# Sound System Design/Bid/Installation Questions



## urban79 (Nov 9, 2011)

I'm in the middle of a massive renovation at the school I work at. The auditorium sound system is the last major component that I'm dealing with - we're going on three years without a sound system installed in the space. The project has been spec-ed, re-speced, and so on. I fear I will have to justify, line by line, each element of the system shortly.

Anywho, I did not design the system and I have some questions for the collective CB conscience. First a little background:
My venue is a 750-seat High School auditorium. We do the usual conglomeration of band, orchestra, and chorus concerts, as well as presentations, dance recitals, meetings, etc. We do a school musical every spring, and would like to branch into doing some straight plays.

The designer spec-ed a variety of JBL powered speakers for the system. I'm not sure that I've ever seen an installed system that uses powered speakers rather than powered amps, and the cost of installing electric to each speaker location strikes me as crazy. Any clues as to why that decision might have been made?

Next, we asked to have the ability to have a separate rack-mounted mixer (a "small events system") so that the main board does not have to be turned on and operated for meetings and presentations. I was told that this could cost $8000.00. It strikes me there must be a simpler (and therefore cheaper) way to do such a system, right? The designer tried to get off by saying that the Yamaha LS9-32 could be run very simply from an iPad with the wireless router, but it strikes me that still requires decent knowledge of the board, settings, etc.

I would also love to get your opinion on one other matter: The original design called for 4 AKG WMS450 wireless microphones. I was told that this was cut from the design because of the associated costs... fine, wireless microphones are expensive I know. However, that estimated cost was $12,000.00 for the wireless system!!! I've never worked with external antennas and such, but AKG is not Sennheiser in my opinion. Am I being taken for a ride here?

Any help would be much appreciated! (By the way, the total cost for the Auditorium sound system is supposedly $60,000 in equipment, and $40,000 in installation, and the Board of Ed had a heart attack!)

Chris


----------



## bishopthomas (Nov 9, 2011)

urban79 said:


> The designer spec-ed a variety of JBL powered speakers for the system. I'm not sure that I've ever seen an installed system that uses powered speakers rather than powered amps, and the cost of installing electric to each speaker location strikes me as crazy. Any clues as to why that decision might have been made?



Powered speakers are not an outrageous idea. There are pros and cons for each powered/nonpowered speakers. Depending on the setup, installing power to the speakers may not be much more of an issue than installing multiple circuits and appropriate connectors for power amps. Which powered JBL's?


urban79 said:


> Next, we asked to have the ability to have a separate rack-mounted mixer (a "small events system") so that the main board does not have to be turned on and operated for meetings and presentations. I was told that this could cost $8000.00. It strikes me there must be a simpler (and therefore cheaper) way to do such a system, right? The designer tried to get off by saying that the Yamaha LS9-32 could be run very simply from an iPad with the wireless router, but it strikes me that still requires decent knowledge of the board, settings, etc.



This is a terrible idea for its intended use. I enjoy mixing on an iPad for Yamaha consoles, but I certainly wouldn't want to be teaching the janitor how to network/use it for when he's the one turning on the sound system for a small one-mic presentation event. A Mackie 1604 and a Y cable is really all you need...


urban79 said:


> I would also love to get your opinion on one other matter: The original design called for 4 AKG WMS450 wireless microphones. I was told that this was cut from the design because of the associated costs... fine, wireless microphones are expensive I know. However, that estimated cost was $12,000.00 for the wireless system!!! I've never worked with external antennas and such, but AKG is not Sennheiser in my opinion. Am I being taken for a ride here?



Seems like a zero got transposed here...


urban79 said:


> Any help would be much appreciated! (By the way, the total cost for the Auditorium sound system is supposedly $60,000 in equipment, and $40,000 in installation, and the Board of Ed had a heart attack!)



How upstate NY? Want a quote from a Jersey company?


----------



## museav (Nov 9, 2011)

urban79 said:


> I'm in the middle of a massive renovation at the school I work at. The auditorium sound system is the last major component that I'm dealing with - we're going on three years without a sound system installed in the space. The project has been spec-ed, re-speced, and so on. I fear I will have to justify, line by line, each element of the system shortly.


It is often critical to try to get people to understand that it is an interdependent system and not just a bunch of components that can be assessed without consideration of how they relate to the overall use and application. Also try to get them to think in terms of function rather than gear, e.g. it is not a matter of keeping or deleting equipment but rather of keeping or deleting the related functionality.


urban79 said:


> My venue is a 750-seat High School auditorium. We do the usual conglomeration of band, orchestra, and chorus concerts, as well as presentations, dance recitals, meetings, etc. We do a school musical every spring, and would like to branch into doing some straight plays.


Great information. Is there any additional input regarding the old system and any problems experienced with it, what other schools in the area may have, the operators and what they are familiar with and so on?

I have found that schools and school boards sometimes have perspectives based greatly on what what is already in other schools and/or what has been done in the past. I have had several projects where school boards were concerned about making a new venue too much improved over other venues in the district (even if there was no greater cost associated). I also worked with one school district that literally had a standard tech equipment list, the system design role for audio, rigging and lighting was that of figuring out how to make the standard equipment list work in each space the Architect they hired had designed.


urban79 said:


> The designer spec-ed a variety of JBL powered speakers for the system. I'm not sure that I've ever seen an installed system that uses powered speakers rather than powered amps, and the cost of installing electric to each speaker location strikes me as crazy. Any clues as to why that decision might have been made?


Powered speakers are getting more common and there may or may not be good reason for their recommending them. This gets into two important aspects...

One is that with an existing venue the existing infrastructure (conduit boxes, power, cabling paths, equipment spaces, etc.) is often a critical factor in many system design and equipment selection decisions. Similarly, as part of a larger renovation any changes to other aspects of the venue probably need to be coordinated, I really hope they considered this in any other changes already made to the space but if not you may have to work around what has already been done. It's disheartening to see how many times you end up with things like surface mounted conduit or ripping open recently finished walls and ceilings because people approached the tech systems as something you add to a space rather than as an integral part of it that may need to be coordinated with other work. 

The other aspect is the designer and their overall role. Is the system designer also proposing to provide the system equipment and installation? If they are, are they primarily a design-build Contractor, a music store, a production company or what? Any of these parties may potentially be capable of providing a quality system design, however this can affect, in either a positive or negative fashion, how some system design and equipment decisions may be influenced by the potential equipment and installation sale.

So the recommendation for powered speakers may be a good or bad idea, that depends on the specifics of the application, but they should be able to explain how they arrived at that recommendation.


urban79 said:


> Next, we asked to have the ability to have a separate rack-mounted mixer (a "small events system") so that the main board does not have to be turned on and operated for meetings and presentations. I was told that this could cost $8000.00. It strikes me there must be a simpler (and therefore cheaper) way to do such a system, right? The designer tried to get off by saying that the Yamaha LS9-32 could be run very simply from an iPad with the wireless router, but it strikes me that still requires decent knowledge of the board, settings, etc.


The iPad suggestion sounds like they are either really trying to offer a minimum cost option to you or else they don't really understand what is desired. There are multiple ways to approach what you want but depending on the system design and the other equipment used this may require mic splitters or other devices and wiring that are not immediately obvious. While a system description, System Program or Needs Analysis should address this type of issue, it may also be a simple misunderstanding of what what you are wanting


urban79 said:


> I would also love to get your opinion on one other matter: The original design called for 4 AKG WMS450 wireless microphones. I was told that this was cut from the design because of the associated costs... fine, wireless microphones are expensive I know. However, that estimated cost was $12,000.00 for the wireless system!!! I've never worked with external antennas and such, but AKG is not Sennheiser in my opinion. Am I being taken for a ride here?


Well, that may somewhat depend on what all was included in that such as remote antennas, antenna distribution, racks or rack space, cabling, etc., but I agree with Bishopthmas that it looks like there may be a typo involved (probably not an extra zero but maybe it should be $2,000 instead of $12,000 or something like that).


urban79 said:


> Any help would be much appreciated! (By the way, the total cost for the Auditorium sound system is supposedly $60,000 in equipment, and $40,000 in installation, and the Board of Ed had a heart attack!)


Without knowing more about the venue, the existing infrastructure and conditions, the anticipated use and users, whether any existing equipment is being reused (even mic stands, cables, cabling and plates, etc. can add up), what may be involved in the installation and so on, it is impractical to offer much commentary on the cost. I've designed systems for larger school venues that cost a fraction of that and one for smaller venues that cost many times that amount, it all depends on the space and the goals and expectations defined for the system.


----------



## hsaunier (Nov 9, 2011)

To echo what has been posted. Spend the brain cells figuring out what the stage is supposed to do. Then figure out if the systems and equipment will support the activities which will be presented. For example, if you are doing a school musical every year.... do you have enough mic inputs to support all of the microphones that will be in use. If the custodial staff is supposed to be able to operate a mic, then look at all of the solutions (auto mixing from a DSP could be considered). Ultimately the people with the purse strings will decide how easy/difficult, operating the space will be. Best you can do is continue to educate yourself and make recommendations.


----------



## jowens (Nov 9, 2011)

I'm in a high school, 850 seats, that just had a full reno a couple of years ago. I LOVE our new system.

We have one of these...
QSControl.net - BASIS / RAVE / DSP

which is majorly helpful to manage all of our different inputs. We have a stagemanager rack on stage with a VERY basic 1RU mixer, a power conditioner, and a combo CD/Tape Deck (who uses tapes?!?) 
There are 2 or 3 xlr inputs on the stage that go right to the stage manager mixer.

We're using the plx 02's and 04's to power three hanging qsc's (L,R,C), 2 monitor feeds, and 2 pretty beefy subs. I wish I could remember the model numbers, but I can't, and I can't seem to locate them on qsc's site. Very Happy with separate amplification, and inputs that are all managed with compression, idiot proofing, etc.. through the DSP unit.
Maybe I read too fast, but 12k for wireless mics... if it's 12 or more complete systems then you might be getting a decent deal.

This was spec'd and installed by a company from upstate NY. PM for any more details.

Best wishes
~Joe


----------



## museav (Nov 10, 2011)

jowens said:


> I wish I could remember the model numbers, but I can't, and I can't seem to locate them on qsc's site.


Possibly the discontinued ModularDesign series, QSC - ModularDesign Series Loudspeakers, those would seem to be the most likely non-powered, non-line array QSC speaker models for that type of application. If not one of those then it might also be one of the ISIS Multipurpose series, QSC - ISIS Multipurpose Loudspeakers (Discontinued).


----------



## urban79 (Nov 10, 2011)

End of the quarter so I'm running around like a crazy person. I'll be able to give more information after the weekend when I'm back!

Chris


----------



## urban79 (Nov 15, 2011)

bishopthomas said:


> Powered speakers are not an outrageous idea. There are pros and cons for each powered/nonpowered speakers. Depending on the setup, installing power to the speakers may not be much more of an issue than installing multiple circuits and appropriate connectors for power amps. Which powered JBL's?
> 
> 
> 
> How upstate NY? Want a quote from a Jersey company?



The spec calls for JBL VRX918SPs and VRX932LAPs. (They also put in 2 EON-510s as monitors.)

I'm just south of Plattsburgh - as far north in NY as you'd want to go without hitting Canada! We're not as far as bidding yet; they're still struggling with design estimates!


museav said:


> It is often critical to try to get people to understand that it is an interdependent system and not just a bunch of components that can be assessed without consideration of how they relate to the overall use and application. Also try to get them to think in terms of function rather than gear, e.g. it is not a matter of keeping or deleting equipment but rather of keeping or deleting the related functionality.



Agreed - I hope I'm up to the task...


museav said:


> Great information. Is there any additional input regarding the old system and any problems experienced with it, what other schools in the area may have, the operators and what they are familiar with and so on?



The old system was on the lines of a small events system; they rented everything for any major events, including the musical. It was torn out before I got here, but I got the salvaged equipment... basically a 6 channel rack mixer, with CD and tape inputs and EQ.


museav said:


> I have found that schools and school boards sometimes have perspectives based greatly on what what is already in other schools and/or what has been done in the past. I have had several projects where school boards were concerned about making a new venue too much improved over other venues in the district (even if there was no greater cost associated). I also worked with one school district that literally had a standard tech equipment list, the system design role for audio, rigging and lighting was that of figuring out how to make the standard equipment list work in each space the Architect they hired had designed.



This, I think is where we are at now. The architect forgot the sound system when the initial design was done, and so now the Board is nit-picking. If this had been done originally in the project, we would not be having this problem. We've asked for local comparisons in terms of cost to other recently renovated schools. 


museav said:


> Powered speakers are getting more common and there may or may not be good reason for their recommending them. This gets into two important aspects...
> 
> One is that with an existing venue the existing infrastructure (conduit boxes, power, cabling paths, equipment spaces, etc.) is often a critical factor in many system design and equipment selection decisions. Similarly, as part of a larger renovation any changes to other aspects of the venue probably need to be coordinated, I really hope they considered this in any other changes already made to the space but if not you may have to work around what has already been done. It's disheartening to see how many times you end up with things like surface mounted conduit or ripping open recently finished walls and ceilings because people approached the tech systems as something you add to a space rather than as an integral part of it that may need to be coordinated with other work.
> 
> ...



I found out yesterday that the design company is not a dealer; so I don't believe they have any ulterior motive here. Conduit was run to various locations around the auditorium, but since the system was not designed when the infrastructure was put in, I fear that is might not be in exactly the correct locations. I think my thoughts regarding powered speakers were mainly due to a lack of recent experience, and worries about infrastructure. The design firm feels that there is little additional cost to running electric to each array location; I'm still a little skeptical of that.



museav said:


> The iPad suggestion sounds like they are either really trying to offer a minimum cost option to you or else they don't really understand what is desired. There are multiple ways to approach what you want but depending on the system design and the other equipment used this may require mic splitters or other devices and wiring that are not immediately obvious. While a system description, System Program or Needs Analysis should address this type of issue, it may also be a simple misunderstanding of what what you are wanting



I think they were just at their wit's end. It's a rather ridiculous claim, and we had been over what we wanted originally. This was the only "solution" (and I use that term very loosely) they could come up with; I still would argue that there should be a less expensive solution however it may be something that I need to figure out later on.


museav said:


> Well, that may somewhat depend on what all was included in that such as remote antennas, antenna distribution, racks or rack space, cabling, etc., but I agree with Bishopthmas that it looks like there may be a typo involved (probably not an extra zero but maybe it should be $2,000 instead of $12,000 or something like that).



This worried me considerably. I've passed along information about this to my higher-ups, but my jaw dropped at the number they put forward. Thank you for confirming my thoughts. And they have repeated the number several times by the way...


museav said:


> Without knowing more about the venue, the existing infrastructure and conditions, the anticipated use and users, whether any existing equipment is being reused (even mic stands, cables, cabling and plates, etc. can add up), what may be involved in the installation and so on, it is impractical to offer much commentary on the cost. I've designed systems for larger school venues that cost a fraction of that and one for smaller venues that cost many times that amount, it all depends on the space and the goals and expectations defined for the system.


 
I included the last set of figures merely as an fyi. I wasn't actually expecting a definitive answer on whether the price is fair. I'm going through this issue with two or three other spaces in the district. I honestly feel that the Board is just very much out of touch with what it will cost to do it properly.

Nobody knows, and I've asked, what the actual cost of the lighting system was (all new power, new fixtures, new dimmer racks, new board, etc). And no one is complaining now about that cost, but the sound system, because it was forgotten, is now an issue. It's disheartening to have such a beautiful venue and to be quibbling over what will be a major component of community enjoyment of the facility.

I am hugely concerned that the Board has requested a line-by-line breakdown of the equipment. I'm just as concerned that they want a cost differential between going with a digital board versus analog. I feel like it's going to be another very long year.

I really appreciate all of your feedback and help. At this point I'm trying to keep my head above water and maintain the level of production that I can. Any advice that you can continue to provide would be terrific!

Chris


----------



## venuetech (Nov 15, 2011)

my only question would concern the long term serviceability of the powered speakers. in ten + years when individual problems within each line array start appearing how easy will it be to take care of those problems?


----------



## avkid (Nov 15, 2011)

venuetech said:


> my only question would concern the long term serviceability of the powered speakers. in ten + years when individual problems within each line array start appearing how easy will it be to take care of those problems?


 Any decent powered loudspeaker has an easily replaceable amp module.


----------



## museav (Nov 15, 2011)

urban79 said:


> This, I think is where we are at now. The architect forgot the sound system when the initial design was done, and so now the Board is nit-picking. If this had been done originally in the project, we would not be having this problem. We've asked for local comparisons in terms of cost to other recently renovated schools.


The Architect forgot the sound system for an *audi*torium? Maybe they thought someone else was handling it but I'll bet they remembered all the finishes and architectural elements that they may have had to cut back on if the budget had to include the sound system.

On the other hand, I worked on a major County court facility that neglected to include any budget for audio systems even though they were required by law. In that case, the entire design team had to work together to cut costs elsewhere in order to create enough room in the construction budget for at least minimal systems. But it was not fun having to explain to Judges that the systems were not what they'd like to or should have because the County and Program development team forgot to include them in the initial construction budget (although most were also not real surprised to find out that was what happened).


urban79 said:


> The design firm feels that there is little additional cost to running electric to each array location; I'm still a little skeptical of that.


That may depend on the situation, for which they hopefully have much greater knowledge. If there is power already in place that can be reallocated and relocated for the speaker systems or even a distribution panel nearby with sufficient available circuits and capacity then the cost may not be that much. If you have to add circuits, an additional distribution panel or perhaps even another additional service for a new panel then the cost could go way up.


urban79 said:


> I found out yesterday that the design company is not a dealer; so I don't believe they have any ulterior motive here.


That suggests to me that the pricing offered is an Opinion of Probable Cost, basically the designer's estimate of what they think the installed system will cost. That is usually something that cannot be readily broken down into line item pricing as many aspects such as cabling, hardware, installation, testing, etc. may be approached as varying percentages of the equipment cost and/or as lump sum costs rather than being individually broken out for each associated line item.


urban79 said:


> I am hugely concerned that the Board has requested a line-by-line breakdown of the equipment. I'm just as concerned that they want a cost differential between going with a digital board versus analog. I feel like it's going to be another very long year.


If the purpose is simply to see what is included and what level of quality it may represent you may be fine. You may also be okay if you have people with experience with audio systems and bidding them. However, you may indeed have a challenge if you are going to have administrators who know little or nothing about audio trying to review and comment on individual line items for an audio system.

What stands out to me is that typically a designer would generate, or work with the Owner to have them generate, a Program or Needs Analysis early in a project design that documents the understood goals for the project and the concept proposed to meet those goals. That effort typically includes a preliminary budget estimate even if just a 'ballpark' range. Things can happen that could subsequently cause significant deviations from that, however if you are at a point of having a detailed, line item costing then it seems that the types of issues you are noting really should have been identified and addressed earlier in the process. My concern is that if that step did not occur then not only could it make the budget issues more difficult to deal with but it also means that there may be no defined and documented goals for the system to use as a reference.


----------



## urban79 (Mar 17, 2012)

So to bring everyone up to speed on this, the bid sheets went out, and the bid was awarded... to an electrical contractor. I'm not particularly happy with this decision - we have other audio systems put in by this particular contractor that we have had major issues with.

For some clarification, as I realize that I haven't updated this recently, the design company's reasoning for not honoring our request for a "small-events system" and instead spec'ed the iPad, was because there is no processing included outside of the mixer... This kind of worries me, but I guess we'll see how it goes.

I really don't like that this is not a sound company install, especially on a project of this magnitude. Does anyone have any words of wisdom, things to look out for, etc?

Thanks!
Chris


----------



## DuckJordan (Mar 17, 2012)

Vote of no confidence otherwise you'll have crap like paper clips for terminal jumpers.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


----------



## museav (Mar 17, 2012)

urban79 said:


> So to bring everyone up to speed on this, the bid sheets went out, and the bid was awarded... to an electrical contractor. I'm not particularly happy with this decision - we have other audio systems put in by this particular contractor that we have had major issues with.


Is it actually the Electrical Contractor supplying and installing the system or is it maybe that the audio system is being provided and installed by a qualified party that is a Subcontractor under the Electrical Contractor? The latter is an 'old school approach that was made obsolete in just about every way 8 years ago when CSI developed the 2004 MasterFormat that created separate Electrical and Communications Divisions, but for some reason still gets applied by many General Contractors and Construction Managers.

You had mentioned earlier that the system designer was not a dealer. Are they still part of the project? They should be and they should have a vested interest in it being approached properly. They also should have created Bid Documents that includes some qualifications and helps define an acceptable quality of work and result. The caveat to this is that the Owner and/or their representatives may decide to alter or not enforce any requirements or conditions they so choose.


urban79 said:


> For some clarification, as I realize that I haven't updated this recently, the design company's reasoning for not honoring our request for a "small-events system" and instead spec'ed the iPad, was because there is no processing included outside of the mixer... This kind of worries me, but I guess we'll see how it goes.


Not at all my preference but if they were having to design a system to meet a very restrictive budget it may be understandable.


----------



## bishopthomas (Mar 17, 2012)

urban79 said:


> So to bring everyone up to speed on this, the bid sheets went out, and the bid was awarded... to an electrical contractor. I'm not particularly happy with this decision - we have other audio systems put in by this particular contractor that we have had major issues with.
> 
> For some clarification, as I realize that I haven't updated this recently, the design company's reasoning for not honoring our request for a "small-events system" and instead spec'ed the iPad, was because there is no processing included outside of the mixer... This kind of worries me, but I guess we'll see how it goes.
> 
> ...



No real words of wisdom. This is all too common in the installation world and is a big reason why I do not get involved, especially in the bid process. It's frustrating to me just reading your plight, it's going to be a nightmare, I'm certain of. Sorry for your loss....


----------



## Edrick (Mar 17, 2012)

There's few things that grind my gears but it's when uneducated people make decisions like that solely because of costs or "political" reasons which lots of school and government run things naturally follow. 

It's things like that, which caused me to form my company. My goal is to go out and research the projects currently in planning, building and completion to see what they thought was a great idea and what they wish they had changed and also create a database of the top notch contractors and installers out there. So things like this don't happen.


----------



## urban79 (Aug 2, 2012)

So here we are 5 months later, and surprise, surprise, everyone's predictions have come true. I walked through the system today with the designer in an attempt to create a punch-list. He might as well not have been there - the workmanship was so poor it was almost laughable.

For a short list, there was no strain relief included on any wired patch panels, the wires in the punch block were not terminated correctly - ground issues up the whazoo, XLR connections wired backwards, no wiring labeled, power sequencer unprogrammed, no face plates installed on the rack, missing or drastically substituted equipment, they installed the rack drawer upside down (yes, go back and reread that again).

The recommendation: rip out all of the field connections and start again... For the record, this is a sound install company working as a sub-contractor under our electrical contractor...

I love my job, I love my job, I love my job, I love my job...

Chris


----------



## cpf (Aug 3, 2012)

Hmm, same people that did my facility the first time round, then. They must have gone downhill, though, my rack drawers were more or less open-end-up...

Any warranty on the work?


----------



## museav (Aug 3, 2012)

urban79 said:


> So here we are 5 months later, and surprise, surprise, everyone's predictions have come true. I walked through the system today with the designer in an attempt to create a punch-list. He might as well not have been there - the workmanship was so poor it was almost laughable.
> 
> For a short list, there was no strain relief included on any wired patch panels, the wires in the punch block were not terminated correctly - ground issues up the whazoo, XLR connections wired backwards, no wiring labeled, power sequencer unprogrammed, no face plates installed on the rack, missing or drastically substituted equipment, they installed the rack drawer upside down (yes, go back and reread that again).
> 
> ...


Just do what you can to make sure they do not release final payment until everything has been resolved, you have received all the documentation and training owed you, etc. An all too common situation is for someone to release final payment prior to everything being taken care of at which point you lose much of the incentive for the Contractor to resolve any outstanding issues.

This is also one of the reasons why I require pretty comprehensive Test Reports in my Specifications that have to be submitted before the systems are considered to be at Substantial Completion and ready for final testing and inspection. This helps prevent the Electrical Contractor or General Contractor from saying the work is finished before it is. It also means the Audio Contractor putting in writing that they have tested everything and that it is installed per Contract, which provides a point to assess the related work and approve it, and the associated payment, if it is appropriate while also putting them in a less tenable situation for any discrepancies or non-conformance items.


----------



## ouioui (Jan 15, 2013)

Hello,

Here is a basic (I am afraid a little too much) article on the matter : 

Concert technology and sound : planning a concert


----------



## Spresley (Jan 15, 2013)

ouioui said:


> Hello,
> 
> Here is a basic (I am afraid a little too much) article on the matter :
> 
> Concert technology and sound : planning a concert




I didn't read anything about concert planning, but I did read a whole lot about room treatment, and some other drivel about someone not knowing what they are talking about.... :roll:


----------



## DuckJordan (Jan 15, 2013)

yeah sorry but that article is complete garbage.


----------

