Wyred 4 Sound Recovery USB Reclocker

image credit: Wyred 4 Sound

Device Type: USB Isolator / Power / Reclocker
Input: USB
Output: USB
Dimensions: 2.6" x 1.7" x 0.9"
Included in package: Recovery unit, 6" USB A to B cable (Recovery to DAC), 9V 1A external wall-type PSU
Availability: Online and through authorized dealers
Price: $249.00, Introductory Price: $199.00
Website: www.wyred4sound.com

Wyred 4 Sound, E.J. Sarmento’s California Company, has jumped into the very competitive ring of USB enhancement devices with their new Recovery USB Reclocker.

What Does the Recovery USB Reclocker Accomplish?
For those of you that haven’t been following the reviews of devices such as the Uptone Audio USB REGEN and the iFi Audio micro-iUSB3.0 here at AudioStream, the Recovery USB Reclocker deals with the noise passed from the computer to your USB DAC that ultimately degrades the sound of your music. The Recovery performs two major functions:

  1. Isolate and provide cleaner power to your USB DAC
  2. Supply a more precisely clocked source for the USB encoded data
Wyred 4 Sound claims that this "pre-conditioning" of the USB signal provides the DAC a cleaner, truer signal that results in improved audio fidelity. "The USB signal fed to the DAC post-Recovery is much cleaner and more precise than it was before."

image credit: Wyred 4 Sound

The Recovery goes beyond what a simple filter accomplishes by using a very accurate Femto clock to reclock and reduce the jitter presented to the DAC allowing it to function in a superior manner.

The internal power supplies of the Recovery are low noise, low-drop out regulators. An external SMPS is provided to power the Recovery. A short 6-inch USB cable is also included to connect the Recovery to your DAC. The Recovery works best when placed after your USB cable from the computer so it is close to the DAC. The Recovery is a plug 'n play device that only requires one to plug in the power supply after the connections are made. The Recovery does not provide galvanic isolation like the Intona Technology USB 2.0 High-Speed Isolator that I recently reviewed for AudioStream. Wyred 4 Sound felt that this particular feature was unnecessary as their DAC-1 LE and DAC-2 DSD/DSDse incorporate galvanic isolation.

Components Used in the Recovery Evaluation
I used my Asus G501 JW laptop running Windows 10 Pro 64 bit for the evaluation of the Recovery USB Reclocker. The Asus G501 JW possesses an Intel Core i7 4720HQ 2.6 GHz processor with 16 GB RAM and a very fast PCE Express X4 SSD. This laptop has 3 USB 3.0 ports as well as a Thunderbolt port. The Asus laptop was plugged into a Shunyata Research Hydra DPC-6 v2 distribution center to firewall the noise generated by this computer from contaminating my AC line.

The Asus was placed on a Synergistic Research Tranquility Base UEF grounded with the Synergistic Research High Definition Ground Cable / Grounding Block as was the computer. Two 8 TB GRAID Thunderbolt drives were connected; one for PCM and the other for DSD files. The GRAID Thunderbolt drives were powered by HDPlex 100w linear power supplies plugged into the Shunyata Hydra DPC-6 ver 2.

Music software included the use of Roon 1.2. I also ran Roon with the HQPlayer that was given the task of processing the music files to DSD256. Fidelizer Pro 7.3 was employed to optimize the operation of Windows 10 Pro for music playback.

I decided to use the MSB Technology Analog DAC with Analog Power Base with their Premium Quad USB2 Module for this review. The Premium Quad Module represents MSB Technology’s most advanced implementation of USB for their DAC with superior isolation compared to their previous efforts. I was very interested to see if the Recovery USB Reclocker would have an effect with the very well isolated MSB Technology interface. The Analog DAC was plugged into a Shunyata Research Triton v2 / Typhon using Shunyata’s Sigma Digital AC cable.

USB cables utilized in this review were the Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7 USB 2.0 cable and the Kubala-Sosna Research Realization USB cable. Both of these USB cables are excellent sounding and have been reviewed here for those interested in more details.

The power supply of the Recovery USB Reclocker was powered from the Shunyata Hydra DPC-6 v2.

image credit: Wyred 4 Sound

The Sound of the Recovery USB Reclocker
Using the power supply and the 6-inch USB cable provided by Wyred 4 Sound, I experienced a definite improvement to the sound I was hearing from the MSB Technology Analog DAC. The bass and the mid bass were better defined with the Recovery and more dynamic sounding. The midrange’s focus was sharper and appeared to move slightly forward in the soundstage compared to the sound with no Recovery. I felt that the highs had better definition that was probably helped by a perceived reduced noise floor. The soundstage appeared wider with the use of the Recovery providing a lager sonic presence to the sound. I was unable to find any negatives to attribute to the contribution the Recovery made to my Analog DAC; it just improved what I was hearing.

My Music Benefited From the Recovery USB Reclocker
It was very easy to hear the positive sonic contribution the Recovery made listening to Gregory Porter’s Take Me to the Alley (24/96). This jazz singer’s voice was enhanced with more presence while listening to this collection with the Recovery. Not only was Porter’s voice clearer and better focused, but also the bass had superior definition, as did the percussion. I felt that the music I was hearing was more dynamically expressive when I listening with the Recovery.

The DSD64 Channel Classics recording of Ivan Fischer and Budapest Festival Orchestra performing the Mahler 9 Symphony easily displayed the capabilities of the Recovery USB Reclocker. This wonderfully expressive and involving recording seemed to be more harmonically rich listening to it with the Recovery. There was a greater sense of orchestral "bloom" with superior three-dimensionality to the sound. Low-level information was easier to identify with superior reproduction of instrumental textures.

While listening to The Traveling Wilburys Collection (24/192) it didn’t take me long to identify the positive contribution made by the Recovery. This super group recording comprised of Roy Orbison, Jeff Lynne, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, and George Harrison was reissued and remastered by Concord Records, The band recorded two albums in 1988 and 1990, but Roy Orbison passed away before the second album was recorded. The Recovery improved these recordings with a relaxed presentation that let the music flow with no digital hardness. The Recovery just made the music more emotionally involving.

Enhancement to the Recovery USB Reclocker
The question that many of you USB tweakers will ask is if the Recovery can be improved with a better power supply and or different short USB cable. I connected the HDPlex linear power supply to the Recovery and noticed a slightly larger soundstage than that provided with the standard power supply. I also felt that the HDPlex improved the overall resolution to what I was hearing with a lower noise floor. Substituting a short iFi Audio Mercury USB cable for the Wyred 4 Sound USB cable did seem to open the sound by a small margin. So yes, substituting a different power supply and USB cable can improve the sound. But the final outcome for each user will differ with different DACs and systems.

I decided to base the comparisons of different USB enhancement devices with the supplied cables / connectors, and power supplies that come with each product.

The iFi Audio micro-iUSB3.0
As reported in my review of the micro-iUSB3.0, the sound using the supplied USB 3.0 cable and iPower power supply was warm with a full mid bass. The Recovery USB Reclocker has the larger soundstage and a more balanced tonality that was relatively neutral compared to the micro-iUSB3.0.

The Uptone Audio USB REGEN
Using the solid connector and the supplied power supply, I found the USB REGEN to have a lighter sound with less bass than the Recovery USB Reclocker. There is a great sense of clarity to the sound of the USB REGEN, but again, the Recovery USB Reclocker sounded to my ear to be better balanced and more neutral.

The Intona Technology USB 2.0 High-Speed Isolator
The Intona USB 2.0 High-Speed Isolator (Industrial Version) had a similar overall tonal balance compared to the Recovery USB Reclocker, but was slightly darker sounding. The Intona had a smaller soundstage in both width and depth compared to the Recovery. I did find the Recovery to be a little more detailed with a slightly forward midrange perspective compared to the Intona.

Comparison Conclusions
I guess if I could only have one of these USB enhancement devices, I would select the Recovery USB Reclocker as it sounded the most neutral with the largest soundstage. But as one begins to change cables and power supplies, my top choice rankings change. For example, the iFi Audio micro-iUSB3.0 being fed with a Wireworld USB 3.0 cable, outperforms the Recovery, but at a significantly greater cost.

At $199.00, the Wyred 4 Sound Recovery USB Reclocker offers excellent performance at a very reasonable price. One can boost the performance of the Recovery USB Reclocker by using a different USB cable from the device and a linear power supply like the HDPlex. However, I could be very happy just using the Recovery as supplied by Wyred 4 Sound and forget the many possible modifications.

Also in-use during the Recovery review: iFi Audio micro-iUSB3.0, Uptone Audio USB REGEN, Intona Technology USB 2.0 High-Speed Isolator

Associated Equipment

bobflood's picture

considering the DAC that you are testing this with. The DAC you are using is priced north of $10K (when fully configured) and the USB input module alone is $1.6K and yet a simple chip in a box solution improves the sound and power supplies to it matter. At this price level, the expected outcome should be no change or a deterioration of sound quality. If this can matter at this level then it should be incorporated in the USB input module. I can see that all of these types of devices can matter but at this level it just should not be so.

I own one these types of devices from a different manufacturer and it does help on my old $500 rDac in my bedroom system which is an expected result. However, if I had just paid $10K plus for a DAC and had something like this improve the sound quality, I would be raising the issue with the DAC manufacturer. Either their USB receiver chip and circuit is poorly engineered or they should incorporate better clocks and a repeater chip into the USB module where they already have clean power and short circuit pathways available.

I don't mean to cast any negative impression on this product. I am sure that it does exactly what you say it does. It just highlights the very real problems there are in the implementation of USB for audio.

miguelito's picture

I have not verified this myself... But the claim is that USB receiver chip's work to reshape the input signal (which all USB receivers need to do, as the "digital" signal is an analog squarish wave) produces ground plane noise. Ground plain noise is actually pretty frigging hard to get rid of, or so it seems. Having this unit attached externally effectively achieves this.

There are some DAC manufacturers that have explicitly designed their USB inputs to do exactly this. Two examples I know of are Berkeley's Alpha USB bridge and EmmLabs DA2 DAC. These are DACs effectively in the $20k+ range (the Alpha going to a Berkeley Ref DAC).

jgeffen's picture

I totally agree with bobflood.

Muser's picture

I can understand the shock, but . . . computer audio is still developing as medium. Lots left to learn, seemingly.
Contrary to your thoughts, while inexpensive devices would seem to be the more obvious place for a $200 "tweak" to work, inexpensive devices tend to be less resolving. Thus, fewer details may be noticed because . . . higher noise floor, less clarity or some other element at work.
In skis for snow skiing I noticed a similar phenomenon. Beginner skis didn't penalize bad form, but it also did not reward good form. Not a lot of feedback, because it was not a precise instrument. "Precision" or racing skis would amply reward good form and devilishly penalize bad form.

Just another way to look at this, you're free, of course, to look the way you are.

jeffhenning's picture

Given that there is no test data to back this review, the opinions given by the reviewer should be taken with a grain of salt. This publication has more than enough resources to test the efficacy of this device, but have chosen to give the standard "it sounds good to me " style of review.

I expected more. Pretty shabby.

Michael Lavorgna's picture
From our "About Us" page:
AudioStream is not in a position to make these required investments. In other words, we would provide measurements if we could.
CG's picture

I am very curious.

Just what measurements might be appropriate here?

miguelito's picture

I am a scientist by training. Everything that has an effect on sound must be measurable. However, what is it that makes it sound better or more natural is sometimes not clear - even if it could be determined by measurements, what you need to measure you don't know. Consider tube amps - very musical sounding still measure like shit.

CG's picture

Ain't that the truth.

The problem, to me, is not that the idea of testing is bad or wrong-headed. It's that the tests as they exist don't do a representative job of matching electronic and acoustic performance to how people hear and process/decipher/interpret/appreciate music.

Blind testing of various types are an honest attempt at this, but since they use the listener as the test instrument, that's a pretty tough proposition.

jeffhenning's picture

First off, it's sad that the corporation that runs this group of web sites won't spend more money on doing proper tests. If you can't provide meaningful information other than opinion, you shouldn't publish the review.

As to how you could test this device, you can run tests on the bitstream of a USB connection. OK, that may be a bit off the map for an audio magazine but, hey, you say you can hear a difference. Run a short battery of tests on the DAC it's hooked to. The biggest one being a jitter measurement and the second one being noise spectrum analysis. Sure, do this with a budget DAC as well as a mega-buck one.

If it measures the same as when it's omitted from the signal chain, it's of no use... vaporware...voodoo...hogwash...BS.

I also agree whole-heartedly with the first poster: if a $10k DAC needs this thing to sound better, why wasn't the bit of $30-40 electronics in this gadget added to DAC's circuit boards from the outset? I'd consider that shoddy design.

And this bit about computer audio being a developing medium... at 25+ years in the studio and commercial realms, I'd consider it mature. iTunes was released in January, 2001 and it was based upon an already existing program.

I can't wait for your next review of a $1k S/PDIF or a $500 Ethernet cable (recessed, but smooth mids... silky treble...tight bass).

Here's a thought: instead of wasting your money on this product, why not just replace your DAC? At least then you know that you are getting better performance. And if your current DAC needs something like this to sound better, it's probably really old or not very good to begin with and needs to be replaced anyway.

I won't be responding or reading anymore postings on this thread because I expect a rash of flamers and morons to add their two cents.

CG's picture

Guess I'm just a moron then.

The point I'd like to make is that I consider devices like these to be like external water filters. You might think that the sink in your new $50,000 kitchen would provide pure water, but that's not necessarily the case.

Ever spend much time snooping around a piece of modern electronics equipment with a magnetic field probe connected to a spectrum analyzer? If you have, you've probably noticed that there is a cacophony of "stuff" ranging from DC power supply rectifier noise pulses to switching regulator noise (maybe) to noise from digital circuits toggling away doing their job.

This is all radiated noise.

Any circuit that radiates noise is also potentially susceptible to receiving noise, too. Hendrik Lorentz described that a few years ago - look it up.

While there's tons of posts all over the internet and elsewhere over whether electrical noise like this is audible, there aren't very many that suggest that more noise is better somehow. YMMV, of course.

So, there's probably good basis for cleaning up the signal as much as possible in a box outside the existing DAC. That way there is less opportunity for coupling of noise sources and receivers. Distance and additional shielding can do wonders - look that one up, too.

The details are more complex, as they always are, but that's a general idea.

And... at 25+ years in the laboratory and design realms, I consider this only partially mature. (Full disclosure - not audio products...) Things are changing constantly. Performance may not be getting better, at least in obvious ways, but schemes to reduce cost are constantly evolving. For better or worse. Most modern electronics gear actually is far, far worse in some areas than those of a decade or two ago. Maybe that's not maturity, but actually is senility.

Two examples that might be relevant....

Most (not all) modern electronic equipment is far worse when it comes to polluting the AC mains. This is because of cost reduction and the use of various digital circuitry to add features. This is a real problem, at least outside of audio.

The second is related in that most modern electronic gear pollute the airwaves with radiated noise. (This and the one just above are related.) All one needs to do is walk around the house with a portable AM or shortwave radio to monitor this one - no fancy test gear required.

OK - enough flaming on my part.

Michael Lavorgna's picture
You won't be posting here any more if keep up your current attitude. This is your first and last warning -- leave out the flames or I'll block your account faster than you can say moron.
Steven Plaskin's picture

I'm sure that most, if not all of us, would welcome the simplicity of measuring these USB devices to know which was most effective and sounded the best. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as Jeff would suggest. Correlating the measurements with what we actually hear is the issue that hasn't been solved yet.

I am in the process of getting a new preamp, so I read John Atkinson's review of the Ayre KX-R Twenty. John is a wonderful reviewer who performs measurements. Yet, I have to rely on his subjective descriptions to get a sense of how this preamp will sound.

Then we have the other camp of listeners that are unable to hear any difference with these devices and state that all USB cables sound the same. What they fail to appreciate is that others just might hear differences that they can't perceive.

Next, we have the issue of poorly designed DACs in relation to these USB devices. I have yet to evaluate a DAC that doesn't have a favorable response in terms of sound to these devices. Please let me know if one of you find the perfect DAC that has an exemplary USB interface that I might evaluate it.

CG's picture

Welcome to the camp...

My own belief is that these folks who cannot hear a difference are being totally honest and really can't hear a difference. There can be loads of reasons for that, up to and maybe especially including that they aren't wired for it, however you define that. There's no shame in that any more than there is shame that most of us are not tall enough to play center for an NBA team. At least, I think there's no shame in that - could just be a rationalization on my part. It's not a negative, only a difference.

That does not mean there's no difference between various audio products - only that they cannot hear them, at least at present. They can't understand what others might hear, while those others plain can't understand why everybody doesn't find changing a USB cables is a monumental change in sound quality.

There's another corollary to this. They may just not care. Example - my wife is a musician. She hears some music and whatever goes on in her brain takes over so that she almost doesn't need to even listen. She gets an emotional response by reading the sheet music. So, although she can hear when the USB cable is changed, it plain doesn't matter to her.

ktracho's picture

Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 is an obvious example. Every musician should strive to get to the point of being able to imagine what their music should sound like. I would love to be able to hear better sound than what my crackly old DAC gives me, but often I enjoy imagining music in my head just as much as going to a concert, and it's free. Perhaps this partially explains why some don't care about sound quality. In my case, I at least enjoy listening to the music from my speakers when the movie credits roll by, though better equipment would undoubtedly enhance my enjoyment even more.

dmitry's picture

I saw review few months ago on a different website and bought this device plus ayre codex few days ago. It's being shipped, I'll post my feedback once my equipment arrives and burned in.

Steven Plaskin's picture

Congratulations on the Ayre Codex. Just be aware it needs a good deal of break-in to achieve its best sound.


dmitry's picture

Thanks Steven! Yes, I'll post my feedback in around 20 days

whell's picture

I'm still learning, but I thought that many DAC's have their own clocking / re-clocking engines on board. I've got the (now starting to get "older") Antelope Audio Zodiac DAC. I get that some of the info from the manufacturer is sometimes more marketing than science. However, according to the info provided by Antelope Audio, the Zodiac "reclocks with a temperature-controlled master clock oscillator plus 4th-generation 64-bit "Acoustically Focused Clocking".

So, assuming that's true and the DAC is already re-clocking the signal when it arrives from the PC, would a device like this offer an improvement? Or is it intended to be an incremental (subjective) improvement over what the DAC is already doing, by essentially re-clocking the signal twice?

CG's picture

I'll jump in here.

USB transceivers - the parts that speak USB to the outside world and other digital formats to the inside of the DAC - use lots of digital signal processing (DSP) to extract the desired USB digital from any noise present on the incoming USB connection. The crappier the signal, the greater the use of DSP. In addition, imperfect or distorted USB signals need to be allowed for, which also uses DSP.

In very general terms, the more processing that goes on, the more noise generated by the DSP parts. The noise can be conducted to other stages in the DAC through the power system (including "ground") as well as radiated into the rest of the DAC.

That might affect audio performance. Might meaning that it depends on the nature of the noise, the shielding, the power supply isolation, and 941 other factors in the circuit design. Might also meaning that some people may not hear any difference or care even if they did.

Generally, it's better to feed a very clean USB signal into the DAC to minimize the possibilities of collateral signal corruption.

One other note - lots of DAC manufacturers (I have no clue about Antelope Audio, either way) talk about how accurate their clock is. That can mean two things.

One is that the center frequency is perfectly right on so that it's within 0.000000000000000001% of what will provide 44.1 KHz clocking of the DAC for CD playback. That's all great, but doesn't matter a lot to us. If middle-C on a piano is off by that 0.000000000000000001%, I don't think that anybody would claim that the piano was out of tune, even if they have perfect pitch. That's what center frequency accuracy does for you.

The other is related to the purity of the clock as applied to the conversion DAC. In a mathematical sense, DACs are multipliers. That means that any sidebands on the clock, whether due to spurii or the often misunderstood "phase noise" (aka jitter) will also appear on the desired musical tones at the DAC output. Phase noise is a broadening of a signal due to sidebands caused by angle modulation of the sign (phase or frequency modulation) or amplitude modulation. These can be anywhere in the spectrum. If you are trying to reproduce a simple 440 Hz tone, and the DAC clock has phase noise sidebands that appear at 1 Hz from the clock frequency, these 1 Hz sidebands will also appear on the 440 Hz tone.

OK - are these audible? Maybe. Certainly it depends on their level. But, consider this one...

Imagine that the phase of the clock is wandering around at less than a one Hertz rate. When that sideband modulation is added to a musical signal, that means that the musical content also wanders around at less than a one Hertz rate. That's about the same as moving your entire loudspeaker back and forth (or side to side) at that same rate. (Just how far the speaker wanders depends on a bunch of stuff like the volume and how large in amplitude those sidebands are.)

You think this might be audible? In what way?

Disclaimer: The above is a gross simplification of the process. Lots more goes on, and some of the terms might be a little confusing. For example, when I mentioned DSP I meant in the general sense, not that there is a dedicated "Digital Signal Processor" in there. There's plenty to argue about here if anybody wants to, without resorting to niggling semantics.

whell's picture

....shortly after you said "I'll jump in here." :-)

Seriously, I may have to read this a couple more times, but I think you're saying, in short, that eve a DAC that is doing some "re-clocking" will be benefitted by a cleaner input.

Steven Plaskin's picture
I think you have it right. The "cleaner" the signal to the DAC results in less processing by the DAC and better sound.
CG's picture

Maybe not *every* DAC.

Some may be really well shielded and isolated well enough from the USB section that it's totally immune.

Some others may be beyond hope - other factors in the DAC could mask improvements made in the USB connection.

Plus... I never said that you or anybody else would necessarily like what you might hear!

Steven Plaskin's picture
Wyred 4 Sound claims that this reclocking reduces jitter sent to the DAC. How it ultimately plays out sonically is really dependent on the DAC you use. I think you are right that it is an incremental improvement.
miguelito's picture

I have used the USB Regen for a long time, both with Lightspeed USB Split and with Curious cables (long and short on each side). Also powered from a linear power supply (Uptone's JS-2). I swapped the Regen for this device about 1m ago and can attest to the same finding as the author. My system is here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/members/miguelito/?tab=profile_cat2#pr...

Steven Plaskin's picture


You have a very nice system! Thanks for sharing it with us.

Settripn1's picture

Current Owner
Submitted by Settripn1 on July 8, 2016 - 5:49pm
I've owned a recovery for a few months now. While my system may be modest (raspberry PI running volumio to a Bel Canto C7R). I love they way it has enhanced my set-up. Also, hey I used my god given measuring devices... My ears. Your results may vary.

hltf's picture

If I understand this correctly, you found the Wyred Discovery with LPS and good USB cable to sound better than the USB Regen with LPS and equivalent USB cable. Is that correct?

I wonder what happens if you add the Intona?

I read somewhere, perhaps CA, that a new USB Regen is in the works, which combines the original Regen with galvanic isolation and perhaps also their new better power supply.


Steven Plaskin's picture

All of this gets complicated. Both the Recovery and the REGEN are helped by a LPS and a good USB cable. I guess the solid connector that comes with the REGEN is quite good as well. The fact is, that both the Recovery and REGEN sound quite different from each other. I guess some will prefer one over the other as things go. But I did like the balance of the Recovery.

I did play the Recovery with the Intona, and found that they make a great combination; at least with my DAC. As you can see, there are many possible combinations with this stuff.

I'm also sure that Uptone Audio is not done with the REGEN.

Reed's picture

A review on one of these devices is posted. Someone discounting they make a change. I recently picked up a Regen. The difference in playback in the 2 two systems I have tried it in is what I would call on the light side of significant. If you listen to my system with it in and out, I have no doubt you would hear the same. In my system, the Regen adds resolution to the music, but retains sufficient musicality that as a whole it is better than without. In a friends system it offered improved resolution, but sucked the life out of the music. Our systems are very different form the MAC vs. PC, all the way to the speakers, which makes things complicated.

I find it humorous that one would assume I somehow "will" a difference. If that is true, I would hear no difference, as my strong preference is to have NO difference, and send it back for a refund. I mean who wants more stuff, added complications and unessasary costs? Unfortunately, they do make a difference and evolve at a rapid pace.

CG's picture

"Will" is a powerful force... :8^)

I'm with you 100%. Bet that makes your day!

My question to you is: Just what is "the life" of the music? At least, what is your opinion on that.

I've heard it explained as the frequency range of between maybe 500 and 1000 Hz or thereabouts. But, I'm sure there are other definitions.

The associated part I wonder about is whether exaggerated performance in that region, perhaps not due to a peak in the amplitude response, but instead in the time domain (kinda like reverb, but not), is the source of this.

Your thoughts?? (BTW, no wrong answer to this.)

Reed's picture

In this case, it took the "air" out of the music in his system. Cymbals and pianos were just "matter of fact". The hall ambiance lessened. There was more detail, but it was boring to listen to.

CG's picture


Thanks for replying!