The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 6th July 2016
  #5431
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Science also demonstrates that a population will exhibit a range of capabilities and attributes - innate/genetic and learnt culturally. Nature vs nurture.
Did anyone deny this?

Quote:
If the aim of science (as you describe it) is to utilise the best methods then why draw a conclusion before a chi-squared test (or similar) is done?
We can only draw conclusions from the best evidence available. If new evidence challenges that conclusion then that should be included and possibly the conclusions should be revised but that shouldn't stop us from drawing any conclusions before that new evidence is available. That would make no sense. It would basically bring all science and all understanding to a stand still because there is always the possibility of another study or another analysis of the data giving a different conclusion just around the corner.

It is also the old but logically flawed "Science doesn't know everything" argument made by the superstitious and religious. It is wishful thinking and often an intellectually cheap cop-out by those proven wrong.

Quote:
ABX testing is just one tool. Surely any conclusion would include a proviso that different studies could add to scientific understanding?
Who denied this? Why are you specifically bringing up ABX testing when responding to my post? You seem to be arguing against points not made.

Quote:
In the context of the thread, what I would refer to as a 'proper scientific study' should include an analysis of distribution over a population and better control of variables and meta-data: the ABX test might be a useful in a subset of enquiry but a more advanced study might rule out (or in) ability across a population in different groups defined by age, exposure, education, etc.

If these analysis tools are available shouldn't we as scientists use them?
Sure but that doesn't mean that until better studies and more evidence is available that "everything goes" and one can draw any and every conclusion from the currently available evidence. And for the record, we have been testing human hearing ability for decades... if there really was an easily noticeable difference as so many claim, it seems rather unlikely that there wouldn't already be staggeringly solid evidence to support this. Some people choose to ignore this rather obvious point.[1] Or to put it more crudely: Occam's razor tells us higher sample rates for delivery formats are nonsense.

Currently, the burden of proof for higher sample rates for delivery formats is still very much on the side of the believers and snake oil salesmen.

[1] I think this is often due to people believing they are special and have "super human" hearing. They might indeed have better than average hearing but it is up to them to demonstrate this.

Alistair
Old 6th July 2016
  #5432
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Did anyone deny this?
You didn't mention it despite it's relevance in the context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
We can only draw conclusions from the best evidence available...
...using the best available analysis tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...If new evidence challenges that conclusion then that should be included and possibly the conclusions should be revised but that shouldn't stop us from drawing any conclusions before that new evidence is available. That would make no sense. It would basically bring all science and all understanding to a stand still because there is always the possibility of another study or another analysis of the data giving a different conclusion just around the corner.
Exactly my point to you. Given that chi-squared testing is so ubiquitous then why draw such a stong conclusion (without a stated proviso) based on one type of test which is limited in the range of information it can reveal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...It is also the old but logically flawed "Science doesn't know everything" argument made by the superstitious and religious. It is wishful thinking and often an intellectually cheap cop-out by those proven wrong.
Using the best available tools is what science requires; many scientific claims in this thread are based on a subset of those available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...Who denied this? Why are you specifically bringing up ABX testing when responding to my post? You seem to be arguing against points not made.
So you do not deny that ABX testing is one tool and other tools can add to scientific understanding. What data do you base your claims about snake oil and superstition on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...Sure but that doesn't mean that until better studies and more evidence is available that "everything goes" and one can draw any and every conclusion from the currently available evidence.
Of course not; but equally it doesn't allow one to draw a strong conclusion without proviso.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...And for the record, we have been testing human hearing ability for decades...
For the record: The Ebers Papyrus discussed the management and treatment of hearing loss 3500 years ago and that is just the oldest surviving written account; pre-literate societies were probably practising audiology 80,000+ years ago given the evidence of expert trepanning during this period.
Hippocrates wrote about differential diagnoses in audiology around 2500 years ago; Celsus 2000 years ago. Hadrian, Galen; Alexander of Tralles and others using bells and special instruments to stimulate the ear over 1000 years ago.
I think it's safe to say, for the record, that we have been testing a range of human hearing ability since at least the Middle Ages e.g. John Riolanus (1580-1657) notes that residents close to the falls of the Nile suffer hearing loss.

History of Audiology

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...if there really was an easily noticeable difference as so many claim, it seems rather unlikely that there wouldn't already be staggeringly solid evidence to support this. Some people choose to ignore this rather obvious point. Or to put it more crudely: Occam's razor tells us higher sample rates for delivery formats are nonsense...
IMO Occams Razor is fine for practicality but not for strong scientific certainty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...Currently, the burden of proof for higher sample rates for delivery formats is still very much on the side of the believers and snake oil salesmen.
That's your opinion and I respect that you have that opinion - I'm not trying to convince you that you are incorrect about Pono but I am questioning some of the assumptions drawn based on a narrow interpretation of 'science.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...I think this is often due to people believing they are special and have "super human" hearing. They might indeed have better than average hearing but it is up to them to demonstrate this.
I totally agree; 'belief' is part of the story but so is 'capability' and the best way to demonstrate any potential range in capability is through chi-squared or similar analysis. Obviously there are many studies which use these methods and they do indeed show a range of capability affected by genetics, phenotype, and environmental factors such as disease, exposure to different sounds or education.

I don't know of specific population studies relating to 'pro/consumer audio' (e.g. checking for age, education, illness, geneology, environment, etc.); I have designed a population study suitable for distribution analysis which could be run via Gearslutz but currently I'm waay too busy. It might pop up in the future though.

I'm not that interested or suprised that there is a range of opinion about Pono - after all a binary opposition is characteristic of human group psychology. What I do care about - apart from gear! - is good audio.

Best wishes Alistair and thank you for an interesting discussion.
Old 21st July 2016
  #5433
Gear Head
 

Excellent argumentation, UnderTow! I couldn't agree more. I conducted a survey some time ago on our ability to tell CD and AAC 256 apart, motivated in part by the nonsense of the Pono project and its ridiculous claims on which it was based. Check out the results if you are interested: https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-...-test-results/
Old 24th July 2016
  #5434
Gear Maniac
 
EricBradley's Avatar
 

Good luck trying to use the store the nearest month or so.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...gital-omnifone
Old 25th July 2016
  #5435
Lives for gear
 
skira's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricBradley View Post
Good luck trying to use the store the nearest month or so.

Neil Young's PonoMusic Store Goes Offline as It Switches Content Providers | Billboard
Beginning of the end? Apparently Pono say the rug got ripped out under their music hosting and delivery backend when Omnifone got acquired by a mystery buyer, but what has happened is rather curious - any buyer would seemingly want to continue with revenue from customers of their acquired company, unless the buyout was solely for IP or employee talent.

In the mean time, an original Kickstarter backer has had enough and just launched ponosucks.com
Old 25th July 2016
  #5436
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Beginning of the end? Apparently Pono say the rug got ripped out under their music hosting and delivery backend when Omnifone got acquired by a mystery buyer, but what has happened is rather curious - any buyer would seemingly want to continue with revenue from customers of their acquired company, unless the buyout was solely for IP or employee talent.
They were not doing well so their IP is probably the most interesting bit:

Digital music firm Omnifone placed into administration

Alistair
Old 26th July 2016
  #5437
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Pono sounds fantastic. It is a very well designed player.
Pricing on new hi-res releases on Pono site is bogus, however.
Old 26th July 2016
  #5438
No one outside the US or Canada can use their store (which is now closed to everyone anyway) YEARS after the initial Kickstarter. Very happy I went with a Fiio X5 instead.
Old 29th July 2016
  #5439
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Pono must. Have had a bad contract. That or they dropped the ball and didn't find a new distributor.

When somebody already owns your company's name.com and even worse it is a adult entertainment website look out!
Old 29th July 2016
  #5440
Suckers got sucked. As much as I love some of the amazing music Mr. Young has been involved with over the years, he clearly hasn't got a clue when it comes to digital audio or business acumen.
Old 29th July 2016
  #5441
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Pono must. Have had a bad contract. That or they dropped the ball and didn't find a new distributor.

When somebody already owns your company's name.com and even worse it is a adult entertainment website look out!
I can forgive the name, and even their business worries. I have a hard time getting over their hype.
Old 29th July 2016
  #5442
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Pono must. Have had a bad contract. That or they dropped the ball and didn't find a new distributor.

When somebody already owns your company's name.com and even worse it is a adult entertainment website look out!
Actuallly what possibly happened is someone was not keeping up with things and dropped the ball on the domain name renewal. It's being cyber squatted now. Or otherwise known as Domain parked.
Someone wants to make some money off of i. As for the porno links on it that is just typical domain name parking links that are sold to users who own the sites on the links( click through points) to make money off it. Mean while it's parked and up for sale possibly to someone in that industry.

Did he ever own Pono.com ? I only went to the website once early on and never went back.
Old 30th July 2016
  #5443
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
Actuallly what possibly happened is someone was not keeping up with things and dropped the ball on the domain name renewal. It's being cyber squatted now. Or otherwise known as Domain parked.
Someone wants to make some money off of i. As for the porno links on it that is just typical domain name parking links that are sold to users who own the sites on the links( click through points) to make money off it. Mean while it's parked and up for sale possibly to someone in that industry.

Did he ever own Pono.com ? I only went to the website once early on and never went back.
To my knowledge they never owned the pono dot com site. They have always had that Pono.force.com site.
Old 30th July 2016
  #5444
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post

In the mean time, an original Kickstarter backer has had enough and just launched ponosucks.com
PONO SUCKS

Wow - That's some rant!
Old 10th October 2016
  #5445
Quote:
A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Over the last decade, there has been considerable debate over the benefits of recording and rendering high resolution audio beyond standard CD quality audio. This research involved a systematic review and meta-analysis (combining the results of numerous independent studies) to assess the ability of test subjects to perceive a difference between high resolution and standard (16 bit, 44.1 or 48 kHz) audio. Eighteen published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis that combined over 400 participants in more than 12,500 trials. Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. This result was verified by a sensitivity analysis exploring different choices for the chosen studies and different analysis approaches. Potential biases in studies, effect of test methodology, experimental design, and choice of stimuli were also investigated. The overall conclusion is that the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain can be affected by operating beyond conventional resolution.

Author: Reiss, Joshua D.
Affiliation: Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
JAES Volume 64 Issue 6 pp. 364-379; June 2016
Publication Date:June 27, 2016

Free PDF download for anyone interested:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591
Old 10th October 2016
  #5446
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Free PDF download for anyone interested:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591
An extremely flawed Meta Analysis than contains experiments that don't even test sampling rates.

According to the results of this meta analysis, it is easier to distinguish CD audio from low bit rate MP3 than "Hi-Rez" audio from low bit rate MP3:



What should one conclude from that?

These results show how poor the quality of the included studies really are.

Alistair
Old 10th October 2016
  #5447
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
An extremely flawed Meta Analysis than contains experiments that don't even test sampling rates.

According to the results of this meta analysis, it is easier to distinguish CD audio from low bit rate MP3 than "Hi-Rez" audio from low bit rate MP3:



What should one conclude from that?

These results show how poor the quality of the included studies really are.

Alistair
The first thing I'd like to conclude is where the diagram you posted is from? and which meta-analysis you are referring to? Thanks.
Old 10th October 2016
  #5448
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Free PDF download for anyone interested:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591
this meta-analysis has been quoted in a number of other threads that touch upon the general topic of sample rates and whether they make a rat's behind of difference to the human listener

I think the most telling comment in one of those other threads was from comfortablynick who said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by comfortablynick View Post
I sure hope the next "improvement" in audio quality doesn't require a meta-analysis decades down the road to figure out if we can actually hear a difference or not!

The fact that it requires this much scrutiny after 15-20 years should help us all recognize that any difference (if it exists) is well below the noise floor of our anecdotal experiences. It's simply too small for us to distinguish without using a tool such as ABX to be absolutely sure.
And here we are, living in a world where the ABX's themselves are so marginal and divided that only a meta-analysis (and one that has been strongly challenged, at that) can even attempt to show a positive result! A slight statistical edge.

This is so far away from the people jumping out of Neil's car foaming at the mouth about how it is the "best sound I ever heard" or the ridiculous diagrams that show 'lesser' formats to be "underwater" and only at 96k and above can you even 'breathe'.

IF it holds up, and is confirmed by subsequent testing (a big If) what you will have is 'bragging rights' for your point of view. What you will still not have is a player actually worth the $400 they are asking for it, never mind the premium price for content.
Old 10th October 2016
  #5449
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this meta-analysis has been quoted in a number of other threads that touch upon the general topic of sample rates and whether they make a rat's behind of difference to the human listener

I think the most telling comment in one of those other threads was from comfortablynick who said:



And here we are, living in a world where the ABX's themselves are so marginal and divided that only a meta-analysis (and one that has been strongly challenged, at that) can even attempt to show a positive result! A slight statistical edge.

This is so far away from the people jumping out of Neil's car foaming at the mouth about how it is the "best sound I ever heard" or the ridiculous diagrams that show 'lesser' formats to be "underwater" and only at 96k and above can you even 'breathe'.

IF it holds up, and is confirmed by subsequent testing (a big If) what you will have is 'bragging rights' for your point of view. What you will still not have is a player actually worth the $400 they are asking for it, never mind the premium price for content.
It's not your decision as to whether sample rates affect listening...or the person you quote; that's not how science works.
If you have problems with the meta-analysis then please feel free to cite and reference the actual issues.
Old 10th October 2016
  #5450
EDIT: Misspost...waiting for Alistair to provide link for the diagram and meta-analysis he is referring to.
Old 11th October 2016
  #5451
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
It's not your decision as to whether sample rates affect listening...
It is my decision as to whether I purchase an expensive player and pay a premium price for content that my own ears and the ears of others tells me is such a marginal 'improvement' that we need double-blind ABX tests to find out if it is even real.

Quote:
or the person you quote; that's not how science works.
Actually when at least half of the the science says it's not real, it is once again my decision as to which 'half' I choose to give weight to.

This is exactly what you are doing, merely choosing to believe fervently in the other half, please do not pretend otherwise. This kind of 'weighing' is in fact what the meta-analysis is purporting to do, albeit with the claim of doing it 'scientifically'. But this is merely the bragging rights portion of the argument, and even if I chose the same half as you, which I do not, it would not change my rational decision that the product in question is not only a clunker, but it is being dishonestly promoted and advertised as well.

IF this meta-analysis and subsequent tests hold up, then Pono's advertising should read as follows:
Quote:
Buy Pono!
You may not actually prefer it,
but if you are like 51% of the population,
you will be be able to tell that there is a difference slightly better than chance!
Quote:
If you have problems with the meta-analysis then please feel free to cite and reference the actual issues.
Oh, I am sure you will receive an earful on the meta-analysis itself. My point is that the fact that 'proof' depends on a statistical parsing of conflicting data means that, as a practical matter, the promotion for this as a commercial product giving "higher quality" is a rip-off.
Old 11th October 2016
  #5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
It is my decision as to whether I purchase an expensive player and pay a premium price for content that my own ears and the ears of others tells me is such a marginal 'improvement' that we need double-blind ABX tests to find out if it is even real.
Of course that consumer decision is yours but it bears no relevance to the paper or objective scientific truth. In general, a decision on what is a marginal improvement is subjective and personal - not universal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
...Actually when at least half of the the science says it's not real, it is once again my decision as to which 'half' I choose to give weight to.
"...at least half of science..." ??? Is that a fact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
....This is exactly what you are doing, merely choosing to believe fervently in the other half, please do not pretend otherwise...
Not at all; I'm open-minded. It's just that I haven't discarded data which doesn't support a subjective opinion - as you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
...This kind of 'weighing' is in fact what the meta-analysis is purporting to do, albeit with the claim of doing it 'scientifically'.
The author of the paper has clearly outlined the benefits and limitations of meta-analyses; given his experience and methodology I will at least read the paper before drawing a conclusion:
Quote:
Josh Reiss is a Reader with Queen Mary University of London’s Centre for Digital Music, where he leads the audio engineering research team. He received his Ph.D. from Georgia Tech, specializing in analysis of nonlinear systems. His early work on sigma delta modulators led to patents and an IEEE best paper award nomination. He
has investigated music retrieval systems, time scaling and pitch shifting techniques, polyphonic music transcription, loudspeaker design, automatic mixing, sound synthesis, and digital audio effects. His primary focus of research, which ties together many of the above topics, is on the use of state-of-the-art signal processing techniques for professional sound engineering.

Dr. Reiss has published over 160 scientific papers, including more than 70 AES publications. His co-authored publication, “Loudness Measurement of Multitrack Audio Content Using Modifications of ITU-R BS.1770,” was recipient of the 134th AES Convention’s Best Peer-Reviewed Paper Award. He co-authored the textbook Audio Effects: Theory, Implementation and Application. He is co-founder of the start-up company LandR, providing intelligent tools for audio production. He is a former governor of the AES,
and was Chair of the 128th, Papers Chair of the 130th, and Co-Papers Chair of the 138th AES Conventions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
...But this is merely the bragging rights portion of the argument, and even if I chose the same half as you, which I do not, it would not change my rational decision that the product in question is not only a clunker, but it is being dishonestly promoted and advertised as well.
You're taking a very naive, child-like stance...it's not about whose gang you're in...it's about what the data and analyses say. It's not a popularity contest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
...Oh, I am sure you will receive an earful on the meta-analysis itself...
Well not yet. I'm always open to reasonable debate but no-one has provided a critique yet. Still waiting on Alistair to provide even a link.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
...My point is that the fact that 'proof' depends on a statistical parsing of conflicting data means that, as a practical matter, the promotion for this as a commercial product giving "higher quality" is a rip-off.
I'll bet you haven't even read the paper, and that you don't really understand what a meta-analysis is for and how it's done.

Remind me; how many meta-analyses have you authored? What scientific qualifications and experience do you have?
Old 11th October 2016
  #5453
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
I still don't like that these marketing @ ssholes don't include 16-bit/44.1 kHz audio as high resolution. It certainly was called that back in the 1980s!
Old 11th October 2016
  #5454
Gear Maniac
 
Strawberry's Avatar
Is anyone really surprised that this fell on its arse?
Old 11th October 2016
  #5455
Gear Maniac
 
EricBradley's Avatar
 

Here's the link you Alistair is referring to:
https://www2.ia-engineers.org/iciae/...ewFile/160/146

You can find it referenced as footnote 24 in the article you linked to.
Old 11th October 2016
  #5456
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Is anyone really surprised that this fell on its arse?
For $400 and a niche market where most people use their smart phones for portable music listening due to the convenience factor of carrying an all-in-one gadget?

A world where a lot of people are happy to stream music for free with apps like Spotify, Pandora or Google Music even if the quality is less than ideal?

Nope.

Pono would have been awesome if it had been released around the time the iPod came out. You know...2001. Imagine Neil Young coming out and telling Steve Jobs to his face that lossy formats were inferior and hardware that is built on the cheap is a disservice to music lovers.

Then, they made the mistake of using a third party vendor to handle their sales. This is AFTER they claimed that the music they were selling would be curated by Pono staff. The Pono Music Store still isn't back up...it's been what, over two month? Imagine if iTunes went offline this long? What an embarrassment!

No one is doubting Pono's hardware capabilities. But mainstream consumers will resort to price > quality most of the time. Especially if that price is free.
Old 11th October 2016
  #5457
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

This is not for that market. It's for a smaller, more discerning demographic.

The parallel is the vinyl craze, not streaming.

- c
Old 11th October 2016
  #5458
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
I still don't like that these marketing @ ssholes don't include 16-bit/44.1 kHz audio as high resolution. It certainly was called that back in the 1980s!
Indeed. The most ironic fact about all this non discussion is that 15 year old uploaders obviously have no problems at all distributing properly tagged and artworked lossless 16bit 44.1kHz files across the globe at zero cost. And had no issues with it 10 year ago either.

I fear that the "consumer" already has taken over all responsibilities to his benefit. No wonder nobody buys this artificially restricted crap, most of these models directly insult the intelligence of the most probable customer.

Fact is, 16bit, 44.1kHz FLAC is extremely well established and totally sufficient. The catalogue is complete and available worldwide. Be it via Bandcamp, direct purchases directly from the artist page or simply illegal paths/ripped CDs.

Last edited by FabienTDR; 11th October 2016 at 11:16 PM..
Old 12th October 2016
  #5459
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Indeed. The most ironic fact about all this non discussion is that 15 year old uploaders obviously have no problems at all distributing properly tagged and artworked lossless 16bit 44.1kHz files across the globe at zero cost. And had no issues with it 10 year ago either.

I fear that the "consumer" already has taken over all responsibilities to his benefit. No wonder nobody buys this artificially restricted crap, most of these models directly insult the intelligence of the most probable customer.

Fact is, 16bit, 44.1kHz FLAC is extremely well established and totally sufficient. The catalogue is complete and available worldwide. Be it via Bandcamp, direct purchases directly from the artist page or simply illegal paths/ripped CDs.
I have discussions with bands that I record to do exactly this. Cut out the middle man (Band Camp, iTunes) and sell MP3s or FLAC files directly to customers. I even offer space on my server as a service for a very small fee. Even if it's just offered as an option because I hate that Apple, a multi billion dollar company, is getting a cut of the money that local bands need every penny of to try to survive.
Old 12th October 2016
  #5460
Bandcamp is hardly in the same league as Apple, and is by far the best option for self-promoting musicians as their cut is so small.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump