Login / Register
 
Would a Big Ben improve my Motu 2408mkII??
New Reply
Subscribe
SMT
Thread Starter
#1
22nd August 2006
Old 22nd August 2006
  #1
Gear maniac
 
SMT's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 226

Thread Starter
Send a message via MSN to SMT
SMT is offline
Would a Big Ben improve my Motu 2408mkII??

I heard it from someone that with using a masterclock (like Big Ben) would improve my Motu 2408mkII converter. Has anyone tried it??

My setup today is one 2408mkII + 2 Alesis Ai3 = 24 I/O

Is the Big Ben concidered THE best masterclock?
SK1
#2
22nd August 2006
Old 22nd August 2006
  #2
SK1
Lives for gear
 
SK1's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,143

SK1 is offline
Yes it will improve the sound and reduce jitter.

However if I were in your shoes I'd buy AT LEAST 2 quality channels of ad/da and clock off that. That way, your taking a nice big step w/ tracking and monitoring.

Good luck !!

#3
22nd August 2006
Old 22nd August 2006
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,776

Ashermusic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK1 View Post
Yes it will improve the sound and reduce jitter.

However if I were in your shoes I'd buy AT LEAST 2 quality channels of ad/da and clock off that. That way, your taking a nice big step w/ tracking and monitoring.

Good luck !!

It may or may not improve the sound in your judgement but it will NOT reduce jitter when clocking a a single interface. Read Dan Lavry's posts and white paper on the subject. It is against the laws of physics.
#4
22nd August 2006
Old 22nd August 2006
  #4
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 21,145

theblue1 is offline
Ditto Ashermusic. No one can say, for sure, what you are going to like best but it seems fairly well established that an external clock source will increase the possibility/likelihood of jitter in modern standalone AD. (The unit's internal clock is in a far better position to feed accurate clock to the sampling circuits than an external unit.)

Of course, with a number of interfaces, an external clock in a star topology may well produce the least amount of problems (daisy-chaining a number of interfaces for clock gets problematic). But for modern, professional equipment, the possibility of actually improving the sampling accuracy of a single AD interface with an external clock source is... let's be nice... extremely minimal.


Still, it's obvious that a lot of folks are utterly convinced that the addition of something like a Big Ben gives them a sound they like better (leading some to suggest that what they probably like is the sound of jitter ). But if they LIKE it, they like it, and no one can argue with that.
#5
22nd August 2006
Old 22nd August 2006
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Chris Parsons's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 712

Send a message via AIM to Chris Parsons
Chris Parsons is offline
We added a Lucid GenX6 to our 2408mkII and noticed better imageing right off the bat. It's also much cheaper than the bigben.
__________________
******A proud user of 44.1/24******
http://www.pforeststudio.com
#6
22nd August 2006
Old 22nd August 2006
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,499

Snatchman is offline
SOT....how good is the Genx-96 (Lucid) clock? I've considered getting one to slave my Presonus Digi-Max LT with. Think it will make a difference? Thanks......
__________________
Thanks for your time and ears!
SK1
#7
23rd August 2006
Old 23rd August 2006
  #7
SK1
Lives for gear
 
SK1's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,143

SK1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashermusic View Post
It may or may not improve the sound in your judgement but it will NOT reduce jitter when clocking a a single interface. Read Dan Lavry's posts and white paper on the subject. It is against the laws of physics.

I guess I missed that one. I'll read it. Thank you.

I do recall that when I got the ad16x, the da's sounded better on my motu clocked off the apogee (supposedly the same clock as big ben). None of the small digital clicks that had been bothering me before. This was on material previously recorded with the motu. Definitely a noticeable difference.
Soooo ...........
I'm pretty sure I didn't just imagine clicks on playback going away ......

I would still say to go with at least a solid 2 channels of ad/da.
#8
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #8
Lives for gear
 
uncle duncan's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,996

uncle duncan is offline
Getting your 2408 upgraded at Black Lion would give you sound quality comparable to a good 2 channel AD, at one-fourth the cost. They put in better op amps for the A/D conversion, and they can also put in a clock that is supposedly comparable to a Big Ben. But the clock mod means the unit has to be the master, so you got to assess your situation and decide of that's a good idea.
#9
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #9
Gear addict
 
Flora's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Portland. Or
Posts: 428

Flora is offline
ive noticed recently that everything is better than everything else, try that
#10
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #10
Lives for gear
 
goldphinga's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,931

goldphinga is online now
just stop dithering about and buy a new interface!

buy a new ad to da b4 you waste money on an expensive clock that may or may not improve your motu.

whats the point of going to the hassle of a black lion mod.by the time youve spent the cash on the mod and shipping you could have a brand new interface.

my 2 pence worth!
#11
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #11
Banned
 
Zwinter's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 639

Zwinter is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashermusic View Post
It may or may not improve the sound in your judgement but it will NOT reduce jitter when clocking a a single interface. Read Dan Lavry's posts and white paper on the subject. It is against the laws of physics.
Yeah, some people say that an external clock cannot improve the sound and that it defies the laws of physics. But the last time I next music wasn't about physics; it’s about what sounds good. You should find a store that will let you purchase a Big Ben and try it with your specific setup (who has a liberal return policy in case it doesn't work out). If it improves your sound then great keep it, but if you don't like what the Big Ben does then return it.
#12
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #12
Gear maniac
 
tubejay's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 192

tubejay is offline
If I were you I'd either just buy a different interface (say a D24 based protools system with an 888/24, which would cost about the same as selling your system and the cost of a big ben). Either that or buy some kick ass mic pres or compressors. You'll notice a much bigger difference either way.

If you're noticing pops in your music, you should just get a different system altogether. There's a problem there.
#13
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #13
Lives for gear
 
orange's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,689

orange is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwinter View Post
Yeah, some people say that an external clock cannot improve the sound and that it defies the laws of physics. But the last time I next music wasn't about physics; it’s about what sounds good.
I don't think he's asking if it will improve his 'music' - but if it will improve the quality of his convertors.

Music isn't about physics, that's true, (although music is a very close relative to MATHEMATICS) ........but this forum is about GEAR and that most definitely IS releated to physics - either that or it is MAGIC ELVES designing the equipment we are discussing.

Sorry for the sarcasm but it's getting tiring to read the same old "it's not the gear it's the music" arguements - this is GEARSLUTZ where we discuss these kinds of details. To just disregard a reasonable and rational arguement with a "SCIENCE HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY HERE" type response is a bit cheap.

I will agree that there is possibly some doubt about the physics involved and therefore the original poster should make up his own mind as you suggest - although I think Ashermusic just about nailed it.

my 2p

si
#14
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #14
Gear nut
 
Open Sky's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 145

Open Sky is offline
Anyone else who has had the Black Lion mod done to their 2408mkII?
#15
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,776

Ashermusic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwinter View Post
Yeah, some people say that an external clock cannot improve the sound and that it defies the laws of physics. But the last time I next music wasn't about physics; it’s about what sounds good.
No that is NOT what I said. I said it could not improve jitter. Your statement is about sound; that is subjective. Jitter is a physical property that is governed by the laws of physics; that is objective.

And BTW, music is a good deal about physics. I am no scientist but it behooves us all as musicians to try to understand a little about it. Dan Lavry, Mika Aldrich and Bob Katz have been a big help to me in this.
#16
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #16
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 21,145

theblue1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwinter View Post
Yeah, some people say that an external clock cannot improve the sound and that it defies the laws of physics. But the last time I next music wasn't about physics; it’s about what sounds good. You should find a store that will let you purchase a Big Ben and try it with your specific setup (who has a liberal return policy in case it doesn't work out). If it improves your sound then great keep it, but if you don't like what the Big Ben does then return it.
Yeah -- but designing an accurate interface IS about physics.

If you like the sound of increased jitter -- fine. That's your business.

But I hope -- particularly as a vendor with a vested interest in selling people extra hardware -- that you will scrupulously avoid making the claim that an external clock source will tend to improve the accuracy of sampling of a single AD.

Because that would be verifiable bs.

People seem to make a lot of money selling external clocks.

In a multiple interface rig, with a star topology, an external clock might give needed flexibility, though the lowest jitter will probably result from low jitter devices in series, according to Dan Lavry.

But feeding an external clock source to a stanalone AD will tend to increase the likelihood of inaccurate sampling. Some people may like the results of that inaccuracy -- and no one can tell them they don't. It's purely subjective.

But it's important to consider the difference and to be extremely careful about one's marketing claims. People may expect that kind of stuff on the floor of a crowded Guitar Center on Saturday afternoon... but getting caught in that kind of misinformation will NOT increase trust in you or your employer.
#17
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #17
Lives for gear
 
uncle duncan's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,996

uncle duncan is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldphinga View Post
just stop dithering about and buy a new interface!

whats the point of going to the hassle of a black lion mod.by the time youve spent the cash on the mod and shipping you could have a brand new interface.

my 2 pence worth!
The Black Lion mod for the 2408 is $240 without the clock, $345 including the clock. Add $40 for shipping. If you were to not mod your 2408 and sell it, what would you get for it? $600? Add $385 to that and you're back to buying a $1000 interface that will suck just as bad as your 2408 does now.

The main thing is, better mics and pres will still have to go through your interface, so, until you upgrade it, that's going to be the weak link in your chain.
#18
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 617

mrface2112 is offline
call it BS, call it increased jitter, call it against the laws of physics......but i can tell you that when i plugged in my Apogee MiniMe as the master clock for my Delta 1010, the stereo imaging and depth dramatically improved, the highs softened (became less harsh) and the low end tightened up considerably.

call it what you will, but it's all around better sounding now. i certainly can't argue with that. and i wouldn't at all be surprised if a similar result is seen with the motu interface as well.


cheers,
wade
#19
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #19
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 21,145

theblue1 is offline
I also commend the writings of Dan Lavry to those who want to sort out the science from the subjective opinion from the unsupportable and scientifically inaccurate claims.

Lavry, as many probably know, was a pioneer in sampler design, working first in medical equipment design in the 70s (a field where equipment marketing claims tend to be subjected to extremely rigorous testing processes) and moved into audio at the dawn of the (commercial) digital audio age.

Many may also be aware that he was intimately involved with the design of the first Apogee converters.

And, of course, his very expensive converters are among the most coveted in the audio world.

Lavry seems to be an inveterate straight-talker who does not suffer fools easily.

(I was personally -- if somewhat gently -- scolded in these very BB pages, causing me to say something to myself like, "Who's this Dan Lavry guy, anyhow, and what makes him think he's qualified to tell ME anything?" When I researched the answer to that question, I decided that, yes, indeedy, he was very much qualified to tell me what was what and plenty more besides.)

Anyhow, he's got a forum at PSW that, unfortunately, has been compromised by PSW censoring/deleting at least one thread that ruffled the feathers of a large manufacturer whose reps had made some seemingly inaccurate claims: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/f/38/15450/

Still, it has some lively -- and sometimes quite funny -- threads.


After the censorship/thread deletion issue, Lavry moved some of his discussion to the BB on his own company's site:

www.lavryengineering.com


Lavry wrote what many feel is an excellent guide to sampling theory and its implications for us recording engineers which is also available on his website along with some other articles and white papers.


______________

Here's a bit pertinent to today's discussion. Lavry [who seems to be a hasty typist] is answering a question in his PSW forum:
Quote:
You are correct to say "Dan Lavry believes that external clocks can RARELY (if ever) make any system sound better than using a device's internal clock".

I would go much further then that: it is not about what I believe, it is about engineering.

I believe that people hear a difference between external clock boxes, and between internal and external clocking. Any and everyone is entitled to their subjective likes and dislikes.

It is a fact that jitter creates rather unpleasant distortions (non harmonic) and in most cases it increases the noise floor.
Yet, one can decide they like more noise, harsh distortions... all that is rather surprising, but not arguable because it is subjective.

But those that push the notion that an external clock will improve the sound, are not just saying that the sound will be altered, that some people will like it, others will not. The claim here is that there will be an improvement. That claim really translates to "more jitter is good". Of course no one is ready to state publicly that "more jitter is good", and most often the proponents of external clocking will go out of their way to convince you that they are providing with less jitter.
Less jitter the internal clock? A good internal clock provides a lot less jitter then the best of all external clocks.

In the case of internal clocking, one relays on a local fixed crystal aimed at keeping the frequency constant. That crystal circuit would be positioned near the AD, to minimize interference.

For external clocking, one may Begin with an equal quality crystal circuit inside the clock box, but the signal has to go through a driver, cable, receiver and yet another crystal circuit, all with some frequency locking circuitry...All of that is a lot more jitter.

So in order to overcome the above stated reality, there are stories floating around, that a clock box sends signals that improve the AD clocking. This is of course impossible, because one can not improve without knowing what needs to be improved. The clock box gets to send the signal to an AD, but it is a one way communication, and the AD does not tell the clock box what it is doing. In other words, a doctor can not heal a patient without seeing talking or having any communication with the patient.

The clock box can not send a better word clock then a simple square wave with the lowest possible jitter. Putting the same clock inside, eliminates many of the elements piled up in series between the clock source and the AD.

Of course there are times when one needs to use external clocks, and in such cases, a mediocre clock (say 25ps jitter is about as good as a theoretical 0ps clock, because by the time the clock shows up the AD most of the performance will be determined by the ability of the receiving AD to reject the jitter. Given the same quality level of design, an internal clock will be better, so external clocking it is a trade-off, not an improvement. With good gear the damage is small, but it should not be viewed as an improvement.
#20
24th August 2006
Old 24th August 2006
  #20
Banned
 
Zwinter's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 639

Zwinter is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashermusic View Post
No that is NOT what I said. I said it could not improve jitter. Your statement is about sound; that is subjective. Jitter is a physical property that is governed by the laws of physics; that is objective.

And BTW, music is a good deal about physics. I am no scientist but it behooves us all as musicians to try to understand a little about it. Dan Lavry, Mika Aldrich and Bob Katz have been a big help to me in this.
I am sorry about that. You are absolutely right; you said it would not improve jitter. The only thing that I am trying to bring up is that sometimes it's not about specs. While the physics and objective aspect of using an external clock may tell us that there is no way (unless the unit being externally clock has an absolutely terrible internal clock) there will ever be less jitter, this doesn't mean that it will sound better.

I am happy to discuss facts and specs, but eventually it comes down to the subjective aspect of whether or not people like it

Again, I am sorry about misrepresenting what you said.
SK1
#21
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #21
SK1
Lives for gear
 
SK1's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,143

SK1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrface2112 View Post
call it BS, call it increased jitter, call it against the laws of physics......but i can tell you that when i plugged in my Apogee MiniMe as the master clock for my Delta 1010, the stereo imaging and depth dramatically improved, the highs softened (became less harsh) and the low end tightened up considerably.

call it what you will, but it's all around better sounding now. i certainly can't argue with that. and i wouldn't at all be surprised if a similar result is seen with the motu interface as well.


cheers,
wade
That's what I'm talking about !

If it wasn't jitter that improved, then what made the low end, highs and depth noticably better ???

It seems I'm not the only one to have experienced this.

Again, thanks for all the info.
#22
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 617

mrface2112 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK1 View Post
That's what I'm talking about !

If it wasn't jitter that improved, then what made the low end, highs and depth noticably better ???

It seems I'm not the only one to have experienced this.
like i said, i can't tell you WHAT was responsible. i've read dan's writings on it and i follow the physics and what he's saying is completely sound. i agree--it *shouldn't* make a difference.

but i tell you this, i was working on a mix one evening recently and something just didn't sound right. i started poking around and realised that the minime wasn't hooked up (i use it for location recording too and had disconnected it). i hooked it up and the highend EQ i was adding didn't make me cringe and everything just came into focus.

so my rational brain knows it "shouldn't" make a difference what i'm clocking from, but i can only trust my ears, and i can definitely *hear* a difference.

as always, YMMV.


cheers,
wade
#23
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #23
Gear Guru
 
tINY's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Orygun
Posts: 12,089

tINY is offline


Often, less accuracy will sound better, especially with electronic music. If you add harmonic content becase of a little more, well-behaved jitter, sometimes it sounds a little fuller and more shimmery.

But I don't think that any sales dweeb is gonna be able to pull off the "it sounds better because it's not as good" thing to anybody not in a punk band.

I prefer to add that with mics, large rooms and real instruments. Of course, all the differences are subtile and it always sounds better if you pay more money, right?

I have some specially aged balanced line cables that make patches sound creamier - I might part with a few, cause I need a new Jag......





-tINY

#24
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #24
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 21,145

theblue1 is offline
People intentionally use all kinds of FX (which are, of course, a form of controlled distortion) when they record, so there's nothing to say folks can't prefer one sound over another no matter how it's arrived at, seems to me.

The only problem a lot of us have is when someone suggests that using an external clock will produce greater accuracy in sampling which would, indeed, seem to fly in the face of what appears to be well-established science.


If there was a button on my rig that, when engaged, consistently produced what I considered a better sound, I guess I'd consider keeping it engaged, too...

Then again, someone probably said that about Aural Exciters once...


#25
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #25
Banned
 
Zwinter's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 639

Zwinter is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Yeah -- but designing an accurate interface IS about physics.

If you like the sound of increased jitter -- fine. That's your business.

But I hope -- particularly as a vendor with a vested interest in selling people extra hardware -- that you will scrupulously avoid making the claim that an external clock source will tend to improve the accuracy of sampling of a single AD.

Because that would be verifiable bs.

People seem to make a lot of money selling external clocks.

In a multiple interface rig, with a star topology, an external clock might give needed flexibility, though the lowest jitter will probably result from low jitter devices in series, according to Dan Lavry.

But feeding an external clock source to a stanalone AD will tend to increase the likelihood of inaccurate sampling. Some people may like the results of that inaccuracy -- and no one can tell them they don't. It's purely subjective.

But it's important to consider the difference and to be extremely careful about one's marketing claims. People may expect that kind of stuff on the floor of a crowded Guitar Center on Saturday afternoon... but getting caught in that kind of misinformation will NOT increase trust in you or your employer.
I wasn't trying to argue about the increase of jitter. I have certainly read all of Dan Lavry's papers and understand his points. The only thing that I was trying to say was for this person to make up their own mind. Buying gear should be about someone personal enjoyment of the sonic experience. In my opinion, it shouldn't be about any spec.

Just so I am clear, I told this guy to try a Big Ben with his setup and keep it only if he feels it improves his sound, which means that if it doesn't improve his sound I would hope he returns it.
#26
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #26
Lives for gear
 
orange's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,689

orange is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwinter View Post
Just so I am clear, I told this guy to try a Big Ben with his setup and keep it only if he feels it improves his sound, which means that if it doesn't improve his sound I would hope he returns it.
that's great, but the guy posted here asking for our opinion - maybe he can't afford to buy one to try, maybe he's just doing some research. A dealer like yourself just saying "buy one and see if you like it" isn't very helpful, neither is a bit of a patronising "music ain't about physics" - That's the kind of service you would get in guitar center.

To answer the original question:
In my view the BB will clock your studio perfectly IF YOU NEED A MASTER CLOCK, but I wouldn't buy one as a "band aid" for cheap convertors. Additionally there are other master clocks that will do the same/similar job as the BB for less money.

FWIW I bought a BB !

si
#27
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #27
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 21,145

theblue1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwinter View Post
I wasn't trying to argue about the increase of jitter. I have certainly read all of Dan Lavry's papers and understand his points. The only thing that I was trying to say was for this person to make up their own mind. Buying gear should be about someone personal enjoyment of the sonic experience. In my opinion, it shouldn't be about any spec.

Just so I am clear, I told this guy to try a Big Ben with his setup and keep it only if he feels it improves his sound, which means that if it doesn't improve his sound I would hope he returns it.
Yeah... I wouldn't want to make it sound like you were saying something you didn't say. But I'm concerned that there are so many people who ARE making statements that are clearly ill-founded. It's one thing for someone to suggest as you and others have that someone may like the sound of external clocking on a single interface better -- no one can argue about subjective appreciation.

It's when some folks assert that that sound is "better" in the sense that it is more accurate that a line gets crossed.

I'm sorry if I smudged your position with regard to that line. Thanks for the reiteration/clarification.
DAS
#28
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #28
DAS
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 71

DAS is offline
What if the box changes the character of the jitter. For instance, it could push the center frequency of it above or below the range of audibility. Sure, perhaps there is "more" jitter, but who cares as it is no longer creating sidebands that are in the audible range. Food for thought.

David Stewart
#29
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #29
Gear Guru
 
tINY's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Orygun
Posts: 12,089

tINY is offline


If you have enough jitter that the side bands are beyond audiability, you will have some other, huge, problems.



-tINY

DAS
#30
25th August 2006
Old 25th August 2006
  #30
DAS
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 71

DAS is offline
But it's not entirely an issue of the quantity of jitter. It's where it is located - what its characteristics are.
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
Parisongs / So much gear, so little time!
26
Sergievsky / High end
184
Aloha / So much gear, so little time!
3

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.