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 18th March 2014
  #1081
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnylang View Post

I think the focus is going to be on classic analog recordings. That is what's funny here. The old tech is apparently now considered the gold standard..
I don't think it is so much that analog is a "gold standard" as it is that 192 is the "new gold standard" and thus will give you a "closest approximation" of the original analog for the purpose of re-selling it.

In other words, you have to make NEW digital to replace anything recorded below 192kHz. Because it "sounds like rubber bands" - and at some basic level even the man on the street gets that you aren't gaining anything by bumping it up into a larger file.


But you accept that 192 is the "gold standard", then you can at least make a case for saying 'you haven't really HEARD the original analog masters yet'.

Quote:
I don't see how this is anything other than a new marketing push to re-sell old recordings in a 'new and improved' fashion
But old analog transfers are the only thing that can actually be "improved". Any digital recording at "low" or "medium" res (96k! ) can not be improved by making a 192kHz file out of it. How many studios are tracking at 192 or even mixing and mastering up to 192?
Old 18th March 2014
  #1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
very few here are saying Neil Young is out to scam people...
...but some have; that seems implausible. Just sayin'
Old 18th March 2014
  #1083
Lives for gear
 
bambamboom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamboom View Post
I'll give you 50 bucks if you can tell the difference between a 256AAC and a CD on a consistent basis. Really.
Sorry for quoting my own post, but I find it interesting how I have repeatedly made such offers to people and nobody has had the nerve to take me up on it. Hmmm, I wonder why?

In fact some people can't even differentiate 9 bit audio.
Try THIS test: Is 24 Bit Recording Really Better?

I wish more people would just get over their hearing egos and get on with making music.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1084
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post

I dunno, maybe it is if you like to hang upside down in caves all day and look like this?

Well someone in this whole sham clearly is Bats.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1085
Lives for gear
 
donnylang's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I don't think it is so much that analog is a "gold standard" as it is that 192 is the "new gold standard" and thus will give you a "closest approximation" of the original analog for the purpose of re-selling it.

In other words, you have to make NEW digital to replace anything recorded below 192kHz. Because it "sounds like rubber bands" - and at some basic level even the man on the street gets that you aren't gaining anything by bumping it up into a larger file.

But you accept that 192 is the "gold standard", then you can at least make a case for saying 'you haven't really HEARD the original analog masters yet'.

But old analog transfers are the only thing that can actually be "improved". Any digital recording at "low" or "medium" res (96k! ) can not be improved by making a 192kHz file out of it. How many studios are tracking at 192 or even mixing and mastering up to 192?
Right, but my basic point here is if 192 is the new standard, then surely there will be something 'better' a few years from now that will be a new standard. And then the 'unlimited resolution' analog masters can be transferred yet again, and marketed as 'new and improved' (if they still hold up).

So if digital has truly arrived, then there should be no future improvements, right?

There are those who say that 16-bit/44.1 is as good as it gets. This seems to have been 'proven' about as much as any of this stuff can be.

One of the more recent Pet Sounds reissues was remastered from a 1987 16-bit digital transfer because the original mix tapes were actually in better shape at that time, and this version sounded better to the producers of the reissue than more recent, higher resolution transfers. This is something worth thinking about.

A lot of 'vintage'/'classic' vinyl records from the late '70s and on were pressed through a 14-bit digital delay system ... yes, the entire signal went through an early digital path.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1086
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post

Let's table up the costs:
  • 256kbps AAC = $7.99 (Apple iTunes US)
  • 24/96k WAV/FLAC = $17.98 (HDTracks)
  • 24/192k WAV/FLAC = $24.98 (HDTracks)
Let this sink in for a second.

Not only is it more than 3X the price for 192k (vs AAC) but the difference between 96k and 192k is $7.00

I would love to hear the people that bought those files do a listening test.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1087
$22.99 for the Led Zep vinyl:
http://www.amazon.com/Led-Zeppelin-R...5171030&sr=1-3

Not sure about the shipping cost.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1088
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

But his 'underwater' diagram is simply nutty to anyone who has seriously blind-compared the same audio at 96k vs 192k. It is not at all like "coming up for air". It is really, really hard if not impossible to even correctly guess which one is which. Never mind go "wow" and "finally I can breathe" and have a strong preference. As some who has tried this blindfolded, I strongly suspect some serious confirmation bias going on here.
And this has been my issue all along. How an "engineer" can watch that video and NOT throw up in their mouth a little is beyond me. heh
Old 18th March 2014
  #1089
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
But old analog transfers are the only thing that can actually be "improved". Any digital recording at "low" or "medium" res (96k! ) can not be improved by making a 192kHz file out of it. How many studios are tracking at 192 or even mixing and mastering up to 192?
I wish we could get a hold of the digital recordings of everyone in that video and see how many of them were recorded at 44.1kHz. heh
Old 18th March 2014
  #1090
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamboom View Post
Sorry for quoting my own post, but I find it interesting how I have repeatedly made such offers to people and nobody has had the nerve to take me up on it. Hmmm, I wonder why?

In fact some people can't even differentiate 9 bit audio.
Try THIS test: Is 24 Bit Recording Really Better?

I wish more people would just get over their hearing egos and get on with making music.
While I agree with your message, I'm not taking that particular test.

Quote:
The microphones were connected from the direct outs of a Mackie 1202 into a Delta 66 sound card
Nope.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1091
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

Not only is it more than 3X the price for 192k (vs AAC) but the difference between 96k and 192k is $7.00
I have to agree, that is completely ridiculous. Unfortunately. And won't help this thing succeed. They should have priced the things the SAME as mp3's. All the way up. Would give it a better chance at least.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1092
Lives for gear
 

Just seen the video on new porno player - absolutely AWESOME! We over 60's groovers can buy the same music again for third or fourth time! That is what I call cool. We have so much spare cash. So first we bought an LP (now called vinyl to show how cool we are), than a CD, than downloaded it in MP3, and now a new version - wow. So we got all Neil Young's CDs (even though he said they were soulless). And now they up sample them and they will have SOUL! Can't wait for the amazing experience. Will they have a versions with N.Y. autotuned as well? (He does sound rather flat on most of his opi.)
And than, later there will be new versions in 48 bits and 384k, which will have twice as much soul and will sound even better than the original studio masters!
I am getting a solid gold porno player personally engraved by all these awesome groovers and wear it round my neck so everybody can see how cool I am. Connect it to my earbuds via $ 18 000 wires.

Send via my nighbours iPad
Old 18th March 2014
  #1093
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I wish we could get a hold of the digital recordings of everyone in that video and see how many of them were recorded at 44.1kHz. heh
None of them. ---edit, I may have misunderstood what you wrote here-the following is with the understanding that you meant the audio used to demo Pono for the people in the video---

The actual more valid question would be how many were recorded at 192khz? Or digitally AT ALL. Which would ALSO be likely none of them unless they happened to have Crosby's new one playing--done at 192 for his buddy's new project.

This entire thing is based on the tape transfers being made for archival purposes and trying to monetize that (necessary) process by Warner. If they can get well intentioned Neil to stump enough to cover the cost of the archival process, then it's a HUGE business win.

But, you can continue to ignore my comments about this...but, it's also purely academic. I PROMISE the masters presented in high rez done by good mastering shops sound better than the current CD offerings. How much the format plays into that is...is academic for a consumer. Would you serious suggest that an Eagles fan NOT buy the better sounding master because YOU theoretically know that the file size COULD be reduced for their consumption without them knowing? If not...it's academic. You don't have access to THAT master at redbook or 20/48 or whatever your personal point of no difference happens to be. It was DONE at 24/192 (or DSD and resampled)...AND it's the best sounding version in most cases.

Last edited by popmann; 18th March 2014 at 09:47 PM.. Reason: clarification
Old 18th March 2014
  #1094
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Dave Amels, cofounder of Anamod, says HERE that to match tape, digital would have to be recorded at 1.23 MHz.

And Casey Dowdell, cofounder of Bricasti, says HERE that some types of plugins won't work right until they're processing at ~2 MHz.

If these guys are right, then recordings tracked @ 192 aren't even close.

I personally think the Beats phenomenon has paved the way for Pono to be successful. We'll see.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1095
Lives for gear
Imagine that our world would use music as a cosmic signature that would express God's love and the human love for one another to be adored by all other races in the universe. Imagine that one of the ways we would do that would be to use our collective intelligence to build richer musical signatures through technological advancements. From this perspective a whole bunch of aspects discussed in this thread would be considered waste of time and highly obsolete, we would be focusing on whatever technology that we collectively would find to produce the purest most beautiful audio, that would be our focus, a simple principle that would accelerate our collective resonance/synchronicity/alignment level as a race. So in the case of 24 vs 16-bit we would simply forget about 16-bit in an instant, it would be considered the more limitng option no mattet by how much and we would get rid of it, it would just waste our time. This is how we need to align our minds, we should stop discussing things that have very little long term impact, that of course includes what I have said in this thread as well, for instance that the Pono player is moderately impressive since it does not offer a streaming option. The long term value with the Pono is that it helps us break free from all those old dirty music formats, it really helps accelerating our collective resonance/synchronicity/alignment level and that has a long term positive value. We should now, through unconditional love, support Neil in this endevour and make him understand that we truly also need a streaming capability in order for this to turn fantastic and we want it in the first product release - an accelerated music evolution is what we should be focusing on. My friends have 200 Mbit lines, I have a 100 Mbit line, it is time for online DSD streamed audio... A shout out to the Qobuz crew: Go DSD based now, go all in. I have recently started raising capital for a music game changer venture, as soon as I possibly can I will give you the best quality out there, forget about streaming not being an option... I will give you at least DSD and I will ensure the music to be available at the latest high fidelity audio standard as soon as it gets available and forget about international/global restrictions, it will be equal, open and global from day one. I will even offer multitracks at that quality. No restrictions is my thing... I will help Neil and he will help me, the old type 0 race business mentality days are over, I want love, peace and a golden age.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1096
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I wish we could get a hold of the digital recordings of everyone in that video and see how many of them were recorded at 44.1kHz. heh
Well the latest Beck album was recorded at 44.1 except two tracks which were recorded as mp3.

(I linked to that earlier in this thread.)
Old 18th March 2014
  #1097
Gear Addict
 
czoli's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Dave Amels, cofounder of Anamod, says HERE that to match tape, digital would have to be recorded at 1.23 MHz.

And Casey Dowdell, cofounder of Bricasti, says HERE that some types of plugins won't work right until they're processing at ~2 MHz.

If these guys are right, then recordings tracked @ 192 aren't even close.

I personally think the Beats phenomenon has paved the way for Pono to be successful. We'll see.
The plugin manufacturers have issues with anti aliasing and have to scale up. But according to info on the Steve Slate VMS thread 32 bit is a better option. 32 bit/44.1KHz would give more than enough resolution and dynamic range. Since most engineers like Chris Lord Alge put 1.5 compression on the bus during mix down anyways, even before it goes to mastering to compete in the "Loudness War" to sell product.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1098
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
I have to agree, that is completely ridiculous. Unfortunately. And won't help this thing succeed. They should have priced the things the SAME as mp3's. All the way up. Would give it a better chance at least.
Quote:
The record companies set their own digital music prices, label by label. High-resolution digital albums at PonoMusic.com are expected to cost between $14.99 -$24.99, and there may be exceptions. For this price you get the best quality digital music available anywhere, you own these albums forever - they don’t live only in the cloud, but also on your computer and backup disc, and you can play them anytime you wish on your PonoPlayer or other compatible devices.
Sadly, the greed by the labels are going to force this to be a niche device. The average consumer is not going to spend $25 for a digital download.

Or pay $15 to hear an orchestra of rubber bands. hehe
Old 18th March 2014
  #1099
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Dave Amels, cofounder of Anamod, says HERE that to match tape, digital would have to be recorded at 1.23 MHz. And Casey Dowdell, cofounder of Bricasti, says HERE that some types of plugins won't work right until they're processing at ~2 MHz. If these guys are right, then recordings tracked @ 192 aren't even close.
On the other hand if guys like Dan Lavry and JJ Johnston are right then 60KHz is more than enough.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1100
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
None of them. ---edit, I may have misunderstood what you wrote here-the following is with the understanding that you meant the audio used to demo Pono for the people in the video---
Nah. I was talking about their actual records. I'm sure some them were analog but most of them were digital and I'm sure some of them were 44.1kHz and almost none of them were 192kHz. So here they are professing love for the sound of the masters that may well be only 44.1kHz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
But, you can continue to ignore my comments about this...but, it's also purely academic. I PROMISE the masters presented in high rez done by good mastering shops sound better than the current CD offerings. How much the format plays into that is...is academic for a consumer. Would you serious suggest that an Eagles fan NOT buy the better sounding master because YOU theoretically know that the file size COULD be reduced for their consumption without them knowing? If not...it's academic. You don't have access to THAT master at redbook or 20/48 or whatever your personal point of no difference happens to be. It was DONE at 24/192 (or DSD and resampled)...AND it's the best sounding version in most cases.
Yes. My point is that they're relegating all this to those uber fans who will only buy things like an old Eagles record or similar. They're losing the fan that would be happy to get CD quality or 24 bit 44.1kHz to get the "too cool for the room" crowd which will alienate the average consumer.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1101
More cowbell!
 
natpub's Avatar
I'm surprised no one here has referenced the bit and sample-rate wars here on GS many years back (7 or 8?? Wow, tempus fugit!) where Dan Lavry and George Massenberg went at it. Numerous other participants, including some who were mechanical or electrical engineers and physicists, threw out math and physics galore. There was even Nika Aldrich who wrote hundreds of posts--he was extremely informative--and eventually wrote a book on the subject (I miss him here). The massive thread went on for weeks and weeks, with both Lavry and Massenberg eventually leaving in disgust. At the time, the most I could walk away with was that, at a minimum, 24/96 would capture most everything I needed, though arguments in favor of more were persuasive. Just posting one or two articles on this thread and shouting that you have the "Facts" is not going to cut it. There was and is plenty of cause for disagreement here. I know that I can consistently tell the difference between MP3, CD, and 24/96 . It doesn't matter to me if anyone else can. I always assume anyone posting on here has suspect hearing loss, or was never able to hear some frequencies well, so blind testing is really only useful if everyone being tested has had thorough hearing tests and has a similarly healthy and broad range of hearing. Massenberg was arguing that getting as much data as possible, up to and beyond DSD figures, was always desirable, in that we can never be certain what all is involved in the hearing experience, or how much is contained in the information our reproduction tools. I think the fact that most speakers and headphones can only reproduce up to and down to a very limited range is a pretty big case against the big sample/bit rates, but there may be other factors besides just the linear vibration we focus on. I always thought analog would be the obvious choice then, but the potential for noise and other limitations of analog capture were issues, as I recall. I also remember Steve Albini jumped in on those threads, and he and George really did NOT get along, lol. Ahh, the good old days of GS, those were happier times :P
Old 18th March 2014
  #1102
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

As far as I'm concerned 24/44.1khz is enough to capture the 'emotional' content and the 'groove' or 'intellectual' content of what I need from an audio recording.

That is what really matters to me. Am I going to pay $400 and an extra $15 for an album for the vague and spurious 'sonic' improvements prosyletised by Mr NY and his cohorts?...

No. It's still all about the emotion and the groove for me - and I get that from the humble 16/44.1
Old 18th March 2014
  #1103
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

The thread was called "George watch this"... If you google with quotes you will find the thread listed as the third link.

I learned a BOATLOAD by reading that thread and only understood about 20% of it.

Anyone know what Nikka is up to these days? Wasn't he working at Sweetwater a at the time
Old 18th March 2014
  #1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw View Post

No. It's still all about the emotion and the groove for me - and I get that from the humble 16/44.1
Again, you don't lose emotion and groove at 96khz, or 192khz. It's a none argument you are making.
It's mostly about cost and storage.
If your favourite recording of all time was available at 16/44.1khz at $1.99 and 32/96khz at $1.99 you would probably go for the higher rate product.
If you are asking people to pay more…. a lot more…. and requiring they pay more for a player that holds 64gig instead of 40 gig to accomodate the huge files, then you have a problem, and likely an inviable business plan.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1105
Lives for gear
 

i wonder, how many top mix/master engineers would be willing to give testimonials like those given in the video?

of course they don't have the same street cred. But Dave Pensado is working to change that
Old 18th March 2014
  #1106
More cowbell!
 
natpub's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
The thread was called "George watch this"... If you google with quotes you will find the thread listed as the third link.

I learned a BOATLOAD by reading that thread and only understood about 20% of it.

Anyone know what Nikka is up to these days? Wasn't he working at Sweetwater a at the time
Yes! Thank you! Yeah, Nika worked at Sweetwater, but he was in law school at the time. I would guess he graduated, and is some high-power lawyer in D.C. these day, lol!!

EDIT: I looked that one up, truly epic, and was on Music Player Forum. There was a big one here too on GS, which is the one I was thinking of, though they all blend together in my mind. The same stuff was also happening on RecPit and a few other places--Roger Nichols forum is one that comes to mind.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1107
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Dave Amels, cofounder of Anamod, says HERE that to match tape, digital would have to be recorded at 1.23 MHz.

And Casey Dowdell, cofounder of Bricasti, says HERE that some types of plugins won't work right until they're processing at ~2 MHz.

If these guys are right, then recordings tracked @ 192 aren't even close.

I personally think the Beats phenomenon has paved the way for Pono to be successful. We'll see.
Comparing analog tape to digital is as silly as comparing vinyl to digital. Using sampling resolution only tells part of the story.

It's like saying, "I have to add a tablespoon of salt to this ham to make it taste as savory as bacon". But you haven't made bacon. It's salty ham. heh
Old 18th March 2014
  #1108
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by czoli View Post
The plugin manufacturers have issues with anti aliasing and have to scale up. But according to info on the Steve Slate VMS thread 32 bit is a better option. 32 bit/44.1KHz would give more than enough resolution and dynamic range. Since most engineers like Chris Lord Alge put 1.5 compression on the bus during mix down anyways, even before it goes to mastering to compete in the "Loudness War" to sell product.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1109
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by natpub View Post
I'm surprised no one here has referenced the bit and sample-rate wars here on GS many years back (7 or 8?? Wow, tempus fugit!) where Dan Lavry and George Massenberg went at it. Numerous other participants, including some who were mechanical or electrical engineers and physicists, threw out math and physics galore. There was even Nika Aldrich who wrote hundreds of posts--he was extremely informative--and eventually wrote a book on the subject (I miss him here). The massive thread went on for weeks and weeks, with both Lavry and Massenberg eventually leaving in disgust. At the time, the most I could walk away with was that, at a minimum, 24/96 would capture most everything I needed, though arguments in favor of more were persuasive. Just posting one or two articles on this thread and shouting that you have the "Facts" is not going to cut it. There was and is plenty of cause for disagreement here. I know that I can consistently tell the difference between MP3, CD, and 24/96 . It doesn't matter to me if anyone else can. I always assume anyone posting on here has suspect hearing loss, or was never able to hear some frequencies well, so blind testing is really only useful if everyone being tested has had thorough hearing tests and has a similarly healthy and broad range of hearing. Massenberg was arguing that getting as much data as possible, up to and beyond DSD figures, was always desirable, in that we can never be certain what all is involved in the hearing experience, or how much is contained in the information our reproduction tools. I think the fact that most speakers and headphones can only reproduce up to and down to a very limited range is a pretty big case against the big sample/bit rates, but there may be other factors besides just the linear vibration we focus on. I always thought analog would be the obvious choice then, but the potential for noise and other limitations of analog capture were issues, as I recall. I also remember Steve Albini jumped in on those threads, and he and George really did NOT get along, lol. Ahh, the good old days of GS, those were happier times :P
I remember those days.

Maybe iTunes can offer a hearing test where the results tell you what version you should buy?

To be clear, I have no issue with them releasing 24 bit 96k masters (assuming it was recorded that way) if that were to become the standard. Priced accordingly.

But most people would or should be happy with CD quality and that's a target I'd like to see become the standard if they're going to relegate the high res stuff to audiophiles.

It just feels like the Pono fans are going to get much higher resolutions then they need at a ridiculous price and the average fan is going to be listening to mp3s.

Leaving a really good resolution for no one but weirdos with cd players.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1110
Gear Addict
 
Jake's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Dave Amels, cofounder of Anamod, says HERE that to match tape, digital would have to be recorded at 1.23 MHz.

And Casey Dowdell, cofounder of Bricasti, says HERE that some types of plugins won't work right until they're processing at ~2 MHz.

If these guys are right, then recordings tracked @ 192 aren't even close.

I personally think the Beats phenomenon has paved the way for Pono to be successful. We'll see.
Respectfully, you're taking those posts somewhat out of context from their original threads.

Casey's quote had literally nothing to do with recording or playback formats but rather was addressing the limitations of digital vs. analog signal processing. If anything, his argument was really an argument for the benefits of OTB mixing and processing.

Amels' post is a little more on point but was specifically directed to the issue of pre-echo articfacts caused by the filtering of ultra sonic transients. There is hardly a consensus on whether this is more than a theoretical problem -- iirc Dan Lavry doesn't think this is a big problem. I'm not qualified to begin to take a side between guys that smart, but if you do find this is a problem, then that would be a reason to support a DSD vs. PCM playback format, and that format has yet to prove viable in a consumer market.

In any event, I'm not against listening to music at high sample rates and I'm certainly not rooting against the Pono -- although for many reasons I think the Pono is trying to solve the wrong problem. Personally, I just find their marketing and promotional approach to be at best misguided and at worst borderline insulting. Just my opinion of course, and I do understand why other folks are enthusiastic about it.
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