Login / Register
 
2012 Beatles vinyl reissues. WTF?
New Reply
Subscribe
jmpatrick
Thread Starter
#1
21st September 2012
Old 21st September 2012
  #1
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 22

Thread Starter
jmpatrick is offline
2012 Beatles vinyl reissues. MORE DETAILS

"Lads and lassies, it's another British invasion! The Beatles — on vinyl! Meticulously remastered!

Each is sourced from the original master tapes. Each title was then copied into 24-bit/192 Khz files and then cut to lacquer at Abby Road Studios. It was a painstaking process with maximum attention paid to every detail!"

Why in the world would they add a digital layer to the process?
#2
21st September 2012
Old 21st September 2012
  #2
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 84

njfour is offline
I'd assume they are making these from the original master tape transfers done for the 2009 CD remastering. I'd imagine that the original master tapes are pretty fragile, and the that the size of the market for remastered Beatles vinyl is too small to justify a new transfer.
Quote
3
lu432
Verified Member
#3
21st September 2012
Old 21st September 2012
  #3
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: Miami
Posts: 553

Verified Member
lu432 is offline
If they transferred the tape material to a digital format before mastering it last time, they may just take the original transfer and touch it up for vinyl. Wouldn't exactly be brain science then.
Quote
2
Adam Dempsey
Verified Member
#4
22nd September 2012
Old 22nd September 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne - Australia's music capital.
Posts: 2,105
My Recordings/Credits

Verified Member
Adam Dempsey is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpatrick View Post
Why in the world would they add a digital layer to the process?
For archival and the restoration processes already done for the last digital remasters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lu432
If they transferred the tape material to a digital format before mastering it last time, they may just take the original transfer and touch it up for vinyl. Wouldn't exactly be brain science then.
Indeed... nor is it rocket surgery. It's likely that the vinyl versions from these high-res transfers will have undergone less processing (and certainly less converting dsp) than for the digital and CD versions, given that the albums were recorded and mixed for vinyl.
__________________
Adam Dempsey
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
twitter | facebook
Is adding presence the same as subtracting absence?
#5
22nd September 2012
Old 22nd September 2012
  #5
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 248

totalgear is offline
jmpatrick
Thread Starter
#6
27th September 2012
Old 27th September 2012
  #6
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 22

Thread Starter
jmpatrick is offline
More details:

http://www.whatrecords.co.uk/live/la...landing344.asp

The Beatles In Stereo Vinyl Box Set
Manufactured on 180-gram, audiophile quality vinyl with replicated artwork, the 14 albums return to their original glory with details including the poster in The Beatles (The White Album), the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band’s cut-outs, and special inner bags for some of the titles. Each album will be available individually, and accompanied by a stunning, elegantly designed 252-page hardbound book in a lavish boxed edition which is limited to 50,000 copies worldwide.

The book, exclusive to the boxed edition, is authored by award-winning radio producer Kevin Howlett and features a dedicated chapter for each of the albums, as well as insight into the creation of the remasters and how the vinyl albums were prepared. The 12”x12” book showcases a wealth of photographs spanning The Beatles’ recording career, including many images which were not included in the 2009 CD booklets.

The titles include The Beatles’ 12 original UK albums, first released between 1963 and 1970, the US-originated Magical Mystery Tour, now part of the group’s core catalogue, and Past Masters, Volumes One & Two, featuring non-album A-sides and B-sides, EP tracks and rarities.

Since it was recorded, The Beatles’ music has been heard on a variety of formats – from chunky reel-to-reel tapes and eight-track cartridges to invisible computer files. But there has never been a more romantic or thrilling medium for music than a long-playing twelve-inch disc. We ‘play’ records. The process of carefully slipping the disc out of the sleeve, cleaning it and lowering the stylus provides a personal involvement in the reproduction of the music.

In September, 2009, The Beatles’ remastered albums on CD graced charts around the world. Seventeen million album sales within seven months was resounding evidence of the timeless relevance of their legacy. Through five decades, the music of The Beatles has captivated generation upon generation.

For producer Rick Rubin, surveying The Beatles’ recorded achievements is akin to witnessing a miracle. “If we look at it by today’s standards, whoever the most popular bands in the world are, they will typically put out an album every four years,” Rubin said in a 2009 radio series interview. “So, let’s say two albums as an eight year cycle. And think of the growth or change between those two albums. The idea that The Beatles made thirteen albums in seven years and went through that arc of change... it can’t be done. Truthfully, I think of it as proof of God, because it’s beyond man’s ability.”

There has always been demand for The Beatles’ albums on vinyl. Indeed, 2011’s best-selling vinyl LP in the United States was Abbey Road. Following the success of The Beatles’ acclaimed, GRAMMY Award-winning 2009 CD remasters, it was decided that the sound experts at EMI’s Abbey Road Studios should create new versions of The Beatles’ vinyl LPs. The project demanded the same meticulous approach taken for the CD releases, and the brief was a simple one: cut the digital remasters to vinyl with an absolute minimum of compromise to the sound. However, the process involved to do that was far from simple.

The first stage in transferring the sound of a master recording to vinyl is the creation of a disc to be used during vinyl manufacture. There were two options to consider. A Direct Metal Master (DMM), developed in the late seventies, allows sound to be cut directly into a stainless steel disc coated with a hard copper alloy. The older, alternative method is to cut the sound into the soft lacquer coating on a nickel disc - the first of several steps leading to the production of a stamper to press the vinyl.

A ‘blind’ listening test was arranged to choose between a ‘lacquer’ or ‘copper’ cut. Using both methods, A Hard Day’s Night was pressed with ten seconds of silence at the beginning and end of each side. This allowed not only the reproduction of the music to be assessed, but also the noise made by the vinyl itself. After much discussion, two factors swung the decision towards using the lacquer process. First, it was judged to create a warmer sound than a DMM. Secondly, there was a practical advantage of having ‘blank’ discs of a consistent quality when cutting lacquers.

The next step was to use the Neumann VMS80 cutting lathe at Abbey Road. Following thorough mechanical and electrical tests to ensure it was operating in peak condition, engineer Sean Magee cut the LPs in chronological release order. He used the original 24-bit remasters rather than the 16-bit versions that were required for CD production. It was also decided to use the remasters that had not undergone ‘limiting’ - a procedure to increase the sound level, which is deemed necessary for most current pop CDs.

Having made initial test cuts, Magee pinpointed any sound problems that can occur during playback of vinyl records. To rectify them, changes were made to the remasters with a Digital Audio Workstation. For example, each vinyl album was listened to for any ‘sibilant episodes’ - vocal distortion that can occur on consonant sounds such as S and T. These were corrected by reducing the level in the very small portion of sound causing the undesired effect. Similarly, any likelihood of ‘inner-groove distortion’ was addressed. As the stylus approaches the centre of the record, it is liable to track the groove less accurately. This can affect the high-middle frequencies, producing a ‘mushy’ sound particularly noticeable on vocals. Using what Magee has described as ‘surgical EQ,’ problem frequencies were identified and reduced in level to compensate for this.

The last phase of the vinyl mastering process began with the arrival of the first batches of test pressings made from master lacquers that had been sent to the two pressing plant factories. Stringent quality tests identified any noise or click appearing on more than one test pressing in the same place. If this happened, it was clear that the undesired sounds had been introduced either during the cutting or the pressing stage and so the test records were rejected. In the quest to achieve the highest quality possible, the Abbey Road team worked closely with the pressing factories and the manufacturers of the lacquer and cutting styli.

An additional and unusual challenge was to ensure the proper playback of the sounds embedded in the ‘lock-groove’ at the end of side two of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Requiring a combination of good timing and luck, it had always been a lengthy and costly process to make it work properly. In fact, it was so tricky, it had never been attempted for American pressings of the LP. Naturally, Sean Magee and the team perfected this and the garbled message is heard as originally intended on the remastered Sgt. Pepper LP.



27 September 2012
#7
27th September 2012
Old 27th September 2012
  #7
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 390

ds11 is offline
Can't they just make tape copies of the original mono master tapes and do an all-analog vinyl pressing from these duplicates?
#8
28th September 2012
Old 28th September 2012
  #8
Gear addict
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 303

Spartacus is offline
I don't understand why so much pain in this quest to retranscribe exactly what was the sound from that old days to cut the stereo version which was not the good one...
Why not Mono?

I was waiting since 2009 to get the mono's on vinyl...bummer...
Sim
#9
28th September 2012
Old 28th September 2012
  #9
Sim
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: London

Sim is offline
Makes sense Beatles was the most sold back catalogue of the last decade.
Sim
#10
28th September 2012
Old 28th September 2012
  #10
Sim
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: London

Sim is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds11 View Post
Can't they just make tape copies of the original mono master tapes and do an all-analog vinyl pressing from these duplicates?
I think it has something to do with who owns the physical recordings they were remastered so they could be re released.
I think using the original tapes would cost to much much money as their owned by a company (parlour?) who has lost it's physical copyrights over age (50years). They sold to who ever owns them now who then remastered in stereo from the original tapes for them to renew the physical recording copyright so they could make money out of it.

Basically it's cheaper to buy a license to distribute than it is to remaster in mono and get a copyright of mono tracks which i don't think is possible. Who ever owns the copyright would have to give them distribution license in mono so it's down to the copyright holder or the recordings.

But I could be wrong I suspect it's some legal reason.
#11
28th September 2012
Old 28th September 2012
  #11
Gear maniac
 
squirreltrench's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 174

squirreltrench is offline
I wasn't around for most of the Beatles releases when they were new, but this is highly amusing to me since I'm pretty sure that the appeal of the Beatles is the actual music contained on them, not how many ounces of vinyl were used in the groove-location-eq-compensated 24-bit transfer onto a plate of silver-encrusted roses with truffle-enhanced gravy biscuits.
__________________
Morriss Partee
Squirrel Trench Audio
Western Mass
Sim
#12
28th September 2012
Old 28th September 2012
  #12
Sim
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: London

Sim is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirreltrench View Post
I wasn't around for most of the Beatles releases when they were new, but this is highly amusing to me since I'm pretty sure that the appeal of the Beatles is the actual music contained on them, not how many ounces of vinyl were used in the groove-location-eq-compensated 24-bit transfer onto a plate of silver-encrusted roses with truffle-enhanced gravy biscuits.
Well this collection of albums is quit obviously a collectors item hence the price tag. Everyone else can use itunes.
#13
29th September 2012
Old 29th September 2012
  #13
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 248

totalgear is offline
Perhaps a 78rpm version transferred from wax cylinders?
Quote
1
jmpatrick
Thread Starter
#14
30th September 2012
Old 30th September 2012
  #14
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 22

Thread Starter
jmpatrick is offline
They've apparently announced a mono box set for 2013.
Sim
#15
3rd October 2012
Old 3rd October 2012
  #15
Sim
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: London

Sim is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpatrick View Post
They've apparently announced a mono box set for 2013.
Does that make it half price
#16
3rd October 2012
Old 3rd October 2012
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Mönchengladbach

whiteaxxxe is offline
if there is a choice to be made between making the vinyls from the 45+ years old tapes and the yet done digital transfers ... wtf? sure they use the best alternative: the digitals.
#17
3rd October 2012
Old 3rd October 2012
  #17
Lives for gear
 
analogtodd's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,447

analogtodd is offline
they wanted to keep the catalog consistent. Thats why the LP's are struck from the same masters as the CD's.

Also, ANY new sourced master would have to go back to Paul/Ringo/Yoko and it was deemed not worth the effort.
__________________
Silo Sound
The place to make records
www.silosound.com
Denver Colorado
todd@silosound.com
#18
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #18
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

houseofhits is offline
2012 Beatles Vinyl reissues

Hi. To all the people claiming the vinyl reissues will sound like the cd: no they won't, for 2 reasons. BTW I'm a recording engineer of 33+ yrs standing so can speak with some authority on this subject.

1 The 2009 transfers were done from analog in PCM at 192 kHz/24 bit. For cd they had to be down-sampled (sample rate reduced) to 44.1kHz, & dithered down (bit rate-reduced) to 16 bit. For the vinyl, they used the 2009 192/24 digital transfer remasters, straight out at that resolution to analog. That is HUGELY superior.

2 Vinyl is a better sounding medium than cd, period. Better soundstage width
& depth, better frequency response etc etc. if they'd used the cd masters (i.e 44.1/16 bit) for the vinyl, it'd STILL sound better than the cds, it's a more natural sounding medium. Just the change of state from digital to analog improves the fidelity.

Now, would they have sounded better doing a straight analog transfer from the stereo & mono analog masters to vinyl? Without a doubt. But they obsessed, as recording engineers tend to do, for four years over "faults"in the original masters that in fact millions upon millions of people have been blissfully unaware of for 40 + yrs, & given that was their mindset, went with the digital remasters. PCM digital (digital as almost everyone knows it) is an imperfect process, at best. What I believe they should've done is what the Stones did: archived from analog using Sony's Direct Stream Digital process (DSD). The domestic stereo version is called SACD (Super Audio CD). It's a much less compromised & substantially higher resolution digital format than PCM. If they'd done that, & offered the hi res (5.6 million samples per sec) DSD files for download, that'd be the closest we'll ever get in digital to hearing what the masters sound like. It's not too late EMI!
#19
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #19
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 248

totalgear is offline
And what would be the equivalent resolution of vinyl?

About 6 to 8 bits with a decent but not top of the line turntable and RIAA compensation curve.

However I do admire you optimism but it is just impossible for me to subscribe to it.

Enjoy the rumble, scratches and poorly reciprocal RIAA EQ.
#20
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #20
Lives for gear
 
sat159p1's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 818

sat159p1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post
if they'd used the cd masters (i.e 44.1/16 bit) for the vinyl, it'd STILL sound better than the cds, it's a more natural sounding medium.
I disagree. "the same" quality but:

1) degrade with time and every play
2) clicks and pops
3) noise floor

That's why I'm not buying any vinyl which is CD sourced. It just does not make sense!
__________________
"This is Gearslutz, it's all about paying for sh*t you can hardly hear, don't really need and few other people actually care about."
#21
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #21
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,734

narcoman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds11 View Post
Can't they just make tape copies of the original mono master tapes and do an all-analog vinyl pressing from these duplicates?
cus that wouldn't be stereo.

More importantly - that'd be lossy.
#22
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #22
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

houseofhits is offline
Sorry but you can't compare digital bits with vinyl replay. Apples & oranges. Find someone who has equivalent level turntable & cd player, about medium level (I have) & copies of the 2009 cds & good vinyl copies (I have) & do an A/B comparison. The vinyl wins, every time. There are many reasons for that, here's just one: cd players are encoded with a brick wall filter at 21Khz; records aren't, so communicate more air & space that affects stereo location, depth etc. The Abbey Rd guys did a good job with the 2009 remasters, but for the reasons listed in the previous post, the vinyl reissues will sound better than the cds. Do the comparison, then post what you hear. Analog resolution is linear, not samples with missing info in between. It's not perfect, but it is good. Digital is more convenient, sure. That's not the same as sound quality tho. Comes down to what's important to you.
#23
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #23
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,734

narcoman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post
1 The 2009 transfers were done from analog in PCM at 192 kHz/24 bit. For cd they had to be down-sampled (sample rate reduced) to 44.1kHz, & dithered down (bit rate-reduced) to 16 bit. For the vinyl, they used the 2009 192/24 digital transfer remasters, straight out at that resolution to analog. That is HUGELY superior.
Technically superior. Absolutely - and a much better archival medium. Wouldn't hear much in it though as has been round there mill a thousand times here! We even had that test a couple of years ago..... some egg on some faces!! hahah

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post
2 Vinyl is a better sounding medium than cd, period. Better soundstage width
& depth, better frequency response etc etc. if they'd used the cd masters (i.e 44.1/16 bit) for the vinyl, it'd STILL sound better than the cds, it's a more natural sounding medium. Just the change of state from digital to analog improves the fidelity.
Sound better? Subjectively better - I can go along with. Sure. Why not.. Objectively? Better frequency response? Absolutely not. Demonstrably and provably not. Might sound better but it's not technically better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post
Now, would they have sounded better doing a straight analog transfer from the stereo & mono analog masters to vinyl? Without a doubt. But they obsessed, as recording engineers tend to do, for four years over "faults"in the original masters that in fact millions upon millions of people have been blissfully unaware of for 40 + yrs, & given that was their mindset, went with the digital remasters. PCM digital (digital as almost everyone knows it) is an imperfect process, at best. What I believe they should've done is what the Stones did: archived from analog using Sony's Direct Stream Digital process (DSD). The domestic stereo version is called SACD (Super Audio CD). It's a much less compromised & substantially higher resolution digital format than PCM. If they'd done that, & offered the hi res (5.6 million samples per sec) DSD files for download, that'd be the closest we'll ever get in digital to hearing what the masters sound like. It's not too late EMI!
SACD & DSD have as many flaws as any PCM method (more distortion for a start). Different flaws argued in dozens of academic papers. There are many of us who have looked at SACD and DSD as a long term storage archive solution and for the record we've all done both for archive.

For the record - the Stones stuff is archived as PCM also. And the multis, where available, are in PT format. Got several of them here.

Why wouldn't they use the tapes directly? I'm sure Sean will chime in soon (I hope so - he's THE authority on such matters) but the age of then would make me nervous about using them in such a commercial venture. I'd be backing up to the latest PCM first (and maybe DSD if I felt inclined). Sounds like they did it the right way.
#24
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #24
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,734

narcoman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post
but for the reasons listed in the previous post, the vinyl reissues will sound better than the cds. Do the comparison, then post what you hear.
The Vinyl sounds better because they were the intended medium. Thats how they're supposed to sound. The CDs have other issues - too bright for a start!
Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post

Analog resolution is linear, not samples with missing info in between.
Uh oh!! repeated GS response alert! There is no information "missing" between samples. As has been discussed on here a million times in a million threads! The short version being - samples are band limited, potentially distorted and carry system noise due to quantisation error. What they don't do is miss information. All issues with digital are to do with the former and not the mythical latter.
Quote
1
#25
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #25
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

houseofhits is offline
Thats true narcoman, I was using a "layman's" analogy. Doesn't address the comparative subjective difference between the two mediums though. Give normal type i.e. non-audiophile type people w/o an axe to grind a listen to the vinyl & cd versions of the same record, & see the reaction.
#26
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #26
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,734

narcoman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post
Thats true narcoman, I was using a "layman's" analogy. Doesn't address the comparative subjective difference between the two mediums though. Give normal type i.e. non-audiophile type people w/o an axe to grind a listen to the vinyl & cd versions of the same record, & see the reaction.
Yup. Fair enough.

Gonna order the box set? My originals are a little worn!! haha
#27
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #27
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

houseofhits is offline
Re narcomans post b4 last one, yes, DSD has flaws, all capture mediums have flaws, but they're more academic than cd (PCM) digital, thats all. Infrasonic noise above 100kHz? Sure, DSD appears to have that, but it's a lot less deleterious to the audio than PCM's anti-aliasing filters etc. I have a studio with an Ampex 16 track 2" machine. When I mix from that to DSD, it's the only digital format where the difference to the multitrack is infinitesimal. Re vinyl frequency response: certainly vinyl will, given it's encoded there in the first place, replay frequencies higher than the 21kHz that cd replay is band limited to. Thats the tragedy of the commercial failure of SACD. It sounds much better than red book cd. Beta & VHS all over again. People default to convenience, hence mp3s. Just a fraction of the original info, that's all. Doesn't have to be that way. If Neil Young's PONO thing gets off the ground, could be a great thing. He just wants music to sound great again.
#28
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #28
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

houseofhits is offline
Re the fragility or otherwise of the Beatles masters, all comments I've read by Abbey Rd staff are that they're in great condition. The tape they used (their own formulation, EMItape) apparently isn't prone to shedding ala certain periods of Ampex tape stock, among others. Of course being EMI, & given the commercial worth of the Beatles masters in particular, they've been meticulous stored in climate controlled vaults. And of course to make vinyl, it goes thru the mechanical processes of transfer from the master tape to mothers, stampers etc so once that's done it's not like they're using the master tape over & over.
There's a bit of mythology about the hardiness of tape. I've baked countless shedding rolls of tape, & done right they come up fine. But given the worth, in every sense, of the Beatles masters, you can't blame EMI for wanting to use them as little as possible.
#29
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #29
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,734

narcoman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by houseofhits View Post
Re the fragility or otherwise of the Beatles masters, all comments I've read by Abbey Rd staff are that they're in great condition. The tape they used (their own formulation, EMItape) apparently isn't prone to shedding ala certain periods of Ampex tape stock, among others. Of course being EMI, & given the commercial worth of the Beatles masters in particular, they've been meticulous stored in climate controlled vaults. And of course to make vinyl, it goes thru the mechanical processes of transfer from the master tape to mothers, stampers etc so once that's done it's not like they're using the master tape over & over.
There's a bit of mythology about the hardiness of tape. I've baked countless shedding rolls of tape, & done right they come up fine. But given the worth, in every sense, of the Beatles masters, you can't blame EMI for wanting to use them as little as possible.
Absolutely. they're great tapes. But they're the only masters!!! Best not to run 50 year old priceless items over and over!!
#30
10th December 2012
Old 10th December 2012
  #30
drake.ch
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 640

jimdrake is offline
Vinyl is band limited to 15k ?
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Lou Judson / The Good News Channel
2
tone4407 / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
10
reallyjake / Product Alerts older than 2 months
45
Gorney / Mastering forum
5

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.