Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Mobile Fidelity using Digital Files

  1. #16
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,867
    Widget, Ian, Robb... Certainly we are indeed all on the same page. My personal central concern with audio sound/quality/whatever lies with the elements in the flowchart where something can be brought closer to "what the musician created" in a live space. So I gravitate to recordists who are better at this than others and musicians who insist on/encourage/employ/collaborate with individuals and organizations who seriously share that goal. Who care about it more than others do, who feel its importance is paramount. Two names I have mentioned, Todd Garfinkle (Japan, Europe, and California) and Jim Anderson (Chicago) are the two best at it that I am aware of personally. And whatever Colin Towns was doing in the UK was certainly working for him.

    I recall that when the Eagles were lining up the recording of their (Second? Third?) album they were paired with - I think it was - Glyn Johns, who insisted on not changing his ironclad use of very heavy reverb on the drums. He literally said my way or the highway, so they fired him. Johns was a much more accomplished/respected person in the industry at that point than the band was, so that took integrity and guts. They earned my respect that day. Sounding like themselves was very, very important to them at that point, and I am sure the pressure on them to do what was working for everyone else was extreme.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  2. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,455
    Hi Clark,

    Itís publicised that other artists are caring about sound quality. Neal Young comes to mind.

    So how do you at home validate whatís right or wrong or better or worse?

    Do you agree it would take a musician who is familiar with for example the drum kit and playing style of the drummer to make further determinations? Or do you link the credentials of the recording engineer to your listening experience?

    Perhaps the question to ask is it the recording, the artist or your equipment that is emotionally engaging?

  3. #18
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Hi Clark,

    It’s publicised that other artists are caring about sound quality. Neal Young comes to mind.

    So how do you at home validate what’s right or wrong or better or worse?

    Do you agree it would take a musician who is familiar with for example the drum kit and playing style of the drummer to make further determinations? Or do you link the credentials of the recording engineer to your listening experience?
    The common denominators between these individuals and my experience of them comes from either personal contact with them or experience with the musicians they recorded, or both. I limited my commentary to examples I have experienced in person. If there is a common thread among them, it is that all but Jim Anderson, not sure about him, are very accomplished acoustic musicians themselves. Their combination of experiences result in extraordinary abilities to hear and listen (Which I have personally witnessed in some cases. No doubt in my mind that being a terrific musician is a leg up for a recording professional.) Todd I have known for years. The other half of my knowledge is having had experience with hearing musicians they have recorded, in intimate circumstances. Vouching for how well musicians have been recorded does depend on having personally heard the musicians, and in these instances I have done that in a series of what ended up being essentially private concerts, up close and personal. Patricia Barber's band played to an audience of four that day. The Chicago Symphony String Quartet I heard in a tiny, acoustically perfect in the round venue. I was ten feet away in an audience of less than two hundred. The "stage" was at most a low riser, less than a foot. I felt like I was sitting with them.

    This is not about stuff I have read. Todd monitors his recordings and masters with Stax headphones. (He goes way back with them, having lived in Japan for a quarter Century and owning the prototype of their high end phones, which they gave to him.) A number of engineers who record symphonic music do likewise; one of the pairs of Stax SRX Mark IIIs I have purchased over the years was from a fellow who had just retired the set from such duty the day before he sold it to me. This particular model of Stax is known for being slightly bass light so you can hear deeper into the recording to reveal details not audible on more normal phones. Stax made a modern design with similar capabilities for a while; over a decade they only sold about a hundred pair but when they discontinued it the asking used price went into outer space. The takeaway here is that because speakers are the weak link in playback, if you master the recordings without worrying about their limitations in particular, a set of compromises disappears. Now that headphones and in ear monitors are coming to dominate listening, there is a logic to working this way.

    Neil Young has been one of my favorite musicians since Buffalo Springfield, which I caught in a small club, against the stage. His particular idea of good sound is decidedly retro. He does very well by it so he gets no argument from me about it. If anyone has heard a Pono, by all means chime in. He prefers to record all the instruments live in one space, playing together. Only the vocals go on separately. IMO a great way to work. It so happens Todd Garfinkle records everything live in spaces he has chosen for their acoustic ambience. No overdubs, no isolation. In both instances the musicians really have to know what they are doing. Todd doesn't worry about the board because he doesn't use one. Two superb mikes via custom battery powered FET preamps into a digital recorder.

    I am sure lots of musicians, most for all I know, care very much how accurately they get recorded (as opposed to the myriad who use the studio or the DAW to create their sound in the first place). I just don't personally know who they are, so I can't comment on them.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  4. #19
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Perhaps the question to ask is it the recording, the artist or your equipment that is emotionally engaging?
    I think it stands to reason that if the artist is not engaging the rest is not going work out. It is the recording's task to capture that and move it forward to the rig. If the recording failed, again it is dead. The playback equipment can enhance the appreciation of the material, but it cannot mask the impact of a great recording of a great performance of a great piece of music. A 1930s recording can move one to tears of joy, even an mp3 of it.

    That has been my experience, anyway. (High) Fidelity doesn't create emotion, it conveys it - hopefully.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  5. #20
    Senior Member Don C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Santa Rosa CA
    Posts
    1,717
    An audiophile is a person who likes audio. That's all it means.

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,455
    Hi Clark,

    That is really interesting and thank you for explaining it.

    Looking at your narrative what does the massive growth and proliferation of the headphone category mean to you?

    There are numerous categories of headphones an the market. The ifi brand of electronics now have models for particular headphones with active EQ.

    What is your take on that?

    https://ifi-audio.com/products/zen-can-signature-mz99/

    https://ifi-audio.com/products/zen-can-signature-hfm/

    https://ifi-audio.com/products/pro-ican-signature/

    https://ifi-audio.com/products/pro-idsd-signature/

  7. #22
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,867

    What does the massive growth and proliferation of the headphone category mean to you?

    Hi Ian,
    Congratulations on reading my last explanation without being bored to tears or slumber! Allow me to address the last part first, the ifi system and products.

    I read through their web pages. They certainly prove that audiophile marketing has not changed in decades. A great design seldom if ever requires super expensive components (parts), but those parts will not improve the performance of a less than clever design. Employing silk in dielectrics, if I read that right, is a sure sign that the company is sales driven above all else (including above reason). Trust your ears if you get to hear the gear, but trust nothing they say or claim. Most of their pricy components address issues that would never be audible and many of the capabilities they brag about are worthless.

    My main thought is why EQ is needed for headphones? I know many headphone fans collect them like baseball cards and might want to tweak their responses to bring then into line with their general preference. I assume you would not be into collecting cans just to have a variety, so no worry there. You want them to sound the way you want them to; so why bother with phones that don’t? I confess I am not a fan of having different speakers for different kinds of music, and that caries over into personal listening too. Now if you have major anomalies in your hearing, especially between ears, I could see wanting EQ for that. My bottom line on this is that you usually don't need a special, expensive amp just for driving dynamic headphones. For AV use I use a cheap Dayton (Parts Express) amp with a dedicated TI chip for the headphone jack. I admit the Sony I use with it is very efficient, but the 150mw chip is LOUD. The audio goodness is in the quality of the headphone, not the amp. Most amps today have very low disortion. I would try something much less extravagant and pricy first before investigating gear like this.

    Which brings us to the state of our present personal listening landscape. For those less experienced than yourself – this is a speaker site after all - I will start with an overview of the gear available before moving on to what I think it all means, this personal listening thing.

    There are actually only a few basic technologies in use despite the bazillion products being offered. They are Dynamic, Planar, and Electrostatic. The dynamic technology is well developed and mature. Balanced armature in ear drivers, for instance, may be a unique mechanical system but are still dynamic drivers. If you want a very accurate but still very pleasing dynamic phone, listen to the Sennheiser 800S. While Sennheiser may have a “house sound” in general, this phone is just plain truthful. The original 800 was quite flawed, having a hot treble response, but the “S” tweak completely addressed it. It is not laid back; it sounds crisp and, well, dynamic, but not the least bit harsh. Let’s just say you should sit down before you hear it. It is not cheap at $1800 but is cheaper than buying a collection of cans to try and match its performance for less. (Or EQ units to try to equal it, which for technical reasons will not get you there.) You can pay a lot more for a dynamic phone, believe it or not, but the thing to note is that it is moving towards the basic cost of a quality electrostatic phone. More on that later.

    The planar (pronounced Plah-NAR) technology is a variation of driving a mechanical diaphragm that has the electrical driving element built into a mechanical diaphragm directly. It results in a heavy moving element. The result is very robust bass response but loss of finesse with other frequencies. It is simply not as high fidelity as the best dynamic or electrostatic units. If too much bass is not enough, go for it.

    The Electrostatic drive system has only one disadvantage: cost. It is possible to find a lower, perhaps not reasonable but lower priced headphone using this system, but the amplification requirements to obtain the stratospheric performance you will be after are very pricy. The phones are very hard to drive; it is not just about power but also wildly varying capacitance and other issues. No company will be able to build an inexpensive amp for this. So why bother? The drive results in that elusive goal, an ideal driven element ideally driven. The moving element is practically weightless and is driven evenly across the entire face; further the drive is both push and pull and the system is fully balanced. The diaphragm is never free to rebound or drift, always moving in precise sync with a powerful electric field which is mimicking the music with unearthly precision. Among other qualities, this is also the fastest audio reproduction developed so far, absolutely incredible rendering of transients. If they ever figure out how to record a piano, this just might do it justice. It can keep up with any foreseeable microphone technology.

    Digression Over “Looking at your narrative what does the massive growth and proliferation of the headphone category mean to you?”

    Personally, liberation. The main effect of it is facilitation of “Personal Listening” and its doppelganger phenomenon, “Private Listening”. Every change it has brought improves the ways I want to listen to music in the first place. Both where you listen to music and what you want to listen to there have been put entirely in your hands as an individual. That the full spectrum of audio quality is now available anywhere, anytime is as wonderful as how streaming has made most music as universally available as the opportunity to consume it.

    But the best part of the development for me is how it is changing music. Personal and private apply to both the listeners and the musicians. Content wise, more personal thoughts, ideas, emotions, and moods are making it into our ears. They know these things can and will be heard in private. Of equal importance, the musical expression can now be more subtle, which increases the range of expression possible in recording.

    Tough to say this on a speaker site, but the frankly higher fidelity available with personal listening makes this possible. Headphones and especially the best in ear monitors, playing in the predictable and controlled environment of our ears instead of our rooms, are like scalpels. By comparison speakers are chainsaws.

    All this is made possible and happening because of that “massive growth and proliferation of the headphone category”, and I am so grateful for it. I have too small a mind to foresee all the other things that will result from great sounding music being available to anyone, anywhere, anytime, but it has to be good.

    Final Notes on Hardware Since headphones and in ear monitors have so much more bang for the buck (an unfortunate term from thermonuclear weapons, I know), some good news is that a fortune is not required to get great sound quality. One thing they have in common with the audiophile trade is that much (nearly all) of it is overpriced and underperforming due to the way the business works. Headphones also usually suffer from a bling factor, which of course adds nothing to the sound quality. Luckily it is not difficult in most places to get a demo listen to the gear. There is a lot of it out there, as compared to expensive stereo installations. Listening to recordings you know is infinitely more instructive than reading ads. In that respect it is like the rest of the audio business. What is different is the ease of getting that demo. Chances are good that your friends – or your kids’ friends – are wearing something you can try out. They will be eager to show it off.

    This highlights another of the best results of this “massive growth and proliferation”. This gear has MULTIPLIED the number of current audio enthusiasts. What’s new is they are wearing it. One fact of audio life bears mention here. The very best headphones will not lend themselves to walking around outside listening. Their size and (in most cases) power requirements are not readily portable. For this in ear monitors are the ticket. Choose carefully and there will be no sound quality penalty.

    I do have a specific recommendation for in ear monitors. While there are electrostatic models available, so far this has not been a good fit or at least has not demonstrated superior results in my limited experience. On the other hand, the best company in this arena is Etymotic. Now owned by a parent audio technology corporation, Lucid, Etymotic came from hearing research and builds professional equipment for that industry as well as doing its own work. Its owner has also purchased Westone, another venerable legit concern not founded by audiophiles.

    Etymotic has always used a scientific system to rate the quality of audio equipment. It yields a percentage of accuracy re: the source. Their best in ear monitors are something like 96+% accurate. They comment that the only thing ever measuring better was electrostatic (meaning Stax) headphones. They use truth in advertising, something else different about them in the audio field. They make a variety of monitors, mostly of balanced armature construction. Their “Flat response” category contains both the ER4SR and the ER3SE. The ER4SR is their flagship and is $300. The World’s best under $2400. The ER3SE is like my older hf5. $149. Sounds about as good and is very, very efficient. Something like an IPod Touch will drive it way louder than you would ever want to. Most audiophile brands cost
    several or more times as much as these. They are outstanding bargains. https://www.etymotic.com/flat-response-earphones/

    With headphones, the traditional brands around before the current market explosion can offer good value. Sony, Yamaha, Sennheiser, Beyer. You know, the brands you trust for audio. I definitely like Sony, best audio company in the World IMO. They all make cheapies too, but their good stuff IS good. The Japanese Audio-Technica has some very nice sounding stuff but most of it is very cheaply constructed - fragile in the end. No experience with their very high end, if they have one. If you like Pro gear Fostex might be your game. In electrostatics, hard to beat Stax unless you have 50K for the top Sennheiser.

    I should list what I use myself to reveal any resulting possible bias on my part. I think I have largely avoided it, but here goes.

    Dynamic Headphones - Sony MDR-1R for music and home theater, Sony MDR-ZX600 for my computer "speakers" (This is a DJ model from Best Buy, nothing fancy)

    In Ear - the aforementioned Etymotic hf5. I have two identical pairs. I much favor the new two flange seals over the three flange pieces, or third party foam seals like Comply. I have used tham all. Seals determine bass response, almost completely. They are also responsible for isolation from the outside environment. Etymotic supplies replacable filters to keep dirt, moisture, and ear wax out of the drivers.

    Electrostatic phones - Stax SR007 Mk II. The amp is a custom no holds barred build of a KGSS solid state design. It was the personal amp of Birgir Gudjonsson, the World expert on Stax gear of anyone not working for the company. I have some other Stax phones and gear, but that is my main music player. If anyone wants to know what this all means, I could explain it.

    I currently use Amazon Music HD to stream. For portable streaming, an Apple 2019 iPod Touch. Sadly discontinued. This Spring Apple discontinued all iPod products and - the bastards - all support. The 2019 was the latest and the last.

    For streaming at home I use a laptop via USB into a Cambridge DacMagic Plus.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  8. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,455
    Hi Clark,

    Thatís a juicy post mate.

    I got half way and my brain had a overload.

    I will re read shortly.

    Ian

  9. #24
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,867

    Resonessence Labs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Hi Clark,

    That’s a juicy post mate.

    I got half way and my brain had a overload.

    I will re read shortly.

    Ian
    It occurs to me that since certain expensive audio brands do sometimes appeal to you, I know of one involved in headphone DAC/amps that is the real deal. The head of this outfit came to AXPONA a few times but got too busy to go these days. He is in Canada and has designed DAC chips, filters, and other gear. He seemed to be the leader in designing filters for DACS. When I saw him he brought a selection of DACs with and without headphone amps built in. This was in 2014 and these days their website is nothing like a sales site or catalog because they are in the process of getting a dealer network together, but it does have some information. This page should get you up to speed about this man's capabilities. (Whoever they use for their web designer aparently is not a great proofreader. Is it a Herus or a Hemrus?) Hopefully he still makes products that might be of interest to you.

    https://www.resonessencelabs.com/herus

    I mention all this because he is a World expert and his products are great. My friend Dave bought one of his DAC/Amps. He ended up selling it because it was too accurate for him. Like when you had your Lavry. The DAC/amps went from about $500US to (if memory serves) several thousand. He also had a full line of stand alone DACs. No bling, no BS to drive sales. Just solid science. I hope Resonessence Labs still offers products like this. I imagine finding them used might be challenging, but I have never tried.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  10. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,455

    Arrow

    Hi Clark thank you for such a comprehensive set of posts on all things headfi.

    I plan to read over your posts carefully when l have time on the weekend.

    As it turns out l have a pair of mid priced Audio Technica headphone and a pair of Gradyís which l love - hate. I also have one of the tiny portable ifi head amps.

    I confess to never getting too far into headfi but that could change.

    You have influenced me to swap from Tidal to Qobuz this week. I am much happier with Qobuz. The menu system and the streaming is much better imho. I am using a Lumin D2 streamer into a Parasound JC2 and an A2+ power amp. Itís just normal hifi and itís cool. My next step is a report from an acoustic consultant and some improvements to my listening studio space.

    I agree itís all about the recording. As l write this post l am listening to Claptonís solo lockdown sessions titled The Lady in the Balcony. Itís a new hi res recording. My view point is that hi res belongs to modern hi res recording files. Attempting to re master an old digital or analogue recording and call it hi res simply doesnít work out. The effect l hear is amplification of all the impurities due to the resolution of the hi res format. You canít make a silk purse out of a sours ear as they say.

  11. #26
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,867

    Sad to report...

    ...that it appears Resonessence Labs went out of business some time ago. That explains the lack of information on the internet.

    Another good thing about personal listening is the WAF not entering into it. How do the Audio-Technica's sound?

    Dave is a paid tester for Qobuz and thinks highly of it. I am happy with Amazon for now. The quality seems as good as whatever they are given to work with file wise. Since I listen to a lot of newer music the quality often kicks ass. Their library is a great fit for me. A lot of the best music I have no service carries, but I have purchased extensively from those labels (like Provocateur and MA) so that is fine. I have learned to avoid 90s and 2000s remasters because they are compressed to death.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,455
    I canít prove certainty on the compression other than the following logic.

    In a digital recording the limitation is you canít exceed 0 db or you get digital clipping. So they limit the maximum record peaks to 0 db or a bit below. The noise floor below 0 db is very good and better than an analogue tape recording.

    In an analogue tape recording the opposite is true. The peak level can exceed 0db if tape saturation is acceptable. However the noise floor is the real limitation.

    So re recording an analogue recording from original master tape or duplicates (for preservation purposes) the dynamic range of the digital re master is limited by the allowable noise floor of the analogue recording and the 0 db limit of the digital re recording. As you indicate is sounds compressed. Not in every case but no doubt in a number of older mastered recordings. This is probably due to compression being applied to improve the signal to noise ratio of the transfer. Of course the consumer only looks at the gold label on the packaging that says digitally mastered.

    So itís perhaps better to find a reissued analogue recording of the same tune or the same event.

    I personally use two different phono cartridges. One for my AAA vinyl collection and one for everything else. They are a Keiseki Purple Heart and a Ortofon Quintet Black. I swap them with two individual arm wands on the VPI 10 inch JMW 10-3D. https://elusivedisc.com/vpi-jmw-10-3d-tonearm-armwand

    While controversy surrounds hifi in either vinyl analogue equipment and digital source equipment the vinyl play back equipment is less prone to mis informed and false beliefs due to the RIAA playback requirements. No one can fib. Itís not like the old wives tales that about subjective virtues of one DA converter over another. I think itís either Naim or Linn that are now remotely updating the FPGAís in their equipment in the middle of the night every time the Geek in these organisations thinks he has found a better sound! Or is it every time they think their customers need a brand loyalty trigger. As they say be careful what you wish for with this kind of expensive hifi equipment.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  13. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    annapolis, md usa
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    ...So itís perhaps better to find a reissued analogue recording of the same tune or the same event...
    I believe this is what triggered this thread, no? Many thousands (millions?) of people thought they were buying an analogue reissue of a record but that great sound they experienced was in fact a digital rip of the original analogue source, then used to create new analogue pressings. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, other than the lack of transparency, but your comment does bring us full circle.

  14. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,455
    Please, l prefer that you donít quote a single sentence of my posts and use it out of the context of my fully established reasoning.

    I wasnít referring to Mobile Fidelity. l was referring to hi resolution digital streaming of older analogue recordings which is a different thing.

    That is an A to D process.

    We digressed to headfi in view of Clarkís earlier posts. So l donít think líve gone full circle at all. I personally donít have a problem with Mobile Fidelity.

    What l reasoned was an originally digitally recorded piece music would sound better on hi resolution digital streaming playback such as the 24/96 standard.

    That is a D to D process.

    Most modern popular recordings are in fact digitally recorded and then mastered for Cd release or any of the various streaming platforms. So in theory a 24/96 re master of the original digital recording should sound very good.

    But if l wanted to stream an older music like the Eagles first Album or Fleetwood Mac and listen to some Peter Green tunes they would be an A to D process and it would not necessarily sound as good as a D to D recording.

    In the case of Mobile Fidelity l have not read any evidence to exactly what they did in the digital domain to their vinyl recordings. If in fact they took an analogue recording and did a digital transfer and then digital to analogue transfer then ot looks like this.

    An A to D process then an D to A process.

    What you donít know is what mother they use or what 2 inch master tape they use on particular recordings unless itís stated on that pressing.

    I personally think an original analogue vinyl recording through a very good cartridge and turntable wins hands down. The caveat being it had to be a good recording!

  15. #30
    Senior Member duaneage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The First State
    Posts
    1,585
    I was having a discussion with a fellow audio fan last week and i referred to myself as a practical audiophile. That defines me as someone who loves music on decent equipment that sounds good to me and maybe most people. I dont beleive in outageously expensive devices which make claims which cant even be measured. And differences so slight as to require scientific equipment to reveal are not likely to be heard by me or most people.
    I've spend 40 years building, testing, using and deciding on gear to play back a variety of music. Some well recorded some not. Good artist and mediocre. And even today the advixe i give to anyone interested in stereos is to listen to a lot and buy what peaks your interest.

    I still think my 4411 monitors are perfect and remain my favorite.
    Why buy used when you can build your own?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ABX test(s) for your digital files
    By Titanium Dome in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 05:15 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 12:15 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-07-2007, 02:48 PM
  4. JBL mobile audio
    By hector.murray in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-26-2005, 03:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •