Aragon amps?

[Ricky]

A friend of mine is looking into the older Aragon amps. I was hoping someone would know certain details such as:
- rated power
- watts in pure class A
- power transformer size
- output devices per channel
- weight
- original msrp
- approx year introduced

For the following amps: 2004II, 4004II, 8002, 8008ST, 8008BB, 8008x3. Also, do these amps generally have the same sonic signature, with primary difference in power?

Thanks in advance!
Ricky

[RedStep]

Alot of good info on the Aragon web site...

http://www.klipsch.com/mondial/index2.asp?path=/products/mondialdetail.asp?frame=y&id=495&line=&1

You can click on Aragon, then Classic Aragon to find older equiptment




RedStep
We are truly a product of the decisions we make

[Andrew Pratt]

Aragon are often recomnded by thomas and jon so I'm sure they'll have something to say about them...

[Ricky]

Redstep,

I am familiar with the info on the Klipsch website. If you can find anything that shows the specs I'm looking for, please let me know

[JonMarsh]

Don't have as much details as you'd probably like.

The 800X series amps do about 15 watts in class A. They use a common driver board design, (even the 8002) but vary in the number of output and driver transistors.

Aragons are quite conservatively built as regards transformer VA, but the BB's and Palladiums more so than some of the others. The 8002, for example, is 50 lb, more the weight category of many 200 watt per channel amps of years past. Transformer VA ratings are based on both thermal design and voltage regulation, and are as subject to specsmanship as most other things in audio- but a good guide is that copper and iron aren't light. The 8002 delivers about 300 watts per channel into low impedance loads.

Sonically, they're quite open and detailed, and known for having excellent low bass, usually on par with big Krells. Like a lot of other high power solid state amps, their main weakness is what I call "FB sound", which is a slightly wiry, edgy top end with "fast" input program sources. To understand this limitation requires good sources, and direct comparison with a high end tube design or non feedback solid state design like an Ayre or Theta Digital. YMMV.

PS, I own an 8002, an 8008X3, an 8008ST, and a pair of Palladiums.

If you can tell me why you think the number of output device per channel is important, I'll tell you how many are used in the 8002, the 8008ST, the 8008BB, and the Palladium. :?:

My 8002 is torn down right now, because I'm laying out a PCB with a NFB circuit to retrofit my Aragons. :B

Best regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[Ricky]

Jon,

Thanks for the info. I was only looking at specs such as output devices per channel for comparative purposes between models.

The 4004II and 8008ST look close on paper: both are rated 200/400W, have similiar chassis and weight (65 lbs), and have about the same $2k msrp. What are the differences between the two?

[JonMarsh]

The 8002 uses 3 extended beta (usually Toshiba) 2SC3281 and 3 2SA1302 per channel; the 8008ST uses 4 of each, and the 8008BB uses 6 of each per channel. The Palladium uses two channels equivalent to a BB for each channel module, in a balanced bridge monoblock, but running higher bias, so as to get 100 watts plus class A.

The 4004 is an older series of amp, doesn't have the extended beta output transistors, not quite as refined a sonic signature. By extended beta, the difference is that the above transistors, whether from Toshiba or On Semi, have unusually flat and extended gain- instead of beta non-linearities setting in above 2-3 amps, as is the case with most 200-250 watt transistors, the gain and gain bandwidth is pretty much flat to 8 to 10 amps. The same transistors are also used in Ayre V5 and V6 amps for the NFB amplifiers. I prefer them, too; it's possible to make a non feedback output stage with under 0.004 % distortion using these types with moderate operating bias. And that's just a straight follower, not a compound follower with high local feedback between the driver and output transistors.

For sub and LF applications, the 4000 series are fine- power supply capacity is very similar- but if you're running full range, I think you'd be better with an 8000 series amp. Just one guys opinion....

-Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[Ricky]

Thanks Jon. My friend finds your posts very help.

For my information, how do the Acurus amps compare to their Aragon brothers. I have heard that the A150 and A200 are more refined than the A250. And the 200x3 seems like a very popular amp on the forums.

[Ricky]

Is the 8008x3 a three channel version of the 8008ST? And is it "tri-mono"?

[RedStep]

Aragon Tech Support
I am sorry for the delay in response.
It took some time to answer as I had to research some of the data.
I do not have at my location specs on transformer size for some of the amps.

2004 MK II and 4004 MK II, I do not have Class A spec, transformer size or pricing. They were both introduced in '90.
2004 MK II 100 wpc @ 8 ohms, 200 @ 4.
4004 MK II 200 wpc @ 8 and 400 @ 4
The 4004 was 65 lbs and had 50% less output devices per channel than the 8008BB
8002, 125 wpc @8, 250 @ 4, 41 lbs, '95, $ 1599 MSRP
8008 ST, 26 wpc Class A 200 wpc @8 , 400 @4, single 2 kVa, 50% less output devices per channel than the 8008BB, 70 lbs, $2249 MSRP, '95
8008BB 26 wpc Class A, wpc same as ST, dual 1.1 kVa, 12 output devices per amp module, 75 lbs, $2799 , '95
8008x3 same specs as the 8008BB with the exception of the transformer size, 2 kVa, 12 output devices per channel, 68 lbs, $2499 single-ended, $2799 BB version, '95

If you have any further questions, please let me know

Steve Phillips

Aragon Tech Support

Klipsch Audio Technologies




RedStep
We are truly a product of the decisions we make

[JonMarsh]

Hi Ricky,

The 8008X3 is a three channel "hybrid"; modules elecrically are a version of the 8008BB; they have the larger number of output devices, like the BB; balanced inputs, like the BB; but uses a common power supply like the ST, being a 2 kVA rated transformer. Not dual or triple mono.

Now, even if you talk to th eMondial guys, what they'll tell you about Acurus versus Aragon is that they are built for the same basic sound quality or tonality, but that the Aragon models have the power supplies and output SOA to handle any conceivable and most inconceivable loads, whereas the Acurus amps are not so "over built". With speakers that exhibit reasonable impedance and phase angle, the Acurus amplifiers will work quite well. For speakers that dip into the 4 ohm range with subtantial loadline current phase shift (reactive), an Aragon is your choice. You have to be careful if you use Aragon's to voice a speaker, because you can get away with crossover impedance issues that will bring lesser amps to their knees, quickly. Unintentionally I did this with the midrange crossover on the first pass of the X1 crossovers; the manually tweaked version dipped to a little under 3 ohms. You'd never know it listening to the 8008ST I was using at the time for testing, but hooking up a Sony power amplifier (5X 110 watts) with just two channels revealed the problem.


Best regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[Ricky]

Redstep and Jon,

Thanks for your informative posts. Here is more good reading on Aragon gear:

http://www.universityaudio.com/aragon.htm

[JonMarsh]

Good link, Ricky!

This site is reproducing the text of the material on Mondial's old web site. Klipsch ought to but doesn't have an archive area with this level of detail.

Regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[Ricky]

Jon,

Does the Palladium do a full 125 watts of pure class A into both 8 and 6 ohms? I assume the 600 watts into 4 ohms is class A/B.

What are the differences between the original Palladium, the Palladium II, and the new Palladium 1K ?

[JonMarsh]

Hello Ricky,

The matter of biasing and output power at different load impedances is straight forward, though personally, I'm not convinced it's especially relevant. Classically, if you lightly overbias an AB amplifier, it actually increases the low level distortion somewhat until you get it up into healthy class A mode, but that can vary depending on output stage configuration.

The "standard" rating for the output power of the Palladium has been either 100 watts or 125 watts class A at 8 ohms, depending on which piece of past literature you look at. They may well have varied or changed the actual bias levels in the output stage, since 125 watts class A results in a pretty hot heatsink. Since class A output power is proportional to load impedance relative to bias current, at 4 ohms a Palladium would remain in class A only up to 50-60 watts.

Now, the "real" wideband output power (class AB) for a Palladium I or II is well over 400 watts per channel at 8 ohms- in fact, clipping is above 500 watts per channel (assuming well regulated AC line voltage). The "new" specs on the Palladium 1K reflect this reality more closely.

As far as I can tell from the interior shots Klipsch has kindly posted on the site, there are no changes in the PCB layouts between the Palladium II (which I own) and the Palladium 1K; the changes appear to be largely cosmetic. It's odd that they have a full silver version of this amp (including the heatsinks), because this would drop the heatsink efficiency somewhat.

BTW, 8002, 8008ST, 8008BB, and Palladium all use the same basic PCB, just with different stuffing options. In the case of the Palladium, they wire the input connections of the two channels to the + and - pins on the balanced XLRs; so yes, the Palladium is a balanced bridge monoblock. (with small effort, a Palladium can be converted into a stereo high bias 8008BB equivalent). This carries the liability that you have to be careful about driving the Palladium with a true balanced input with full signal swings on both sides of the line; no single ended to balanced conversion will occur (unlike, say, an Ayre or Theta) if you drive the balanced inputs with what is really an unbalanced signal. In that mode, one of the Palladium "channels" just becomes a virtual ground, wasting half the signal swing.

The cure is to add Jensen bridging transformers internally to the Palladium; then they behave much better with any kind of input, and have far better RFI rejection. A Jensen JT-11P-1 is a good choice, with -3 dB bandwidth of 0.2 Hz (yes, two tenths of a hertz!) to 100 kHz. This is designed for working even with high impedance sources, so it will even work with many passive preamps fairly well. This is a highly recommended (well, by me, anyway "upgrade" or tweak for a Palladium.

Best regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[Lozenge]

exterior differences between palladium and palladium II?

Hi folks,

I'm shopping for a pair of palladium II's and am curious to know the exterior differences between the original palladiums and the II's. I just want to make sure I buy what I think I'm buying. I haven't been able to find pics of palladium II's on the web. Also, do the factory boxes specifically say "palladium II"?

Thanks,
Mike

[JonMarsh]

The original Palladiums have the "classic" Aragon look, except that the front panels are dark gray instead of black, with the V notch for the heatsink. This is true for the Palladium II's, also. Not to be confused with the 8008MKII, which are in the new look series.

The new Palladium 1K reflect new cosmetics, with the funny inverted triangle thingie, come in either black or a very light silver- I have a pair of the latter, currently single ended inputs, but I may retro-fit them to transformer balanced. Having peeked inside, they're so similar to the Palladium II's I doubt there's any change in electrical performance- same power supply, same PCB layout, same number of outputs, etc.

~Jon

[ThomasW]

Blue LED ..... :wink:

[Lozenge]

Thanks Jon!

Sorry for seeming dense; but after reading your description, I'm still not sure about the cosmetic differences between the original palladiums and the II's - do the II's actually have "II" printed on them somewhere?

Thanks kindly,
Mike

[ThomasW]

No the Palladium MKII does not have 'MKII' printed on the front panel. It will look just like the second picture below, but will say 'aragon palladium' instead of aragon 8008

This is a picture of the 'newest' Palladium 1K



The Palladium MKII has the same front panel as the 8008 shown below. The Palladium had a charcoal finish instead of the black seen on the 8008. The front panel is beveled. It's thickest at the horizontal line under the text, and tapers toward the top and bottom edges



Below is a picture of the original Palladiums

[JonMarsh]

Note; the Palladium two has a medium gray panel, like the original Palladium. It is beveled like the 8008BB shown. The manual is on line at the Klipsch site, and shows the front panel graphics.

[Lozenge]

Thanks guys! Much appreciated.

What are your thoughts on cabling/wiring? I'm leaning towards the balanced version of the palladium II's. I'll be driving NHT 3.3s. I could either go with 3 meters of interconnect and 1 meter of speaker wire or vice versa. Of course, if you have other suggestions, I'm all ears

Also, what do you think of bi-wiring?

Mike

[ThomasW]

Try both wiring methods and see which you prefer. 'Purests' go for the shortest speaker wire, placing the amps at the base of the speakers

Given the relatively benign load the 3.3s present, I doubt that bi-wiring would be a significant benefit

[Stockinv]

Aragon Amps

For B&W 802 speakers, what's preferable, the Aragon 3002 or the Aragon
8008MKII?

[JonMarsh]

There's a difference in the build quality between the 8008 series and the other new ones. The new 2002 and 3002 have power supplies and output stages more like the Acurus models; i.e., not quite the baby Krells that the 8008 BB is. The latter are more expensive, but I'd consider them a longer term investment. Just check the weight specs, for starters. Of course, there's a cost difference. Realistically, you might not notice much difference, but I think the "big guys" will control the bottom end of your B&W's a little better, and just have to work a little less overall.

The only new series Aragon's I own are one set of Palladiums; all the rest are pre-Klipsch.

~Jon

[JonMarsh]

Let me elaborate a little more, based on your email questions- all this Info is on the Klipsch site.

The B&W 802d is a "nominal" 8 ohm speaker, but checking the impedance curves shows it drops to 3.5 ohms in significant parts of the bass. The sensitivity is rated at 90 dB, which relatively high. These factors indicate that you should be selecting an amplifier based more on current delivery capability, not voltage, as the voltage sensitivity is moderately high (90 dB/watt), whereas the impedance can dip low (that's how they got the voltage sensitivity!)

So, which is which in the Aragon line?

The 3002 is rated at 300W at 8 ohms, and 500W at 4 ohms. It weights 45 lb. Weight correlates with power supply and heatsink size. Note that the power doesn't double going from 8 ohm to 4 ohm, indicating power supply sag under load (or specsmanship). Idle power consumption is 65 watts; max is 1200 watts.

The 8008 MKII is rated at 200W at 8 ohm, and 400W at 4 ohms. If it had current delivery and power supply sag like the 3002, it would probably have been rated at 300 or 350 watts at 4 ohms. Weight is 71 lb, pretty much identical to past years models. Idle power is 125 watts (hmmm, a bit more class A operation; 8008 put out the first 25 watts in class A mode), 1500 watts max.

My own tests show 8008's are conservatively rated, and typically clip at about 275 watts @ 8 ohms, about 500 at 4 ohms. I've never had a problem driving 2 to 2.5 ohms with an 8008BB, either.

The 3002 weighs less, runs less idle current, and doesn't have as stiff a power supply. It's probably optimized more for putting out some extra voltage at 8 ohms, but not as much current @ lower impedance loads.

To put this into perspective, the old 8002 amplifier (which I have one of), rated 125 watts per channel, weighs 50 lb., and puts out the first 13 watts class A into 8 ohms. It's more conservatively designed than the 3002.

So, if the 3002 is a lot cheaper, and if you audition it and you're happy with it in your system, then maybe that's a reasonable tradeoff for you. But the 8008's a better amp in every way. I'm sure it must cost more, too.

For the rest of your system, the 2005 for surrounds and center is probably fine; I prefer the front three channels to be pretty much equiavlent, though, in speakers and electronics, which is why I use an 8008X3BB in the front.

Best regards,

Jon

[Ricky]

Wow, my old thread is still alive after two years.

Jon,

Well, a good friend/dealer's advice led me to an Aragon Soundstage prepro in spring 2003...I loved it enough to send it to Aragon to get the $800 upgrade to the Stage One's 7.1 digital section. And thanks to your posts.....14 months ago, I tried one Palladium II for my center. It was awesome! I got two more and got my dream amps....three Palladium IIs across the front. The 50 lb. 8002 125x2 drove my rears for a while...until I found an 8008x3BB to fill out my 6.1 setup. A friend bought the 8002 and is very happy with it...one day, he plans to get an 8008x5. All my Aragon amps were purchased used (only way I could afford three Palladiums!).

[bahringe]

Hey I just bought a second used 4004mkII I was wondering how to bridge each unit into a mono amp? Jon you look like the man to ask.
Thanks for any assistance

[dnlyko]

BTW, 8002, 8008ST, 8008BB, and Palladium all use the same basic PCB, just with different stuffing options. In the case of the Palladium, they wire the input connections of the two channels to the + and - pins on the balanced XLRs; so yes, the Palladium is a balanced bridge monoblock. (with small effort, a Palladium can be converted into a stereo high bias 8008BB equivalent). This carries the liability that you have to be careful about driving the Palladium with a true balanced input with full signal swings on both sides of the line; no single ended to balanced conversion will occur (unlike, say, an Ayre or Theta) if you drive the balanced inputs with what is really an unbalanced signal. In that mode, one of the Palladium "channels" just becomes a virtual ground, wasting half the signal swing.

The cure is to add Jensen bridging transformers internally to the Palladium; then they behave much better with any kind of input, and have far better RFI rejection. A Jensen JT-11P-1 is a good choice, with -3 dB bandwidth of 0.2 Hz (yes, two tenths of a hertz!) to 100 kHz. This is designed for working even with high impedance sources, so it will even work with many passive preamps fairly well. This is a highly recommended (well, by me, anyway "upgrade" or tweak for a Palladium.

Hi Jon, I have the Stage One un-balanced and the Palladium II balanced. I will buy the JT-11P-1 as you recommend. Did you require any other components other than the two 4k99 resistors as shown below?

http://www.jensen-transformers.com/as/as060.pdf

[1oldguy]

Let me elaborate a little more, based on your email questions- all this Info is on the Klipsch site.

The B&W 802d is a "nominal" 8 ohm speaker, but checking the impedance curves shows it drops to 3.5 ohms in significant parts of the bass. The sensitivity is rated at 90 dB, which relatively high. These factors indicate that you should be selecting an amplifier based more on current delivery capability, not voltage, as the voltage sensitivity is moderately high (90 dB/watt), whereas the impedance can dip low (that's how they got the voltage sensitivity!)

So, which is which in the Aragon line?

The 3002 is rated at 300W at 8 ohms, and 500W at 4 ohms. It weights 45 lb. Weight correlates with power supply and heatsink size. Note that the power doesn't double going from 8 ohm to 4 ohm, indicating power supply sag under load (or specsmanship). Idle power consumption is 65 watts; max is 1200 watts.

The 8008 MKII is rated at 200W at 8 ohm, and 400W at 4 ohms. If it had current delivery and power supply sag like the 3002, it would probably have been rated at 300 or 350 watts at 4 ohms. Weight is 71 lb, pretty much identical to past years models. Idle power is 125 watts (hmmm, a bit more class A operation; 8008 put out the first 25 watts in class A mode), 1500 watts max.

My own tests show 8008's are conservatively rated, and typically clip at about 275 watts @ 8 ohms, about 500 at 4 ohms. I've never had a problem driving 2 to 2.5 ohms with an 8008BB, either.

The 3002 weighs less, runs less idle current, and doesn't have as stiff a power supply. It's probably optimized more for putting out some extra voltage at 8 ohms, but not as much current @ lower impedance loads.

To put this into perspective, the old 8002 amplifier (which I have one of), rated 125 watts per channel, weighs 50 lb., and puts out the first 13 watts class A into 8 ohms. It's more conservatively designed than the 3002.

So, if the 3002 is a lot cheaper, and if you audition it and you're happy with it in your system, then maybe that's a reasonable tradeoff for you. But the 8008's a better amp in every way. I'm sure it must cost more, too.

For the rest of your system, the 2005 for surrounds and center is probably fine; I prefer the front three channels to be pretty much equiavlent, though, in speakers and electronics, which is why I use an 8008X3BB in the front.

Best regards,

Jon

Curious...If I may ask.Whats your view on Bryston 7bSST squared amps for powering the 802D B&W?

Thank you.

[chamberman]

I know this is a very old post, but I thought I would comment on the Class A power output of the Aragon amplifiers because it seems to me that there is a lot of misinformation floating around on the net about this subject. I have worked on and upgraded the Aragon and Acurus amplifiers and preamps for years. I always went by the Mondial advertised Class A power ratings for them and never really questioned those wattage numbers. Recently I decided to calculate the Class A power output of an Acurus DIA-150 that I had upgraded and even with 50% higher bias than the Mondial factory specs the actual Class A output is extremely low. I then started wondering about the Aragon amps and their actual power output. I made a spreadsheet and plotted out all of the Aragon amps based on the number of output devices and the factory bias setting of 10 mV Vre for each respected amplifier. What I came up with for actual Class A RMS power is a small fraction of what Mondial claimed. Now some people may think that maybe Mondial was talking about peak Class A power and not RMS, but peak would only be essentially twice the RMS power which would still be very low. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about by using the 8008BB and calculating for the much higher peak Class A power. The Aragon 8008BB uses 12 output devices per channel and the factory recommended Vre is 10 mV, the emitter resistor is .33 ohms so we have 30.3 mA per output device. This gives us a total bias current of .0303 x 12 = .3636A, so one channel can swing .3636 Amp peak into whatever load is connected to it before it switches from Class A to Class B output. With an 8 ohm speaker connected to that channel you will have .3636^2 * 8 = 1.06 watts of peak Class A output power delivered to your speaker from the 8008BB. The RMS Class A output will be effectively 1/2 of the peak output power. You could crank the bias up to 20 mV Vre for the 8008BB and then you would get about 4.23 Watts of peak Class A output per channel, however you may also over heat the amp if it were installed into a cabinet or had other equipment stacked on it, so be careful.

To further put this into perspective, to get 25W of peak Class A output from the 8008BB you would effectively need 1.77 amps per channel of bias current, nearly 5 times the factory recommended idle bias current. The DC rails of the 8008BB are about 73 VDC at idle, 1.77A * 73 VDC = 129.21 Watts per channel of AC power draw and heat dissipation on each heat sink. Factoring in other losses the 8008BB would draw nearly 300 watts of AC power from the wall at idle if it were putting out 25 Watts of peak class A power. It would also need to dissipate 130 watts of heat on each heat sink. Although the Aragon 8000 series heatsinks are of decent size, they are no where near large enough to dissipate that kind of power. Not to mention the design of the amp with the heatsinks facing each other in the center of the amplifier is not as good of a design for cooling as placing them on the outside edges of the amp with the fins facing open air. Even with the sinks moved to the outside edges of the amplifier like on the 8002 there is just not enough heat sink there to remove 130 Watts of power with out burning up. This is the reason many true Class A amplifiers use DC rails that are about 1/2 the voltage of the Aragon's. By dropping the voltage of the DC rails in half you end up cutting the size of the heatsinks in half to get the needed Class A power.

The only way this type of Class A output power would be even remotely possible is if Mondial had employed an active biasing scheme which some other manufacturers used, i.e. Krell used the Sliding bias in their older amplifiers. However looking at the schematics of the Mondial amplifiers I do not see where they did any active biasing for the output stages. Not to mention if they had, you can bet that it would be in their sales literature from the period. The sales literature can still be viewed on Schurkey's Aragon Fan page by the way.

It may sound like I'm bashing the Aragon amps and nothing could be further from the truth. I like the Mondial amplifiers quite well and feel their build quality and sound quality are far ahead of most other vintage equipment on the market. However, I don't like misleading hype and that is what I think that the "rumored" Class A output numbers for most of the Aragon Amplifiers were, it was just sales hype and rumors. If you go and look at Schurkey's Aragon fanpage and open the old 8000 series sales flyers, no Class A output numbers are given for any of the Aragon amplifiers except the Palladium II. In my opinion even the Palladium series was incapable of the advertised 125W of Class A output bias even with the lower 50 VDC rails this amplifier utilized.

Just some food for thought for anyone in the future basing their vintage amplifier purchase on "rumored" Class A output power.

[wkhanna]

Interesting post, chamberman.
Thanks.

[chamberman]

In case anyone is interested, here are the peak and average numbers from my spreadsheet for the Aragon amps. The Palladium calculation is a bit different due to the Differential nature of that amplifier. For that calculation only half of one mono-block channel's bias current is used. The calculation used in my spreadsheet for RMS power is (Total Current/1.414)^2 * 8 ohms = RMS Class A power. The peak power calc is in my previous post.

Aragon Amp -- RMS Class A --- Peak Class A WPC
2004 ---- -- 0.021 --- 0.042
4004 ---- -- 0.150 --- 0.301
8002 ---- -- 0.132 --- 0.264
8008ST ------ 0.235 --- 0.470
8008BB ------ 0.529 --- 1.058
8008X3 ------ 0.529 --- 1.058
Palladium ---- 0.941 --- 1.881
Palladium II-- 2.678 --- 5.355

[Finleyville]

Lots of great info here. Thanks!

[boleary]

Am in need of the wiring diagram for the Palladium 1K Mono Blocks. Anyone know where or how to obtain it? Thanks in advance for any replies!

[Alaric]

Am in need of the wiring diagram for the Palladium 1K Mono Blocks. Anyone know where or how to obtain it? Thanks in advance for any replies!

You may find it here https://www.hifiengine.com
Free registration, etc.. If they don't have the specific info you're looking for the community can usually dig stuff up on an a la carte basis.

[boleary]

Thanks!

[Alaric]

You're most welcome. I have gotten several manufacturer's repair manuals there. And you're more than welcome to come back here and hang around, too.