Studio Acoustics: The organic natural way...
#61
12th October 2009
Old 12th October 2009
  #61
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 11,111

Specifications

Hi Aye Cap'n! Are we reading the same specs? On the Bob Golds site I am seeing 100MM of Theremafleece with an NRC of 0.44 in the 100Hz band.
703 at 125Hz is 0.84.
I doubt if any of us love Fibreglass or Rockwool. A careful study will however lead most to the same conclusions. i.e. Fibreglass and RW are quite safe. It is difficult and expensive to find an 'organic' equivalent. Check out the Amsterdam studio build which uses the very attractive Homatherm. I believe Thomas is a fan of this stuff. However from the photos, other materials are used much more.
DD
#62
13th October 2009
Old 13th October 2009
  #62
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 83

#63
13th October 2009
Old 13th October 2009
  #63
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Hi Aye Cap'n! Are we reading the same specs? On the Bob Golds site I am seeing 100MM of Theremafleece with an NRC of 0.44 in the 100Hz band.
703 at 125Hz is 0.84.
I doubt if any of us love Fibreglass or Rockwool. A careful study will however lead most to the same conclusions. i.e. Fibreglass and RW are quite safe. It is difficult and expensive to find an 'organic' equivalent. Check out the Amsterdam studio build which uses the very attractive Homatherm. I believe Thomas is a fan of this stuff. However from the photos, other materials are used much more.
DD
O gosh, jee, hmmmf
All these figures must have been jamming some brain cells, indeed, the Thermafleece values are assuming 100mm = 4"...
But, if you double the size, a layer of 200mm perhaps then organic is back in the game? Assuming the Absorption Coefficients values will rise when more thick, looking at plain 703 with 48 kg/m3 density happen there as well. 6" does the job really well, where a 1" layer kicks it much higher frequency. Maybe it is possible slightly compress the TF to accompish better AC values in the same space...? I am going to write the Thermafleece manufacturer, see what comes out. Very frustrating the not knowing...

I have seen the Homatherm packages in the foto's on Darius's mastering studio threat (awesome b.t.w.!!)
It seems that they used Rockwool in the outher hull of the studio compartment and Homatherm in the inner chamber.
But the technical details about the AC values are left out by Thomas, a pity, but perhaps understandable if you own a company like his. There is nothing about it on the Homatherm website as well, I cannot see any of their products mentioned as an acoustic damping material. They probably do not want to sell it as such

I am determined to go for an as much as organic solution, providing acceptable results. And at the same time do not want to spent the rest of my life looking...
#64
13th October 2009
Old 13th October 2009
  #64
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powder Kutz View Post
THICKNESS (MM) 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 [NRC / STC]
3.5” (89) 0.95 1.3 1.19 1.08 1.02 1.0 [1.15]

Wow, excellent PK! Looks very good. Thanks, man

Now, to get some here in Europe... but it helps to know about more stuff our there.

Last edited by CaptPicard; 13th October 2009 at 05:28 PM.. Reason: (bullocks, cannot make the table looks good, hope you can read it)
#65
13th October 2009
Old 13th October 2009
  #65
Gear addict
 
svart's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 472

Cellulose insulation for houses contains boric acid as well. this keeps the bugs and microbes from eating it.

Johns manville insulation is supposed to be formaldehyde free. At least the stuff I bought said so on the packaging.

Don't quote me on it but I read somewhere that a study showed that cotton fibers were worse than glass or basalt fibers when breathed in.

I also read that basalt fibers (rockwool) was the least harmful of all insulations.

I can't seem to find the study but I know there was a link on here or at Sayer's forum.
#66
14th October 2009
Old 14th October 2009
  #66
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by svart View Post
Cellulose insulation for houses contains boric acid as well. this keeps the bugs and microbes from eating it.
Boric acid is just as harmless as table salt. But that will kill you as well if you eat a 2 lbs. packet at once. Many fabrics have been treated with it to be more fire resistant, so any which way, that's something difficult to avoid. When set on fire, a lot of it will become airborne, but that will be the moment that you should have left the building anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by svart View Post
I also read that basalt fibers (rockwool) was the least harmful of all insulations.
Why do I have the feeling that these studies are initiated by the Rockwool stock holders. If that stuff sticks like acupuncture needles in your skin, you should be a fool not to avoid inhaling that!
Please inform if you have any links to official health studies concerning cotton being more harmful than rockwool, I would like to know more about this.

As with all dusty stuff and airborne particals, like wood (!), it is always best to use dust a professional mask when processing any of these materials.
Btw, thanks for mentioning Sayer, svart. I found a threat I did not read before were Ultratouch was applied in furniture. That gave me further ideas...
#67
14th October 2009
Old 14th October 2009
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,338

#68
14th October 2009
Old 14th October 2009
  #68
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

Thanks, very informative.

Although despite of what studies state, one should always use the 'common sense' - a valuable tool that all humans carry around and can rely on, providing you are prepared to listen to it. Mine says, wear a mask and stay away from fiberglass/rockwool as my skin tends to be irritated by it for a week if I touch it. Done it many times in the past, and the pattern was very clear and predictive. Red bumps all over!

The laws vary per country. E.g. here in The Netherlands the law states that the MAC-value *) (no, this is has nothing to do with a satisfaction level caused by using Apple products) that applies for fiberglass, is 2 fibers per cm3 per workday of 8 hours. So there ARE health risks, providing you live here. But absolutely right, with organic products as well. Why? Because plants have their way to protect themselves agains molds and bacteria, using chemicals - pure nature. So inhaling high concentrations of wood dust particles is pretty bad also. This may vary on the kind of wood! - Usually the harder the wood, the worse it gets. It all has to do with excessive quantities. You can also do as many rat tests as you need as a scientist, expose the poor buggers to all kinds of high particle concentrations, and still make no point at all. Then it is the individual experience that counts, and my truth is not the truth of someone else. I just regard glass/mineral wool as the least ideal acoustic damping material, but that does not necessarily have to apply in another person's case.

* MAC=Maximum Allowed Concentration
#69
14th October 2009
Old 14th October 2009
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,338

Right, but the point is still the same: it's harmless unless you somehow manage to ingest or inhale it in quantities that never be possible in a lifetime.

Frank
#70
14th October 2009
Old 14th October 2009
  #70
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 11,111

The Wheel

I don't think we have found the new wheel yet. This debate about healthy insulation crops up repeatedly. It will remain like this I believe. Some will feel that Fibreglass and Rockwool are dangerous and that the organics are better. The tests say otherwise.
Occasionally something comes close to viable, but then cost and availability kick in. Homatherm looks good to me. Anyway may I flag what seems to be a new development. Eco Wool has appeared in the stores. Eco-Wool Loft Insulation It is made from recycled plastic bottles. I haven't found acoustic numbers on it yet. It seems to be about the same or a little heavier than attic insulation. Hopefully it will start appearing as semi rigid batts and hopefully someone will test it acoustically. A ray of hope though.
DD
#71
14th October 2009
Old 14th October 2009
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Suffern, NY
Posts: 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptPicard View Post
Looking at the pictures, it looks homogenous enough to me.

And do you think that a fiberglass "bass trap" (poor description anyway) does anything satisfying below 125 Hz? .
Of course not. It's all false advertising.

As for the peak, it looks pretty bad to me. You need to work with materials that have linear, predictable responses, so you can then tailor the absorbers to a specific problem using known methodologies. Sure, if you have an Rt60 bump at exactly 500 hz, this is your product ....

I just hate all the nonsense to, be found online about a subject that is not really all that complicated. Once in a blue moon I take the time to post a little something to help out, though I think most folks have been completely bamboozled by this point.

For folks really interested in learning this stuff, I have one simple suggestion:

STOP GETTING YOUR INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET. (including these forums)
#72
15th October 2009
Old 15th October 2009
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Suffern, NY
Posts: 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptPicard View Post
O gosh, jee, hmmmf
All these figures must have been jamming some brain cells, indeed, the Thermafleece values are assuming 100mm = 4"...
But, if you double the size, a layer of 200mm perhaps then organic is back in the game? Assuming the Absorption Coefficients values will rise when more thick .
No, no no. Absorption coefficients are given for sabines per pound, or volume, or whatever, (for instance, a sabine = absorption by a 1-square-meter sample) so it doesn't change much when you go thicker. - But that's just semantics and not important.

What IS important is that you want to look at the way absorption is over a wide frequency range. (that's what an acoustician typically means when using the slightly nebulous term "absorption coefficients" - with an "s")
The reason 703 is so prized is because its A-C is almost perfectly even from 125 HZ to 20K. Thus, it's very predictable, and good for getting a room "close." You can also use 701 and 705, if your sabine needs favor a lower or higher range. Their AC's are also linear (predictable) but are not as evenly distributed.

You can use anything at all, as long as you know the coefficients, but if there's a narrow bump somewhere, you're most likely going to have a hard time achieving a good end result, unless your room requires that exact bump.
#73
15th October 2009
Old 15th October 2009
  #73
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 16,762

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptPicard View Post
Looking at the pictures, it looks homogenous enough to me.

And do you think that a fiberglass "bass trap" (poor description anyway) does anything satisfying below 125 Hz? .
Just to clarify, YES fiberglass works fine below 125hz if made thick enough. Most people start at 4" which when straddling a corner works VERY well and the thicker you go the deeper and more it absorbs. Another way is to fill the corner which will result in even lower absorption.
All this stuff has been proven not only in the lab but in hundreds of rooms.
#74
15th October 2009
Old 15th October 2009
  #74
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,701

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by speerchucker View Post
Absorption coefficients are given for sabines per pound, or volume, or whatever, (for instance, a sabine = absorption by a 1-square-meter sample) so it doesn't change much when you go thicker.
I'll be as gentle as possible.

I agree when you say people should be wary of getting acoustics information from web forums, and this quote from you is a perfect example. At low frequencies, sabines of absorption absolutely do increase as the material is made thicker. This is Acoustics 101, and is easily verified by reading the published data for any legitimate acoustic material.

Also, I don't understand your belief that rigid fiberglass and similar products are useless below 125 Hz. I can't imagine where you got that from, but the proof is readily available in the product data pages of acoustic vendors like GIK and RealTraps. If you measure a room with and without large fiberglass absorbers, you'll see that with enough traps the response and ringing can be improved greatly down to 50 Hz and below.

--Ethan
#75
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #75
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

Thanks Ethan and Glenn, and (ahum) it was me that started the >125 Hz no damping story (another damped particle)
...concluding after studying and (obviously wrong) interpreting the damping data of the various specsheets "on the internet" - point noted, well said speerhunter! At some point all this data and people's humble opinions about this and that can be very confusing.

To my knowledge of physics the thickness of the damping material is related to the low cutoff frequency indeed. It is good to know that the route with fiberglass based products can lead to traps that allow a full absorption down to 50 Hz. And yeah, corners are great to put a lot stuff in when with angled traps!

I think the reason of me mentioning this remark was not really meant to be as a statement but more driven by a slight irritation, caused by the fact that when talking about damping materials that are not based on the materials we all know very well, the subject is bouncing back to that same material immediately after one or two posts. Despite the fact it is NOT about fiberglass here, because that is already covered in a zillion other posts elsewhere.
In that sense it is not even a circle as DD mentioned, but more like a cord that is too short.

It does not help either that the specs of all the various materials are so difficult to access, if they exist and are released by the manufacturers anyway. Would love to see a sticky on GS where all this tested and verified data is collected in a proper and useful way so everything is comparable. Including full spectrum ACs at the various thicknesses, continuously maintained with the latest available materials. Maybe there is such a place on the net already, have not seen it yet. Without that it appears to be 'pretty difficult' to talk about this topic in a constructive way.
#76
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #76
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Suffern, NY
Posts: 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
I'll be as gentle as possible.

I don't understand your belief that rigid fiberglass and similar products are useless below 125 Hz. I can't imagine where you got that from, .

--Ethan
Try reading the manufacturers data. Or charts from the BBC engineers, or the Everest books or other top books on studio construction. - or any other INDEPENDANT test of the stuff.

Ethan, you don't know what you're talking about, (again) and I'll stake my reputation on that.

-but i'm outa' here. You guys do what you want. Honest, I won't be back. This forum is a madhouse of bad information. There' no point in my taking valuable time trying to help.

C Ya'.
#77
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #77
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 16,762

Quote:
It does not help either that the specs of all the various materials are so difficult to access, if they exist and are released by the manufacturers anyway.
When you are looking at manufactures numbers you are looking at "A" mount (for rare material) . Which is the product laid on the floor in a 60 squ foot area. There is also "J" mount which is recommend mounting. If you look at the following data of our 244 we did "A" mount and also "J". Which for J we had it spaced out from the wall and a second test of straddling the corner. I think that should clear up any kind of confusion.

GIK Acoustic Panels are tested and certified.


#78
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #78
Lives for gear
 
sedohr's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Posts: 1,123

Quote:
Originally Posted by speerchucker View Post
Try reading the manufacturers data. Or charts from the BBC engineers, or the Everest books or other top books on studio construction. - or any other INDEPENDANT test of the stuff.

Ethan, you don't know what you're talking about, (again) and I'll stake my reputation on that.

-but i'm outa' here. You guys do what you want. Honest, I won't be back. This forum is a madhouse of bad information. There' no point in my taking valuable time trying to help.

C Ya'.
Geez, hard times for voluntary acousticians (no, that is not a word) around here these days. Why can't people show some manners and respect ? We owe a lot to Glenn and Ethan and although everybody doesn't always agree with them for some reason there is no need to be rude.
In general there is very seldom reason to be rude.

Good day to you, you masked and nameless knight of Speerchucker.

Kalli
Quote
1
#79
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #79
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
I think that should clear up any kind of confusion.
Umpf... it brought even more of that

In the process of demystifying this matter, a generic question: is the AC the measured difference going through the material in and out 90 degrees, or bounced back against a 100% reflecting surface in a 90 degrees corner, traveling through the material twice?

I was a bit hoping that manufacturers just stick with a pure measurement performed in an acoustic anechoic chamber, leaving any placement options out. Of course various real life placements do matter a lot.

Sorry for asking these perhaps generic questions, it might lead to a better understanding and what to ask for when contacting various manufacturers of all these fancy materials. Thanks, CP
(Hurry Amazon, please finally deliver me that long ago ordered book of Newell - perhaps I have to bury myself in that for a while first)
#80
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #80
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 16,762

Quote:
I was a bit hoping that manufacturers just stick with a pure measurement performed in an acoustic anechoic chamber, leaving any placement options out. Of course various real life placements do matter a lot.
Well that is the reason we did the 244 in "A" mount and "J" mount. It gives a baseline and also gives a recommend mounting. To be honest though recommend mounting is the number you would want, because that is the result you would get.
#81
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,338

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptPicard View Post
I was a bit hoping that manufacturers just stick with a pure measurement performed in an acoustic anechoic chamber, leaving any placement options out. Of course various real life placements do matter a lot.
Right. First, absorptive panels depend on a hard boundary layer relatively nearby to work...that's the basis of the physics in play. Secondly, without a referenced mounting practice there would be no context for the data. They would just be numbers that mean nothing.

Frank
#82
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #82
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel9992 View Post
Right. First, absorptive panels depend on a hard boundary layer relatively nearby to work...that's the basis of the physics in play. Secondly, without a referenced mounting practice there would be no context for the data. They would just be numbers that mean nothing.
Umm, yeah, but that's one step ahead. Of course the studio has walls, and the abs. material is framed somehow, but when discussing the application of various abs. materials I would like to focus on the theory first.
I was more thinking of the two standarized (sorry, lost in tr.) measurement methods:
ASTM C384 -04 Standard Test Method for Impedance and Absorption of Acoustical Materials... for the tube way and
ASTM C423 -08a Standard Test Method for Sound Absorption and Sound Absorption... for the room reverb way, using raw materials only.

Besides, forgive me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure after reading these methods the resulting AC is basically about the reflection of the material itself. Leaving the conversion to ready made panels out of the equation, for the moment.

Another one that is bothering me: when using the room measurement method, does a value beyond unity (>1.0) mean that the material will damp even more at these values, causing an uneven damping over the spectrum, or can the over-unity part just be discarded?
#83
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #83
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 16,762

Quote:
Another one that is bothering me: when using the room measurement method, does a value beyond unity (>1.0) mean that the material will damp even more at these values, causing an uneven damping over the spectrum, or can the over-unity part just be discarded?
No you would not discard it because the absorption coefficient is based off the sabins. Sabins is really the number you want to see. The reason the AC may be higher is because the edge is not taken into the equation when calculating from Sabins. There are other factors, but the bottom line is Sabins is really what you want to know.
#84
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #84
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,701

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by speerchucker View Post
Try reading the manufacturers data.
I realize you're outta here anyway, but others need to understand the flaws in your logic.

In this case, the main flaw is that manufacturer data rarely shows what happens below 125 Hz, and never below 100 Hz (that I've seen). This does not mean the absorber material has no useful affect below 125 Hz! It just means the labs that test these products are not certified to report below that frequency. Acoustics labs cater mostly to large companies selling, for example, ceiling tiles and car interior padding. I doubt bass trap companies like RealTraps and GIK etc account for even 1 percent of their income. So they have no incentive to spend millions of dollars extra to build labs large enough to test below 100 Hz.

Quote:
or any other INDEPENDANT test of the stuff.
The data on my company's site was measured in a certified INDEPENDENT lab, and the same for GIK in a different certified INDEPENDENT lab. I honestly don't know what you hoped to accomplish here with your insulting tone and misinformation about bass traps and certified testing.

--Ethan
#85
16th October 2009
Old 16th October 2009
  #85
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,701

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptPicard View Post
I am pretty sure after reading these methods the resulting AC is basically about the reflection of the material itself.
All acoustic materials do all three of the following:

Pass sound
Reflect sound
Absorb sound

Quote:
does a value beyond unity (>1.0) mean that the material will damp even more at these values, causing an uneven damping over the spectrum, or can the over-unity part just be discarded?
It depends on why the values come out larger than 1.0. My article Alternative Test Methods for Acoustic Treatment Products from Sound & Vibration magazine explains all of that, and probably even more than you'd ever want to know.

--Ethan
#86
17th October 2009
Old 17th October 2009
  #86
Gear interested
 
CaptPicard's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 27

OK, so as a temporary summary to use 'alternative' absorption materials "the organic natural or perhaps just the eco way":

1. The Absorption Coefficients handed out by the manufacturers of these materials, even if they are created with the ASTM C423 method, are not a useful guidance to design elements for room treatment.
2. We have to know the Sabine Absorption details of a defined shape that has been placed in a defined spot in a room in order to know its true reverberant decay rate per frequency band, where we can distinguish recommended wall placement and corner placement.
3. To do proper measurements we need a suitable lab capable of measuring low frequencies.
4. It is highly unlikely the manufacturers will perform the necessary lab tests.
5. Cross-comparisons of different 'alternative' absorption materials applied in the shapes mentioned at 2 do no exist yet.
#87
17th October 2009
Old 17th October 2009
  #87
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,701

Lightbulb

You got it totally!
#88
17th October 2009
Old 17th October 2009
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Between the Notes, Iowa
Posts: 3,213

Hey Ethan, just curious what kind of respect you award Michael Green formerly of Room Tunes. Thanks.
#89
17th October 2009
Old 17th October 2009
  #89
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,701

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piedpiper View Post
just curious what kind of respect you award Michael Green formerly of Room Tunes.
You mean the guy who sells those tiny thin fabric "bikini corners" and calls them bass traps?

--Ethan
#90
17th October 2009
Old 17th October 2009
  #90
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Between the Notes, Iowa
Posts: 3,213

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
You mean the guy who sells those tiny thin fabric "bikini corners" and calls them bass traps?

--Ethan
Don't know if he sells anything these days, but when he did, he didn't call them "bass traps". He seemed to be more interested in chaotic midrange reflections than bass tuning although, if memory serves, he did have something that addressed lower frequencies. Last I heard, he was getting into tuning out trouble spots with Helmholtz resonators. In any case, it sounds like you mightn't know enough to comment. Thanks anyway.

p.s. just googled him and found michaelgreenaudio.com
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
studiogear / High end
7
acidrulez / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
wbertolo / Low End Theory
5
kkfaudio / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
10
vls / So much gear, so little time!
8

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.