TV Fool  

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Help With Reception

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-Jun-2017, 5:56 PM   #61
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
Thanks for the feedback. I just bought both the RCA combiner/preamp from Walmart and the Antennas Direct UVSJ from Amazon. I will test both setups and keep you posted on my results.
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jun-2017, 8:02 PM   #62
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
What's the consensus on a dedicated deep fringe VHF-Hi antenna?

My Stellar Labs 30-2476 yagi works for WVNY, but DW thinks it is too big. What are the odds a Clearstream 5 VHF rig would work? $139 each is kind of steep to gamble on....

Last edited by jrgagne99; 21-Jun-2017 at 8:13 PM.
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-Jun-2017, 8:20 PM   #63
ADTech
Antennas Direct Tech Supp
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,930
The simulation's math suggests it will work. However, my practical experience with the predicted vs actual signal levels suggests that the calculations for 2-edge paths is often highly variable. I've had instances where Fool indicated a +10 dB margin and no signals were in the air above the noise floor and others where Fool predicted -20 dB margin and reception was 24/7 reliable. At 70 miles away and with less than 10 kW ERP, I'm surprised their signal is even making the trip to your location.

If you try it out, but it from someplace that offers an easy return policy and then watch your return dates. Amazon, for example, only offers 30 days and, if you're a Prime member, quick shipping and pre-paid returns (usually). If you order directly from us, we offer 90 days to return, slow-boat "free" shipping, and you pay the postage if it gets sent back. Other retailers will have something somewhere in the middle.
__________________
Antennas Direct Tech Support

For support and recommendations regarding our products, please contact us directly at https://www.antennasdirect.com/customer-service.html

Sorry, I'm not a mod and cannot assist with your site registration.
ADTech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Jun-2017, 8:46 PM   #64
rabbit73
Retired A/V Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgagne99 View Post
It seems that the 33-2230 UVSJ is greatly attenuating my UHF signals.

It would seem that I should try a different brand of UVSJ. I would rather like to avoid two lines and an A/B switch.
That got me curious, so I made some measurements to compare four UVSJs:

MCM 33-2230
Radio Shack 15-2586
Antennas Direct EU385CF-1S
Macom (Old)

For the first measurements, I used a Blonder Tongue HAVM-1UA Frequency Agile Modulator as a stable signal source, and a Sadelco DisplayMax 800 Signal Level Meter. The modulator puts out an analog signal; I used the video carrier for each channel. The Sadelco meter has 0.1 dB resolution.



I was having a problem getting consistent measurements. The Sadelco meter has a built-in calibration reference and at certain intervals will correct its readings. This was difficult for me to deal with when making 0.1 dB resolution measurements, so I switched to my Sadelco 719E meter that has a panel meter with wide 1 dB divisions in the center of the scale that allows me to interpolate to the nearest 0.1 dB.

The Sadelco 719E is on the left; the DisplayMax 800 on the right:



I used the red divisions and the second scale -10 to +20 dBmV.



I would read that as +2.8 dBmV.

To make a measurement, I first connected the modulator to the meter with an F-81 adapter and took a reading. I then substituted the UVSJ, UHF and common ports, for the adapter for the second reading.

There was an attenuator at the output of the modulator and at the input of the meter to try to keep the line "flat" (low SWR).

Code:
UHF Insertion Loss of Four UVSJs

CH    MCM 33-2230     RS 15-2586     AD EU385CF-1S   Macom (Old)

    F-81 UVSJ Loss  F-81 UVSJ Loss  F-81 UVSJ Loss  F-81 UVSJ Loss
    ---dBmV-- -dB-  ---dBmV-- -dB-  ---dBmV-- -dB-  ---dBmV-- -dB-

15  7.1  5.8  1.3   7.1  6.5  0.6   7.1  6.8  0.3   7.1  7.0  0.1

28  6.1  5.4  0.7   6.1  5.5  0.6   6.2  5.8  0.4   6.2  6.1  0.1

45  5.3  4.3  1.0   5.3  5.0  0.3   5.3  4.9  0.4   5.3  5.2  0.1                                   
The MCM 33-2230 does have a higher insertion loss that might make a difference if your marginal signals are at the "Digital Cliff."

The Macom UVSJ has very low loss because it has fewer components.





L1, C1, and L2 are the lowpass VHF filter; C2, L4, C3, and L3 are the UHF highpass filter.

This UVSJ will pass power to a preamp for the VHF antenna through L1 and L2.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MACOM_UVSJfront.jpg (115.2 KB, 685 views)
File Type: jpg MACOM_UVSJinside.jpg (143.6 KB, 701 views)
__________________
If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/aeri...ttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 26-Jun-2017 at 3:39 PM.
rabbit73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Jun-2017, 1:52 PM   #65
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
Thanks for the UVSJ test-info Rabbit.

While I was waiting for the RCA TVPRAMP1Z and Antennas Direct mast-mount UVSJ to arrive, I tried another UVSJ that I remembered I had purchased a while back on Amazon- a Blonder-Tongue ZHLSJ. It showed the same wacky UHF attenuation that the MCM 33-2230 did. I was now suspicious that something else in my setup was at play. However, when I plugged in the Antennas Direct UVSJ, it worked swimmingly. No UHF or VHF attenuation! Additionally, the RCA TVPRAMP1Z, with its separate UHF and VHF inputs, worked great as well! Maybe MCM is using Blonder-Tongue components in their parts (or vice-versa) I don't know, but in any case, they both appeared to be defective.

Anyway, for two days now, I've been pulling in WCAX, WPTZ, and WVNY at SNRs all greater than 20 dB, with only very rare pixellations, and no drop-outs. I'm even getting WETK, which is way down at NM=-2.2dB on my report. I'm using the HDB91X for UHF and the MCM 30-2476 for VHF-Hi.

My stretch-goal now is to pull in WFFF (Real Ch 43, NM=-5.8 dB). I have occasionally achieved this before using two vertically stacked HDB8X's positioned in a certain spot on my roof. But that configuration is a real wind-sail, and we live in a especially windy spot. So I'm thinking of stacking two HDB91Xs instead.

Question: What separation distance should I try (to start with) for vertical or horizontal stacking of two HDB91X antennas?

Last edited by jrgagne99; 28-Jun-2017 at 3:39 PM.
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Jun-2017, 5:22 PM   #66
rickbb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADTech View Post
If you buy the RCA preamp, buy two of them and keep your receipts.... Just saying.
Ditto that. I've had 4 of them, 3 actually worked.
rickbb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Jun-2017, 7:21 PM   #67
rabbit73
Retired A/V Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgagne99 View Post
While I was waiting for the RCA TVPRAMP1Z and Antennas Direct mast-mount UVSJ to arrive, I tried another UVSJ that I remembered I had purchased a while back on Amazon- a Blonder-Tongue ZHLSJ. It showed the same wacky UHF attenuation that the MCM 33-2230 did. I was now suspicious that something else in my setup was at play. However, when I plugged in the Antennas Direct UVSJ, it worked swimmingly. No UHF or VHF attenuation! Additionally, the RCA TVPRAMP1Z, with its separate UHF and VHF inputs, worked great as well! Maybe MCM is using Blonder-Tongue components in their parts (or vice-versa) I don't know, but in any case, they both appeared to be defective.
A HLSJ is not the same as a UVSJ. A UVSJ passes UHF and blocks VHF-High and VHF-Low on the high port; it passes VHF-High and VHF-Low on the low port. A HLSJ passes VHF-Low and blocks VHF-High and UHF on the low port; it passes VHF-High and UHF on the high port.







IOW, the crossover for a UVSJ is between VHF-High and UHF; the crossover for a HLSJ is between VHF-Low and VHF-High.

Glad to hear that the AD UVSJ is working well for you.
Quote:
Question: What separation distance should I try (to start with) for vertical or horizontal stacking of two HDB91X antennas?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg HollandHLSJFreqResp2.JPG (69.6 KB, 625 views)
File Type: jpg Antenna Spacing Chart2.JPG (112.3 KB, 658 views)
__________________
If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/aeri...ttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 28-Jun-2017 at 8:43 PM.
rabbit73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Jun-2017, 8:08 PM   #68
ADTech
Antennas Direct Tech Supp
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,930
Even though an HLSJ is a different device than what was needed, it should have no ill effect on UHF pass-through provided the ports were not reversed. Only high-VHF should have been affected (assuming correct connection and no other defects).
__________________
Antennas Direct Tech Support

For support and recommendations regarding our products, please contact us directly at https://www.antennasdirect.com/customer-service.html

Sorry, I'm not a mod and cannot assist with your site registration.
ADTech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Jun-2017, 1:40 PM   #69
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
Thanks for the info on spacing Rabbit. The chart is slightly confusing, but if I'm reading it right, it looks like the optimum vertical spacing is 0.67*lambda, and the optimum horizontal spacing is 1*lambda, where lambda is the wavelength of the "lower-channel antenna". Since my UHF antennas are obviously both the same, I guess I'll take that to mean the the lowest frequency in the UHF band (Ch14 = 473 MHz), so my lambda is 25-inches. The spacing to optimize reception of WFFF (Real Ch43 = 647 MHz) should be based on lambda=18".

At least those are some ball-park numbers to start with. I'll try vertical stacking first because it is easier to implement. I notice that 0.67*lambda for Ch14 is 16.5". That seems pretty close, but we'll see if it works. The recommended vertical spacing is even closer for Ch43 (0.67*lambda = 12.25").

Last edited by jrgagne99; 29-Jun-2017 at 1:42 PM.
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Jun-2017, 1:31 AM   #70
rabbit73
Retired A/V Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
That seems pretty close,
It seems too close to me also.

This is how seeyabarney stacked his antennas:



his thread:

http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=16301
__________________
If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/aeri...ttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 30-Jun-2017 at 2:28 AM.
rabbit73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Jun-2017, 1:00 PM   #71
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
Due to the height of the corner reflectors on the HDB91X, the closest I could space them was about 25". It made maybe a 1 dB improvement in SNR on some channels. Others were unchanged. WFFF might have gone up by 1 dB. Without more sophisticated measurement equipment it is difficult to quantify, especially because in deep-fringe, the SNRs bounce around by 1-2 dB constantly. Even looking at the high-water mark over 30-second intervals, that measurement itself can change by 2-3 dB over a 10-minute period. So it can be difficult to tease out whether the effect is mechanical or temporal.
Multiple repeat measurements at different times of the day are needed to have a better chance at understanding the true impact.

To join the signals, I'm using coax cables of the same length (within 1/4 inch or so), and a combiner scavenged from my HDB8X 8-bay. I'm worried that the combiner losses might be swamping any stacking gains. Can anyone recommend a ultra-low loss combiner I should try?

Last edited by jrgagne99; 30-Jun-2017 at 1:03 PM.
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Jun-2017, 7:35 PM   #72
rabbit73
Retired A/V Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
I'm worried that the combiner losses might be swamping any stacking gains. Can anyone recommend a ultra-low loss combiner I should try?
Most combiners are a splitter used in reverse as a combiner. The insertion loss is very low, average about 0.5 dB. So, the most you can gain by stacking is about 2.5 dB.

However, if the field is non-uniform and one antenna receives a weaker signal, then the gain from stacking can be much less. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but it is possible to end up with less gain from two stacked antennas than what you had with one, even if both antennas are identical, are aimed at the same azimuth, and have feedlines that are the same length.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/merging.html

WFFF will be moving to channel 16, so you will want your antenna to have the highest gain at the low end of UHF, like the DB8E.
http://www.rabbitears.info/market.ph...&callsign=wfff

Quote:
Can anyone recommend a ultra-low loss combiner I should try?
The only way I know of to combine with a lower loss is to connect both lines together in parallel, giving an impedance of 37.5 ohms, and add a 1/4 wave matching section of 50 ohm coax which transforms the 37.5 ohms to 75 ohms. It would be a custom job. This is what Calaveras did with his two 91XG antennas.
http://www.aa6g.org/DTV/index.html

http://www.aa6g.org/DTV/ABD/Antenna_Block_Diagram.html

Attached Images
File Type: jpg Calaveras ANTs2.JPG (102.0 KB, 554 views)
__________________
If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/aeri...ttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 30-Jun-2017 at 8:34 PM.
rabbit73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Jun-2017, 9:10 PM   #73
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
Thank-you as always for the info Rabbit. I had no idea that broadcasters were switching channels again. This time it is part of the 2016-2017 FCC incentive auction (per Wikipedia). I called the junior station engineer up on the mountain-top and he said there will be some new transmitter equipment installed as part of the switch. He didn't know if it would be more powerful or less powerful, but I'm going to call the senior engineer Monday night who junior told me will surely know. He's been up there since Elvis died in 1977. Hopefully, power levels will go up and coverage will increase...

All other things being equal (i.e. transmitter power), does a move down the band (i.e. WFFF going from Ch43 to Ch16) bode well for deep-fringe reception areas like my house?
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Jun-2017, 11:04 PM   #74
rabbit73
Retired A/V Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
All other things being equal (i.e. transmitter power), does a move down the band (i.e. WFFF going from Ch43 to Ch16) bode well for deep-fringe reception areas like my house?
I would say yes, if the antenna for Ch16 has at least as much gain as the antenna used for Ch43. I base this on the fact that VHF signals are more frequently used in mountainous areas because they can make it over terrain obstructions more easily. This would seem to apply to UHF low end vs UHF high end signals as well, to a lesser extent.

To summarize, these are the factors to consider when hunting for weak marginal signals:

1. Select an antenna that has the highest gain available for your most desired channel. In your case, it would probably be the AD DB8E after the move to Ch16:



2. Mount the antenna in the best hot spot you can find on your property. That might not be where you want it for the sake of appearance. Often, a single antenna up higher will out perform a stacked pair and will be easier to mount.
3. Keep the coax between the antenna and the preamp input short; every 16 feet of coax is like a 1 dB loss of antenna gain for UHF.
4. Consider switching to a low Noise Figure preamp like the KT-200. They can make the reception of weak signals easier, but are more sensitive to static damage; that's the trade-off.




This is the way it works:

The antenna gain must make the signal strong enough to exceed the Noise Figure of the preamp plus the 15 dB minimum required SNR for the signal. Once the signal reaches that point, the preamp will amplify the signal to overcome the distribution losses. The preamp will also amplify the Thermal Noise Floor which will bury the tuner Noise Figure, making it irrelevant.

The metric for the antenna system performance is called the System Noise Figure; the lower the number, the better. It is primarily determined by the preamp at the beginning of the chain. The System Noise Figure can be calculated using the Friis Noise formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friis_formulas_for_noise
Quote:
An important consequence of this formula is that the overall noise figure of a radio receiver is primarily established by the noise figure of its first amplifying stage. Subsequent stages have a diminishing effect on signal-to-noise ratio. For this reason, the first stage amplifier in a receiver is often called the low-noise amplifier (LNA).
System Noise Figure calculations for the above Noise Margin diagram:



reducing the balun loss and the preamp NF:

__________________
If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/aeri...ttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 1-Jul-2017 at 12:29 AM.
rabbit73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1-Jul-2017, 2:05 AM   #75
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
Thanks Rabbit. I had it in the back of my mind that the pre-amp Noise Figure NF is yet another component for me to optimize. Data on the common ones is sometimes hard to find. Here is an effort to condense NF values from commonly (and less-commonly) available pre-amps all into one spot.

CM-7777/7778:
"typically less than 2 dB"
https://www.channelmaster.com/TV_Ant..._p/cm-7777.htm

Winegard LNA-200 "Boost XT"
"1 dB typical"
http://www.winegard.com/amplifiers
but probably overstated according to multiple users

Antennas Direct Juice
"1.5dB on VHF, < 3dB on UHF"
AVS forum post:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdt...ce-preamp.html

RCA TVPRAMP1R:
Low VHF - 3.9 dB
High VHF - 3.1 dB NF
UHF - 2.6 dB NF
(from Pete Higgins post, quoting ADTech on this tvfool forum:
https://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=13530)

KT-200
0.4 dB
http://www.kitztech.com/KT200.html

Research Communications Pre-amps
0.4 dB
configurable for different combinations of VHF-lo, VHF hi, UHF
http://www.researchcomms.com/hdtv.html


It looks to me like the KT-200 might be worth a try for my situation, especially since Research Comms is in the UK. Do you guys have experience with the KT-200s? Is the 0.4 dB NF legit?

Last edited by jrgagne99; 1-Jul-2017 at 2:09 AM.
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1-Jul-2017, 2:46 AM   #76
rabbit73
Retired A/V Tech
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
It looks to me like the KT-200 might be worth a try for my situation, especially since Research Comms is in the UK. Do you guys have experience with the KT-200s? Is the 0.4 dB NF legit?
The NF is optimistic, but still quite good. That would be the one I would try. Get the coax powered outdoor enclosure version. I can't guarantee that it will improve your reception, but I think it's worth a try.
http://www.kitztech.com/KT200.html

http://www.kitztech.com/standard_coax.html

The LNA-200 isn't as good as when first released. They made some design changes to meet a price point that reduced the performance. Also the shielding isn't adequate. It uses 5V which isn't so good with long coax runs because of the voltage drop. CM made the same mistake with the CM7777hd Amplify preamp.
http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hd...er-7777hd.html

Calaveras on AVS tested a whole bunch. His results in the attachment.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PreampComparison1.jpg (244.4 KB, 228 views)
__________________
If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/aeri...ttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 1-Jul-2017 at 2:25 PM.
rabbit73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Jul-2017, 8:11 PM   #77
jrgagne99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 192
My current setup:

Recently I've been using a single HDB91X at 30 feet agl and a MCM-30-2476 at 28.5 feet agl. Both aimed at 342 degrees, combined with the RCA-TVPRAMP1R preamp/diplexer at the mast, then 100 feet of RG-6 then 50 feet of RG-59. I get good reception of all the 342-degree stations except WFFF which is too far down in the weeds for me i guess.

Observations:

1) My wife didn't like the look of the 4-element planar reflector on the 30-2476, so I modified it down to a single element reflector. After making the change, I lost about 3 dB of SNR on WVNY (real-13), as reported by my Sony Bravia. I was not surprised by this. The SNR is still reliably at 22+, so it is a non-issue (minimum of 14 dB required for reception). So i thought.

2) I installed a generic splitter to try reception on 2 TVs last night. With the secondary TV off, signal strength on the main TV#1 (the Sony) was unchanged across all channels, compared to my original no-splitter setup. But when I turned on TV#2, the signal strength reported by the Sony for WVNY dropped by another 3 dB. The effect was very repeatable, and no other station showed a change in signal strength on TV#1. Last night was no big deal, but on stormy nights, this could cause a reception problem for WVNY, as I will be approaching the 14 dB minimum.

Any thoughts as to what might be causing this? Would a distribution amplifier help in this case?

Thanks!

Last edited by jrgagne99; 26-Jul-2017 at 8:15 PM.
jrgagne99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Jul-2017, 10:22 PM   #78
JoeAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 371
One red flag would be the excessively long cable runs.
Another red flag would be mixing RG6 and RG59 in
the same system. Cannot help but wonder if there could
be an impedence mismatch?
JoeAZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Jul-2017, 11:06 PM   #79
ADTech
Antennas Direct Tech Supp
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,930
Quote:
...mixing RG6 and RG59 in the same system. Cannot help but wonder if there could be an impedence mismatch?
Both are 75 ohm impedance. No mismatch there.

Of greater concern is that the RG59 typically has a thinner diameter center conductor. If you connect it to a female F-connector that has previously had RG6 connected to it, you may find that the connector does not make a secure physical and electrical connection. Such a loose connection behaves like a capacitor and can cause a loss of lower frequency (think VHF frequencies) pass-through.
__________________
Antennas Direct Tech Support

For support and recommendations regarding our products, please contact us directly at https://www.antennasdirect.com/customer-service.html

Sorry, I'm not a mod and cannot assist with your site registration.
ADTech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Jul-2017, 11:14 PM   #80
rickbb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgagne99 View Post
2) I installed a generic splitter to try reception on 2 TVs last night. With the secondary TV off, signal strength on the main TV#1 (the Sony) was unchanged across all channels, compared to my original no-splitter setup. But when I turned on TV#2, the signal strength reported by the Sony for WVNY dropped by another 3 dB. The effect was very repeatable, and no other station showed a change in signal strength on TV#1. Last night was no big deal, but on stormy nights, this could cause a reception problem for WVNY, as I will be approaching the 14 dB minimum.

Any thoughts as to what might be causing this? Would a distribution amplifier help in this case?

Thanks!
I'm guessing here, but it sounds like the 2nd TV is not terminating the signal when off, sending the current backup the cable to the splitter, which oddly is sending it to the 1st TV. This is the only thing I can think of to allow this turning of the 3db drop on and off like that.

If you try adding another amp, get an adjustable model so you can dial it up and down to find the sweet spot between good signal and overload.

Wineguard makes a model that I've used just in front of a 2 way splitter for a similar situation. I can't remember the model off hand and I'm out of town for the week or I'd look at it. I added it after a long run to 2 TV's close together. The rest of the house did not need an amp so the adjustable one just served these 2 "remote" TVs.
rickbb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Help With Reception


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © TV Fool, LLC