Best RO/DI

[dragoneggs]

Don,

I may be picking your brain in the coming weeks (months at the rate I am going) on setting up some automation systems. You seem to be well versed in this area! True?

Mark

 

[roblou]

Don: good points on the cost factor. When you say "Its real easy to take the tds and water chemistry so far that it takes the enjoyment out of the hobby. If its not broken why fix it?", I understand what you're saying, but this thread was started by someone asking for the 'Best RO/DI'. Given that context, we're talking about someone looking to make a sound decision the first time, instead of buying something maybe 'subpar' and later having water quality issues, which would drag down their enjoyment of the hobby, etc. Same person is trying to avoid a "it's broken, I've got to fix it" scenario.

So, given that context, it makes sense (at least to me) to talk about all the pluses & minuses of different systems, tap vs RO, tap vs RODI, RO vs RODI. After all, nothing wrong with gathering up as much info as possible. What each individual user decides to do after doing their research is entirely up to them. Their budget and other factors would definitely be things to consider.

It does boil down to what works for each individual user. But keep in mind that while one person may have great success using straight tap water (just to use an extreme example), that person cannot necessarily give that same advice out to everyone and expect that everyone will have the same success as him. However, the person using a top of the line RO/DI unit, it certainly seems to me that person can give out the advice that his RO/DI unit is awesome, etc. If people follow his advice, I doubt very seriously there would be detrimental affects. Now, it may be overkill for some (which is Mark's point on diminishing returns), but certainly I don't think having "too pure" water is going to be an issue for anyones reef.

Mark: there is no reason why you couldn't add DI later (if desired). The systems are all modular, so you can add/subtract at will. I've seen people's setups where they take 2 or 3 RO/DI units and hook up together to make 'the ultimate' system (these typically generate the same quality water as single RO/DI units, but have a better waste:good water ratio). The only downsides I see is potentially piecing it together might end up costing a little more than just buying it as a complete RO/DI unit to begin with. With most things, usually buying the individual parts costs more than when the manufacturer offers a complete unit. But, the difference (if any) I would assume would be small. The other potential downside is when you buy the complete unit, usually all the filters are mounted to the same frame/rack. When adding onto an existing system, you may or may not be able to connect another cannister to the existing frame. Functionally no difference, but cosmetic and maybe some additional mounting or something.

hth,
rob

 

[DonW]

Don: good points on the cost factor. When you say "Its real easy to take the tds and water chemistry so far that it takes the enjoyment out of the hobby. If its not broken why fix it?", I understand what you're saying, but this thread was started by someone asking for the 'Best RO/DI'. Given that context, we're talking about someone looking to make a sound decision the first time, instead of buying something maybe 'subpar' and later having water quality issues, which would drag down their enjoyment of the hobby, etc. Same person is trying to avoid a "it's broken, I've got to fix it" scenario.

Given the above no one has enough information to give him a the answer that is going to get the "best" results. We can all spit out brand names and links and the bottom line is that any one of them is correct. Picking a unit that has tested well among your peers is the only sound decision that can be made. If it bring the tds down to a level that the user wants, well great if not he'll have to add another di unit. But until some bucks up and takes his water to a lab its all mute.

Don

 

[DonW]

Don,

I may be picking your brain in the coming weeks (months at the rate I am going) on setting up some automation systems. You seem to be well versed in this area! True?

Mark

Just let me know what you want to automate, Ill help where I can.

Don

 

[DonW]

Rob and Don... All good comments. I am currently setting up an RO system that will be located in the laundry room at the opposite end of the house from my tank (probably 50ft of tubing or more). Do you see issues with this... also are there any reasons why I couldn't add RI later (if desired) vs. going with an RO/DI system up front.

No problem on the long run of hose. Since your local here, I'd assume you incomming tds is pretty low. So if you want to give it a shot with ro only then give it a shot. You can get a add-on later for about $35.

Don

 

[roblou]

Given the above no one has enough information to give him a the answer that is going to get the "best" results. We can all spit out brand names and links and the bottom line is that any one of them is correct. Picking a unit that has tested well among your peers is the only sound decision that can be made. If it bring the tds down to a level that the user wants, well great if not he'll have to add another di unit. But until some bucks up and takes his water to a lab its all mute.

Don

Don: sorry, but I have to disagree again. I agree with you that the answer to which RO/DI unit is 'the best' is debatable for sure. Like you said, we can all list the brands we own, etc.

However, I do believe I've presented enough information to give the answer that using DI in addition to RO will provide 'better' results than RO alone. By better results, I mean water that is purer. By purer, I mean water with less tds. I just want to make sure we're not mxing up the different points. To me, that is very simple to see and there should be no debate there.

However good your tap water is going in, and no matter how good your RO water is coming out, it would be better (i.e. less tds) with the DI. That seems undisputable to me. There is no RO membrane that has a 100% rejection rate. DI resin takes out what the RO membrane misses. Is it absolutely necessary??? Probably not for everyone. But the measurable difference between RO tds and RO/DI tds (that is a measurable difference the consumer can test & see without having to send a sample to any lab) proves (to me at least), that DI is further purifying the water. I am equating purer water (less tds) to mean 'better'.

Whether 'better' or 'best' water is absolutely required is not my point, just that RO/DI is better than RO alone. (FWIW, IME if I can afford to have better, I usually go for it)

In the end, it doesn't really matter to me...I mean I'm not a RO/DI salesperson or anything

 

[DonW]

Don: sorry, but I have to disagree again. I agree with you that the answer to which RO/DI unit is 'the best' is debatable for sure. Like you said, we can all list the brands we own, etc.

However, I do believe I've presented enough information to give the answer that using DI in addition to RO will provide 'better' results than RO alone. By better results, I mean water that is purer. By purer, I mean water with less tds. I just want to make sure we're not mxing up the different points. To me, that is very simple to see and there should be no debate there.

However good your tap water is going in, and no matter how good your RO water is coming out, it would be better (i.e. less tds) with the DI. That seems undisputable to me. There is no RO membrane that has a 100% rejection rate. DI resin takes out what the RO membrane misses. Is it absolutely necessary??? Probably not for everyone. But the measurable difference between RO tds and RO/DI tds (that is a measurable difference the consumer can test & see without having to send a sample to any lab) proves (to me at least), that DI is further purifying the water. I am equating purer water (less tds) to mean 'better'.

Whether 'better' or 'best' water is absolutely required is not my point, just that RO/DI is better than RO alone. (FWIW, IME if I can afford to have better, I usually go for it)

In the end, it doesn't really matter to me...I mean I'm not a RO/DI salesperson or anything

Unless you can say without a shadow of a doubt that the 2ppm is harmful and that your not removing 2pp of something helpful all your data is absolutly meaningless assumptions. I use term data very loosly since that one parameter (tds) does not make up data, its only a single parameter. Its not a measure optimal water quality to a reef enviroment. Thus is why MikeS is not at all concerned, experince tells him there is no need for concern. Like I stated above the only true way to find out is to have a lab test the water.

Don

 

[roblou]

Yeah, I see we just are not looking at this issue from the same points of view. Your argument is "prove to me 2ppm is harmful". My argument is regardless of whether 2ppm is harmful or not, 0ppm is definitely better than 2ppm. That's it, my only point. I still think that is an acurate statement. When defining 'pure' water quality, the ppm reading of the tds is the best gauge a consumer has to go on, and in all cases the lower the reading the better. dissolved solids can be detrimental, or they may not be. But having more dissolved solids only increases the risk of introducing ones that are detrimental. Reducing the dissolved solids can only help. (This is, of course, all before the stage where we add salt).

Also, I do not agree my data is just meaningless assumptions. The data is what it is. RO membranes have rejection ratings, which are published by the manufacturers, and can be tested by both lab grade and consumer grade methods. TDS is the most commonly used reading when people talk about water quality. RO membranes do not reject 100% of the tds that comes through. That can be measured. DI removes a majority of what the RO membrane misses. That can be measured as well. I don't see where any of the above are assumptions.

Yeah, in the overall picture, when by the time we add 35ppt of salt, whether there was 0 tds, 2tds or 20 tds becomes seemingly meaningless. I mean, 35ppt of salt equates to 35000ppm of dissolved solids. So what's the difference between 35000 vs 35002. For that matter, whats the difference between 35000 and 35500? The answer is that we don't really have any control of the 35000ppm that comes in the salt (as far as content), but we do have control of how much tds is introduced from the water.

Anyways, you are right. I cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that 2ppm is harmful for you, or for anyone else for that matter. But, that was never the point I was trying to prove in the first place. My only point was that RO/DI water is better quality, or more pure, or less tds...however you want to say it...than RO water alone.

 

[DonW]

My only point was that RO/DI water is better quality, or more pure, or less tds...however you want to say it...than RO water alone.

Is it? Thats a question for your local spectra lab? Tds meters are to check/ varify wether or not equipment is functioning to manufacturers specs and nothing more. Spend the $50 and you will be supprised whats in your 0 tds water, its not the pure h20 that one would assume. Been there done that.

Don

 

[roblou]

I have the $50 HM COM-100 meter Don. I realize that won't tell me the content of whatever tds is in the water. But 0tds has less 'content' that 1tds. Plain and simple. If my 0tds water from RO/DI has stuff I'd be suprised about, then the same water thru RO only (with a higher tds) is still going to have that same stuff....in fact more. There is no way that RO only is better than RO/DI, and there is no way that RO/DI is worse than RO only (barring a completely unmaintenanced system or similar).

I am not an expert, which I admit. But I think I have a very good understanding of the basic principles behind RO/DI water and why it's highly recommended in the reef hobby.

Anyways, I am done arguing. I find it very ironic that someone comes into a thread titled "Best RO/DI" and tries to advocate that hey, DI may not even be necessary...you're not getting better water quality using DI...prove to me it's better...you'd be surprised what's in your 0 tds water (as if whatever is in 0tds water would be worse for a reef than what would be in the otherwise 2ppm or higher water that didn't go thru DI).

It's as frustrating to me as someone coming into a "best MH bulb" thread and touting that MH's blow compared to T5s. Or someone coming into a "best T5 setup" thread and touting "prove to me T5s are better than MH".

Just to be clear, in summary I am basically advocating to anyone that is considering getting a RO or RO/DI system, that (if you can afford the moddest difference in price) you might as well get a RO/DI unit, because for the slight increase in price, the removal of any remaining tds not filtered by your RO membrane will get filtered by your DI resin, which may or may not make the difference between having or not having a multitude of problems. If your goal is to try and minimize as many possible things that could have a negative impact on your reef, and you've already determined that it makes sense to use some sort of filtered water versus tap, then RO/DI goes an extra step farther than RO only in minimzing the potential risks. Simple as that. Extra DI chamber with DI resin....extra step. And yes, there's an extra cost for it too (Don pointed out the cost previously).

I guess Don is basically stating that same person should just go with RO only and only get the DI if you think it's necessary. Makes sense economically (only if you don't add the DI, if you add on DI later, it may end up costing more than just getting the complete RO/DI unit to begin with), but does not achieve a 'best RO/DI' setup by anymeans (i.e. it's missing the DI part).

 

[DonW]

I have the $50 HM COM-100 meter Don. I realize that won't tell me the content of whatever tds is in the water. But 0tds has less 'content' that 1tds. Plain and simple. If my 0tds water from RO/DI has stuff I'd be suprised about, then the same water thru RO only (with a higher tds) is still going to have that same stuff....in fact more. There is no way that RO only is better than RO/DI, and there is no way that RO/DI is worse than RO only (barring a completely unmaintenanced system or similar).

I am not an expert, which I admit. But I think I have a very good understanding of the basic principles behind RO/DI water and why it's highly recommended in the reef hobby.

Anyways, I am done arguing. I find it very ironic that someone comes into a thread titled "Best RO/DI" and tries to advocate that hey, DI may not even be necessary...you're not getting better water quality using DI...prove to me it's better...you'd be surprised what's in your 0 tds water (as if whatever is in 0tds water would be worse for a reef than what would be in the otherwise 2ppm or higher water that didn't go thru DI).

It's as frustrating to me as someone coming into a "best MH bulb" thread and touting that MH's blow compared to T5s. Or someone coming into a "best T5 setup" thread and touting "prove to me T5s are better than MH".

I'm not arguing nor being advocat of either . I'm an advocate of accurate information. You information is not accurate $50 meter or my 4 $150 meters thats why I advocate testing which I have had done. There are alot of misconceptions in this hobby and the absolute need of a di unit is one of them. At a tds of 2 my water predi water test (Spectra Labs, Tacoma WA)has haveing 1.2ppm mg and a .7ppm K. Neither of which is harmful both of which are useful. So can you or anyone else tell me or anyone that a di unit is mandatory. The answer is simple NO. One needs to buy a unit that has tested well among his peers in the same geographical region and go from there to find the final results of its output.

Don

 

[roblou]

Well Don, you are definitely 1 step ahead of me in regards to actually getting water tested. I applaud you for that. However, buying solely on the basis of what has worked for peers in the same geographical region is hit & miss at best. You and I could live next door to each other and have vastly different water readings. I could have bad copper pipes or something...you get my drift. What is not hit or miss is what RO membranes are capable of, what the prefilters are capable of, and what the DI resin is capable of. Those are documented specifications that are published by manufacturers and tested by hobbiest and labs alike.

Besides that, tds in water delivered to the home comes from either natural sources or is added by man. Both of those contributing factors are subject to change at any given time. After severe weather conditions, for instance, often times water quality is not as good due to runoff, etc. And, at any time a local water district may determine it necessary to start treating water with more of some chemical, or some entirely new chemical (chlorine & cloramine as examples). So, unless you're testing your water at the lab on a regular basis, your actual water quality will vary and is subject to change. Those test results you got at the lab was a one time snapshot.

I never said DI was mandatory. In fact, I think it's fair to say that RO isn't mandatory either. But unless you can point out another downside to DI besides cost, I just don't see where it doesn't make sense to get RO/DI if you're already considering RO. I mean honestly, the cost to get your water tested at the lab was probably close to the cost of adding DI.

If cost is the one thing that prevents someone from getting DI added onto RO, sobeit. I understand and more power to them. RO is certainly better than tap (am I opening another can of worms here?). But like I said previously, if you can afford it, I just don't see why you wouldn't get it. There is no downside other than cost, and the upside is measurable in reduced tds.

 

[DonW]

Well Don, you are definitely 1 step ahead of me in regards to actually getting water tested. I applaud you for that. However, buying solely on the basis of what has worked for peers in the same geographical region is hit & miss at best. You and I could live next door to each other and have vastly different water readings. I could have bad copper pipes or something...you get my drift. What is not hit or miss is what RO membranes are capable of, what the prefilters are capable of, and what the DI resin is capable of. Those are documented specifications that are published by manufacturers and tested by hobbiest and labs alike.

Besides that, tds in water delivered to the home comes from either natural sources or is added by man. Both of those contributing factors are subject to change at any given time. After severe weather conditions, for instance, often times water quality is not as good due to runoff, etc. And, at any time a local water district may determine it necessary to start treating water with more of some chemical, or some entirely new chemical (chlorine & cloramine as examples). So, unless you're testing your water at the lab on a regular basis, your actual water quality will vary and is subject to change. Those test results you got at the lab was a one time snapshot.

I never said DI was mandatory. In fact, I think it's fair to say that RO isn't mandatory either. But unless you can point out another downside to DI besides cost, I just don't see where it doesn't make sense to get RO/DI if you're already considering RO. I mean honestly, the cost to get your water tested at the lab was probably close to the cost of adding DI.

If cost is the one thing that prevents someone from getting DI added onto RO, sobeit. I understand and more power to them. RO is certainly better than tap (am I opening another can of worms here?). But like I said previously, if you can afford it, I just don't see why you wouldn't get it. There is no downside other than cost, and the upside is measurable in reduced tds.

Thats why you or no one else can say, "its hit and miss". Just a FYI most if not all hobby tds meters are only accurate to within 2%fs. That being the case trusting a meter that says 0 with a scale of 0-999 could be as far off as 20ppm. With the case of your meter having the ability to read 0-09990 could be off as far as 200ppm thats why they are just a guide.
Here is some reading for anyone that believes their tds meter.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/nftt/index.php

Don

 

[MikeS]

I see both sides of the arguement here...

I use my TDS meter primarily to guage filter efficiency, more than to judge the quality of the final product. As long as I'm getting a good rejection rate vs. incoming water TDS, I know my unit is functioning as it is supposed to. As for the actual output TDS...I have no idea what is in that 2-3 ppm....that's why I periodically test for nitrate and phosphate, as these are going to be the most problematic substances in the final product. As long as they test zero, I'm happy. For that matter...even if I was getting a 10ppm TDS reading final output, as long as my phosphates and nitrates are zero, and I'm seeing no adverse effects in my tank, I'm not going to worry too much about it. I figure once my filter drops to about 95% efficency on observed TDS, it will be getting time to change out cartridges.

On the addition of DI....sure, I think everybody agrees that it will boost the quality of the final product, especially with problem substances like phosphate, nitrate, silicate, ect....It may however not be necessary depending on #1 the water going in and #2 the unit in question....

To make a point...I had a freind working at an LFS here in town...his LFS invested in an off-brand RO/DI (I don't remember the exact brand) for use in their reef tank at the store...His brand new RO/DI unit produces consistantly higher TDS readings and a lower rejection rate (using my TDS meter to measure both) than my Seachem RO filter. Why I'm not sure, perhaps the RO membrane isn't as good or his prefilters suck....I don't know. But, point being, my RO alone unit, while more expensive, is thus far more effcient than his RO/DI...this is not a slam on off-brand units....the only reason I bought the seachem pinnacle+ was because I got a heck of a good deal on a used one...but I'm impressed with it...

Another potential problem with off brands is parts availibility in the future. Sticking with more recognized brands, while maybe more expensive initally, you'll have a more likely chance of finding replacement parts down the road when you need them.

I would say keep doing your research, keep talking to others, and buy the best, most reputible unit you can afford. And yes, I'd say if it has DI, that's a plus...

MikeS

 

[roblou]

I'm not arguing nor being advocat of either . I'm an advocate of accurate information. You information is not accurate $50 meter or my 4 $150 meters thats why I advocate testing which I have had done. There are alot of misconceptions in this hobby and the absolute need of a di unit is one of them. At a tds of 2 my water predi water test (Spectra Labs, Tacoma WA)has haveing 1.2ppm mg and a .7ppm K. Neither of which is harmful both of which are useful. So can you or anyone else tell me or anyone that a di unit is mandatory. The answer is simple NO. One needs to buy a unit that has tested well among his peers in the same geographical region and go from there to find the final results of its output.

Don

Don: ok, well obviously from your posts to this thread, you are an advocate that DI may not be necessary, some low remaining tds reading may in fact be ok, best to test your water at the lab to determine whether DI is even necessary for you, etc. That's fine, I guess it appears to be working for you, since you state above you've had your predi water tested at Spectra Labs in Tacoma and have only 1.2ppm mg and .7ppm K.

However, I'm curious as to when you changed your mind on DI being good and/or necessary (at least for you). Reading through some of your other posts regarding RO/DI seem to contridict what you are saying now. Less than 10 days ago, you seem to indicate that you run 2 DI chambers, but I am guessing since then you have removed those as you've deemed them unnecessary.

Specifically, your response on 9/16/2006 to this thread where you indicate you run 2 di cartridges "so it never goes out completely": http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=203705#post203705

Are you measuring tds? You may want to concider a add-on di with a clear cartrige. The filter guys have a nice one real cheap. Depending on your tds you may be burning through the di resin. I use two cartriges so it never goes out completely.

Don

Also, just 2 days before that (11 days ago from today) you seem to give advice to a fellow reefer that he should 'easily hit zero' on tds, and that is he doesn't he should 'buy some decent di resin'.

Your reply to this post on 9/14/2006: http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=203246#post203246

With a incomming tds that low you should easily hit zero. Give it a few more gallons, if you dont get it buy some decent di resin. Most cheap rodi units come with lousy di resin. You can get the good stuff from the filter guys for $8

Don

And, your reply to this post on 8/24/2006 (a month ago) where you are giving the advice to get 'a real RODI': http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17863

Check ebay and get a real RODI without the holding tank.

Don

I only point this out because it's confusing to me why you post to this thread contridicting my advice, when it appears to me you've posted to several other threads previously that contridict your current stance and in fact support the advice I am giving in this thread.

I'm sure you can correct me where I'm interpretting your posts incorrectly...

 

[DonW]

Don: ok, well obviously from your posts to this thread, you are an advocate that DI may not be necessary, some low remaining tds reading may in fact be ok, best to test your water at the lab to determine whether DI is even necessary for you, etc. That's fine, I guess it appears to be working for you, since you state above you've had your predi water tested at Spectra Labs in Tacoma and have only 1.2ppm mg and .7ppm K.

However, I'm curious as to when you changed your mind on DI being good and/or necessary (at least for you). Reading through some of your other posts regarding RO/DI seem to contridict what you are saying now. Less than 10 days ago, you seem to indicate that you run 2 DI chambers, but I am guessing since then you have removed those as you've deemed them unnecessary.

Specifically, your response on 9/16/2006 to this thread where you indicate you run 2 di cartridges "so it never goes out completely": http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=203705#post203705



Also, just 2 days before that (11 days ago from today) you seem to give advice to a fellow reefer that he should 'easily hit zero' on tds, and that is he doesn't he should 'buy some decent di resin'.

Your reply to this post on 9/14/2006: http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=203246#post203246



And, your reply to this post on 8/24/2006 (a month ago) where you are giving the advice to get 'a real RODI': http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17863



I only point this out because it's confusing to me why you post to this thread contridicting my advice, when it appears to me you've posted to several other threads previously that contridict your current stance and in fact support the advice I am giving in this thread.

I'm sure you can correct me where I'm interpretting your posts incorrectly...

What you dont seem to to understand is that there is two sides to a fence. Personally I could go without my DI unit, but I like toys. I think there are many people that can go without and have no ill effects what so ever. In this thread I have made no recomendations nor have I advocated either way, this you dont seem to get. I have only stated that your reasoning is not accurate. Because your meter says so is not justifiable. For some reason you chose to throw out the fact that you spent $50 on a meter, are we to assume that the meter makes you more informed? There have been many threads concerning DI purchases lately, I chose not to give a recomendation of brand or configuration on this thread. I chose to stay neutral and can justify both sides of the fence with accurate information. You seem to want to push only one direction assuming that the information your $50 meter is giving you is correct.
Like I've already stated there is no right or wrong and that no one has the answer, but you seem to want to prove me wrong.
I personally go to great lengths to insure good water quality. I have my tank system and di water lab tested three times per year. I have a 6 stage RODI with a 7th stage DI. I have a total of 5 TDS/Controllers meters all running 27/7. I use a predumpsystem. I back flush the membrane every night at midnight. My Rodi is timed to insure optimal water quality. I have a minimum of $2K dollars invested in water purification alone.
Do I feel this is the only way it can be done? The answer is NO. I am no better off now than I was with my 9 year old 3 stage Kent 35gpd system.
Am I any more informed. Do all my TDS meters make me more informed, no all my meters have the same 2%FS accuracy as anyone elses. Without the lab test I would have all the same information that everyone else has. With the 2% accuracy 40ppm leaves alot of room for error. Since TDS is the only measure of quality that most folks have I can also justify its use along with DI, but as I stated earlier I choose to not make a configuration recomendation in this thread and stay neutral. I did this because Mike mentioned the fact that he has been just fine without DI, and that may be the route that this person decides to go. I am not going to try and convince someone that he/she was misinformed unless I have data to support it. I give Mike the credit for staying off the band wagon and not pushing equipment that may or may not be needed.

I think we can put this to rest.
Thanks
Don

 

[stonepilot]

thanks for all the hard work that went into this post I appreciate everyones input and will put what Ive read to good use and pass on in the future what I have learned, God bless you and have a great day.

 

[dragoneggs]

I am still following along here... thank you for the debate. I have decided to get a SpectraPure CSP 90gpd system without the DI for now. They run about $200.

For me, it wasn't so much due to money but rather another (necessary?) maintenance item that might be avoidable. I would like to be efficient and minimize the infrequent maintenance items as I tend to put those off until something goes wrong.

The daily/weekly care items are plenty okay but I can tell you I won't be tearing down my pumps (under the floor) to service them before they fail and I can bet I won't be vigilant on a DI system that is tucked away in a laundry room either that has questionable value for me. Additionally, I understand that if the DI does foul... you can be in worse shape than a 'tap' situation.

Please don't take this as my recommendation for anyone else but rather just a data point.

Six months from now Roblou will probably find a thread of mine talking about my DI system... LOL.

Mark