathrooms, water heaters, door locations, ceiling height at base and peak etc.

Andre
Old 13th August 2008
  #30
Lives for gear
 
GP_Hawk's Avatar
Great thread guys! Got my MHoA copy out from the 80'sheh I'm really interested in the idea of flush mounting the nearfileds and wonder if you consider this in your design, I'd really appreciate the details if you don't mind. Either way, I'm taking notes
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
pigpen / The Good News Channel
14
chadly / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
1
chadly / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
0
chadly / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
0
rynugz007 / So much gear, so little time
17

Forum Jump
Forum Jump