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
Ethan Winer on... Condenser Microphones
Old 13th September 2008
  #421
Lives for gear
 
studjo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by allencollins View Post
Ethan you can't be taken seriously you are kinda like Chuckles the clown of GS
Old 13th September 2008
  #422
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
Wait a minute, you're mixing things up here, I never said anything about the proximity effect, that was someone else. I also didn't use straw man arguments as far as I remember.
Sorry, fixed now. Too many people hiding behind too many similar sounding names...
Old 13th September 2008
  #423
Lives for gear
 
Jamzone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Sorry, fixed now. Too many people hiding behind too many similar sounding names...
Off topic;

Ethan,

Is it possible to buy your products in Sweden (Europe)??

Pm me!!

Sorry!!
Old 13th September 2008
  #424
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamzone View Post
Is it possible to buy your products in Sweden (Europe)??
Yes, we ship to Europe all the time. Please send me an email from my company's Contact page:

RealTraps - Contact/About

--Ethan
Old 13th September 2008
  #425
Lives for gear
 
duvalle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamzone View Post
Off topic;

Ethan,
Is it possible to buy your products in Sweden (Europe)??
Pm me!!
Sorry!!
now here we go!
glad this stupid thread pays off at least for someones business ....
good job ethan ... heh
Old 13th September 2008
  #426
Lives for gear
 
studjo's Avatar
 

I hope that guy listened to the Videos from Ethan room before he buys into that stuff
Old 13th September 2008
  #427
Lives for gear
 
allencollins's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Yes, we ship to Europe all the time. Please send me an email from my company's Contact page:

RealTraps - Contact/About

--Ethan
Ethan I just did some analysis. I have concluded that the frequency response
of your traps is identical to a rolled up ball of quilted toilet paper.

I think I'm going with the toilet paper. It's much cheaper. I will add that there is
a special method for rolling the toilet paper just right so it has the exact frequency resonse. Don't tell anyone but Mr. Whipple gave me the secred formula method.
Old 13th September 2008
  #428
Lives for gear
 
Jamzone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by allencollins View Post
Ethan I just did some analysis. I have concluded that the frequency response
of your traps is identical to a rolled up ball of quilted toilet paper.

I think I'm going with the toilet paper. It's much cheaper. I will add that there is
a special method for rolling the toilet paper just right so it has the exact frequency resonse. Don't tell anyone but Mr. Whipple gave me the secred formula method.
Well, I'm about to change location... My room as it is now sounds awesome, I mean really awesome!! I constructed it myself with the help of the terrific johnlsayers forum. Lot's of hangers in the ceiling and back corners and front... It really sounds better then then high end studios I've worked in in Sweden (Polar, Soundtrade etc...). So... Made an rfz in monitor position and really worked my ass of to get a 'flat' sounding room. I thought in my ignorant mind there would be an easy way to achieve a semi-portable control room with the help of these items... I know, I know... It's stupid.

Best,

Jamzone
Old 13th September 2008
  #429
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
You misunderstood me. It´s not a question whether we like it or not. It´s a question about what qualities does something have that is "dancable" or "vibey". It´s not definitive, it will vary depending who you ask.

Let´s say a person aproach me and tells me that he can prove in an objetive way that what he is about to play is "dancable" and "vibey". Ok lets play. Ater I heard the piece I say: I didn´t find that dancable and vibey at all. That would mean that the proof isn´t objective because then I would have to agree.
Sure, these are pretty ropey terms and we would definately find more solid definitions easier to work with.

'Danceability' I would still guess is defined by the ability to perceive rhythm.

Whether we would want to dance to the music is a question of taste, but whether & how easily we can dance to it, if we want to, is probably not.

For example, if I asked you to rate the 'danceability' of white noise, I would expect you to say 'zero', at any SPL.

If we take the question from the opposite perspective, imagine a recording you would rate as having high 'danceability' & 'vibe' factors, at a given SPL.

As we reduce the SPL, I would expect you to rate the recording as having lower 'danceability' and as we increase the SPL I would expect the opposite.

Also, I would expect that as we reduce crest-factor (with compression) we would find that perception of 'danceability' is reduced, if RMS loudness is constant.

Probably, this is a futile exercise as these two particular terms will fall apart under close scrutiny and we will find that essentially the terms have no real value as they stand.

Andy
Old 13th September 2008
  #430
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Same for TurboJets who picked the wrong guitar files but still argues his case anyway.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it needs to be informed opinion!

--Ethan
That's a lie Ethan, you indicated I had downloaded and auditioned the files after you had switched the file names back to match their original audio content. That was your own explanation why you couldn't prove to me that you had switched the file names earlier because I only had access to the correct files and not the original "switched" files.

I asked you then to verify my assertions were correct and you never replied. You've made this whole thing so convoluted that no one can follow your BS.

You admitted to all of us at that time that some people might be able to hear a difference between the two files but the actual measurable difference is probably insignifican - Your own admission. Then hours later you changed your whole story, conflicting your own post.

This is a game and you "Ethan-followers" have been hypnotized by a mental snob. Sad, very sad.

Sorry..."we now return you to your regularly scheduled program".
Old 13th September 2008
  #431
Gear Maniac
 
RonCarlston's Avatar
 

I dont see the point in arguing which file was which, the difference between them was almost nothing



prissy magpies!! i am stealing that word sorry to the dude who said it.
Old 13th September 2008
  #432
Lives for gear
 
badboymusic's Avatar
 

Ron,

Please put your pants on....
this is why we don't give you any popcorn.

Bad Boy
Old 13th September 2008
  #433
Lives for gear
 
duvalle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonCarlston View Post
I dont see the point in arguing which file was which, the difference between them was almost nothing.
wtf ... heh
Old 13th September 2008
  #434
Gear Maniac
 
RonCarlston's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by badboymusic View Post
Ron,

Please put your pants on....
this is why we don't give you any popcorn.

Bad Boy
No amount of popcorn will make me wear pants, ever
Old 13th September 2008
  #435
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Wow.

No detail past 14 khz?

This is all starting to make sense now.
That's no excuse for not being able to hear the difference in clarity in the high's and the mud in the lower mids though. But he's monitoring through a Delta 66 which ends up explaining so much. It's impossible to hear the difference if you're not actually monitoring through better converters.

That's like A/B'ing a Nady and a Neumann through a radio shack mixer with earbuds.
Old 14th September 2008
  #436
Lives for gear
 
CaptainHook's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
But gear (usually) aims to be transparent because it needs to capture and convey the coloration of the source instruments without adding its own coloration. So while instrument tone is always subjective, gear transparency is an easy target and very well defined.
I feel i've asked a similar question before but, what gear do you know that the
makers aimed it to be transparent? Please list it so i can avoid it.

Off the top of my head i think of George M.
Personally i work completely opposite to what i know of him. Recording everything
transparent so as to make decisions about character during the mix just delays
making important decisions in my mind.

Every bit of gear in my studio was chosen for it's character and complete
lack of transparency. Including the convertors. Even the makers of convertors
aim to give their product a 'sound' so as to separate themselves (usually).
Actually, i have two DPA 4091's not chosen for their character. That's it.

What has made you think most gear aims to be transparent?
Do you know most makers of gear?
You haven't answered (many of) my other question(s) either.

How does someone improve in mixing if they can't trust their ears
due to bias expectation, placebo effect, etc etc? Or mix at all?
If a mix is to aim for balance in all areas, can we just measure
everything until it's all balanced? Because you have asserted that
our ears are the worst tools for judging such things.
Unless it's color/character in an instrument. You say we can hear
and discern that, but not the frequency response of other gear.
But you also say that coloration IS frequency response..
Hmmm. Confused yet?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
WTF? You asked me to define harm, and that was my answer. Back at you - you define harm please.
I don't need to define harm. I made no statement with it.
I just needed to point out that even YOU will make subjective opinions
about the quality of sound without measuring it. Just like the rest
of us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Talk about lose-lose...

When I cite measured response, distortion, and noise the anti-science faction calls me a meter reader and says "Just use your ears." But when I cite impressions of what I hear you complain I'm using subjective criteria which is not precise enough.

WTF?

WTF?!
I point it out only to show (again) the hypocrisy of demanding scientific
evidence from others, but allowing yourself to make subjective statements
when you can't prove it with 'meters'. Your only proof to this statement
was to provide files for people to LISTEN to? Why Ethan?
Shouldn't we be doing some scientific tests to the files to prove how
similar the frequency response and all the rest of it is?
You being the "scientist", tell me how to test them. I will do it.

Or are you in this instance saying "It doesn't matter what the tests
say because i can HEAR there's not enough difference to worry about"?
If so, that's very very interesting, isn't it?

And all the "WTF" are sounding a bit like a 16 year old girl on myspace.
I half expect for you to say "OMGZ LOL WTF BBQ" next.
Point being, lets keep this as civil as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
This brings up an interesting point. A few years ago I saw a TV documentary about the reliability of eye witnesses to crimes. [snip] many/most were totally wrong! These people were absolutely certain of what they saw with their own eyes only minutes earlier! But most were very wrong.

The exact same thing happens when people are certain they heard an Apogee sound better than an SB Live or whatever other cheap sound card. This is why the meter readers read meters.

--Ethan
I've said i'm willing to go along with you on this. So, how do
we scientifically prove your two guitar files are close enough to not
warrant any concern in terms of how similar they sound?
(Still haven't listened to them, should be in bed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
How do I disagree with someone while ensuring they won't possibly be offended?
If you figure that out, let me know. Cause if i disagree with you, or someone
at the womb, you say i'm "throwing stones". Making yourself to be a martyr..
I haven't made any personal attacks on you except after you did to me so
i copied your post and changed some words to make the sentence be directed
at you instead of me. To show how unnecessary what you said was.

I was questioning your statements/ideas. If i was attacking YOU, there'd be no ambiguity.
Old 14th September 2008
  #437
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
I feel i've asked a similar question before but, what gear do you know that the
makers aimed it to be transparent? Please list it so i can avoid it.
Almost all Earthworks and DPA microphones. Most Audio Technica microphones. At least a few from most other large microphone manufacturers.

Almost every converter on the market.

GML, Earthworks, Grace, Millennia, Apogee, True, and several other preamps. The preamps in most recording interfaces and mixers aside from the API, Neve, Chandler etc-type consoles.

GML, Millennia, and a few other compressors and equalizers. Even some tube equipment.

Every pro audio monitor I'm aware of. Most headphones. Cables.
Old 14th September 2008
  #438
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

When you design a piece of electronic equipment for reproducing (not creating ) sound there is a danger to designing by ear (even a very good ear) since you are in effect listening to your entire audio chain's cumulative errors, not just just the one unit you are designing. Either you are assuming the rest of the chain is transparent and you are putting all the secret sauce just in your unit, or perhaps the other units in the chain have coloration's of their own and yours is adding or subtracting just the right amount from the rest to give the magic result, for that specific combination of gear.

Designing to compensate for other gear makers nonlinearities becomes too much of a fashion business unless they are all identically flawed, which has not been my personal experience.

If you embrace products with coloration in the studio it might be prudent to still aim for accuracy in the back end, your playback monitors. Otherwise what you print may not sound like you intended on other playback systems.

Good luck.

JR
Old 14th September 2008
  #439
Lives for gear
 
CaptainHook's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo View Post
Almost all Earthworks and DPA microphones. Most Audio Technica microphones. At least a few from most other large microphone manufacturers.
Yeah, not many. As i thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo View Post
Almost every converter on the market.
The topic of debate here, isn't it? Hehe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo View Post
The preamps in most recording interfaces and mixers aside from the API, Neve, Chandler etc-type consoles.
Yep. The "etc-type" is a long list though huh? I probably live in
a bubble, but in my experience that list is longer. Or they fail
at being transparent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo View Post
GML, Millennia, and a few other compressors and equalizers.
Again, not many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo View Post
Every pro audio monitor I'm aware of. Most headphones. Cables.
Fair enough about monitors. Except it's fair to say a lot, if not most fail. And we use
those failings to our advantage. NS10's anyone? My dyns aren't perfect(what is?) but
they translate from my room super well.

Majority of headphones fail also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRoberts View Post
If you embrace products with coloration in the studio it might be prudent to still aim for accuracy in the back end, your playback monitors. Otherwise what you print may not sound like you intended on other playback systems.
Some fair points John. As i mentioned, my monitors seem to translate really
well. OR, i've gotten used to how they translate. Nothing better than getting
the master back and it sounds like it's just been made louder! (except maybe
if there wasn't a need to make it louder )

Although there must be the same troubles in designing gear to create?
Because they are also monitoring through 'flawed gear'. But neve/api/ssl/etc
have done it somehow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRoberts View Post
Good luck.
Thanks.
Old 14th September 2008
  #440
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manning1 View Post
ethan.
a question.
re low end n hi end convertors.
have you ever passed tones thru each and looked at the waveform on a precision scope ?

just an interested gear sceptic with a physics degree..lol..
god bless.
Hi!

What kind of tones are you thinking of?

Sines will be identical to the eye unless you notch out the fundamental, then (nothced out and magnified that is) you'll see the specific noise and distortion of that unit. Fast signals as various transients, pulses and squares will show different "artifacts" from different converters and obviously at different sampling speeds.


/Peter
Old 14th September 2008
  #441
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
So while instrument tone is always subjective, gear transparency is an easy target and very well defined.

--Ethan
Putting up the target is easy, hitting bulls eye is not judging by the majorities of all gear out there that is not transparent.


/Peter
Old 14th September 2008
  #442
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
That's no excuse for not being able to hear the difference in clarity in the high's and the mud in the lower mids though. But he's monitoring through a Delta 66 which ends up explaining so much. It's impossible to hear the difference if you're not actually monitoring through better converters.

That's like A/B'ing a Nady and a Neumann through a radio shack mixer with earbuds.
Not true really. What's possible and not to hear depends on the type of signal used and what kinds of artifacts are added by the gear. It's fully possible to hear distortion products from a "DUT" in a set up with gear that has higher levels of distortion, even of the same type.'

Let's say we have a linear distortion in form a frequency response deviation of -3dB aat 20k in the monitor chain. Now, you would still be able to hear if an amp or such (inserted in the chain) has a -1dB roll off at 20k.

/Peter
Old 14th September 2008
  #443
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRoberts View Post
When you design a piece of electronic equipment for reproducing (not creating ) sound there is a danger to designing by ear (even a very good ear)
Not at all if you know what you're doing..

Quote:
since you are in effect listening to your entire audio chain's cumulative errors, not just just the one unit you are designing.
That's not the way to do it. You don't put a piece of gear (well unfortunatetly many DO and that's the main reason for all the bad pieces of reproduction and HiFi gear out there) in a chain and tweak it to taste. You listen to the signal that goes into the device and then listen and compare to the same signal AFTER it has passed thru the device. Doing this you only listen to the DUT. Obviously you need to think of interfacing and such to avoid false results.

Quote:
Designing to compensate for other gear makers nonlinearities becomes too much of a fashion business unless they are all identically flawed, which has not been my personal experience.
Agree, and that's the reason it's not very wise to design monitoring equipment, reproduction gear and HiFi gear that way.


/Peter
Old 14th September 2008
  #444
Lives for gear
 
nosebleedaudio's Avatar
 

This past week I was involved in a recording session that a well known engineer was brought in to oversee the tracking.
The main monitors were a pretty high end speaker, the engineer ask me if I had an Eq. in line with them because they "sounded" bright to him.
I told him no, no eq. I then mentioned that they are pretty flat with no HF peaks, I had measured them in this room several times over the past several months as I have been tweaking the positioning and acoustical treatment.
What he was NOT use to hearing was a good transient response...
My point is an accurate monitoring environment is VERY important if you are to truly HEAR what is Really there.
And everything in the audio path adds/subtracts from the source.
And I would not consider this particular system to be any where close to a "straight wire" signal path.
Old 14th September 2008
  #445
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
Not at all if you know what you're doing..
I have more than an intellectual interest in the "how to" of equipment design.

When designing products like tape noise reduction, noise gate, comp/limiters, etc I find we can hear things we can't easily quantify with bench tests. On the other hand when designing products without dynamic gain manipulation I found my bench gear to be far more sensitive than my hearing.

I believe I was able to make cleaner designs by not stopping when it sounded good to me, but continuing until it also measured good on my bench.

Quote:
That's not the way to do it. You don't put a piece of gear (well unfortunatetly many DO and that's the main reason for all the bad pieces of reproduction and HiFi gear out there) in a chain and tweak it to taste. You listen to the signal that goes into the device and then listen and compare to the same signal AFTER it has passed thru the device. Doing this you only listen to the DUT. Obviously you need to think of interfacing and such to avoid false results.
This doesn't eliminate the potential for additive or subtractive interference with nonlinearity in your monitor chain. I haven't yet discovered how to listen to electrical waveforms without converting to acoustic energy.

Not every product offers simple before/after comparison. For example how do you listen before and after a power amplifier? (I've tried with headphones to a padded down output but there are potential errors in the pad). Different gear has unique challenges and there are specialized techniques to stress and isolate the expected weaknesses. Listening tests help identify (but not quantify) unexpected weaknesses.

I have participated in several blind, but casual listening tests between similar products in a roomful of professionals with little agreement about what we were hearing.

Quote:
Agree, and that's the reason it's not very wise to design monitoring equipment, reproduction gear and HiFi gear that way.


/Peter
Perhaps there is a philosophical or semantic disagreement about where that line is drawn. I strive for linearity all the way up to mic preamps and even microphones for most applications, while I don't dispute the value of different flavor microphones for sundry applications.

YMMV

JR

PS: One of my products was a modest piece of test equipment (Loftech TS-1). This was not lab grade test gear but it allowed consumers to easily confirm frequency response to a 1/10th dB over audio frequency range. While we like to speculate about vague, sometimes magical sound influences, don't ignore the obvious. Simple frequency response errors are more common than people realize and very audible.
Old 14th September 2008
  #446
Lives for gear
 
nosebleedaudio's Avatar
 

JR

PS: One of my products was a modest piece of test equipment (Loftech TS-1). This was not lab grade test gear but it allowed consumers to easily confirm frequency response to a 1/10th dB over audio frequency range. While we like to speculate about vague, sometimes magical sound influences, don't ignore the obvious. Simple frequency response errors are more common than people realize and very audible.[/QUOTE]

John, I have one those Loftech's, use it all the time, pretty versatile piece of gear...
Old 14th September 2008
  #447
Lives for gear
 

andy_simpson:

I think we are basicaly in agreement. Interesting parallel little discussion we got going there never the less I think ;-). thanks.
Old 15th September 2008
  #448
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
andy_simpson:

I think we are basicaly in agreement. Interesting parallel little discussion we got going there never the less I think ;-). thanks.
Agreed. I wonder if there are any other terms we might look at?

Returning to 'danceability' briefly - I would imagine that the dancefloor in any club would be a good empirical testing ground for compression VS 'danceability', where SPL is more or less constant & high.

Andy
Old 15th September 2008
  #449
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRoberts View Post
Designing to compensate for other gear makers nonlinearities becomes too much of a fashion business unless they are all identically flawed, which has not been my personal experience.
This is exactly why this industry is in such chaos.

It seems that there is 'accepted wisdom' that we all have such diverse tastes that audio must be almost entirely subjective and that science is simply unable to answer the real questions.

If we take equal loudness and massively diverse monitoring out of the equation and test the entire world with a single monitor at a single loudness level, would we have such large differences of opinion?

If we then include comparison to the source, would we reduce the remaining difference of opinion even further?

If so, then we have remaining the naturally subjective residual: do you like the sound of the source?

Half the industry is choosing equipment that sounds good on their monitors and the other half is choosing monitors that sound good with their equipment!

There is almost no reference to the original sound of the source being recorded and the lack of this directional input provides for a travelling direction that does not interpolate towards refinement but (at best) circles at a more or less constant distance from it.

Andy
Old 21st September 2008
  #450
Lives for gear
 

Hi JohnRoberts!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRoberts View Post
I have more than an intellectual interest in the "how to" of equipment design.
I'm sure, I was speaking in general terms and hope I did not offend you in any way.


Quote:
I believe I was able to make cleaner designs by not stopping when it sounded good to me, but continuing until it also measured good on my bench.
Someone told me; there are gear that measures poorly and they sound poor.. ther are gear that sounds good and some of them sounds good while other sounds bad.. if you threw some new measurements on this "good measuring - poor sounding" gear you will sooner or later see that they measures poor.

Guess there is some thruth in that.


Quote:
This doesn't eliminate the potential for additive or subtractive interference with nonlinearity in your monitor chain. I haven't yet discovered how to listen to electrical waveforms without converting to acoustic energy.
Yes, listen in before/after fashion eliminates all such additive and subtractive interference the way I understand.

Quote:
Not every product offers simple before/after comparison. For example how do you listen before and after a power amplifier?
Insert the DUT-amp between preamp and the regular poweramp in the system. Let it drive a dummyload mimicking a real load. A bypass switch lets you choose between the before and after signal. The DUT-amp can be tested with different loads and at different levels (but with the same listening level if you wish which is very good).


Quote:
Listening tests help identify (but not quantify) unexpected weaknesses.
True, but very worthwhile nonetheless. People that have done this hundreds or thousands of times learn pretty well how measurement data and listening impression correlates.

Quote:
I have participated in several blind, but casual listening tests between similar products in a roomful of professionals with little agreement about what we were hearing.
My expereince is that listeners in a well performed test will hear much the same (often) but preferences may differ.


Quote:
Perhaps there is a philosophical or semantic disagreement about where that line is drawn. I strive for linearity all the way up to mic preamps and even microphones for most applications, while I don't dispute the value of different flavor microphones for sundry applications.
Transmission links is "easy" but converters are not. While all audio gear (not processors off course..) even mics and speakers always (IMO) should have as little distortion and compression as possible, the radiation/polarpattern must be tailored for different situations and goals.


Quote:
Simple frequency response errors are more common than people realize and very audible.
Yup and level differences too.


/Peter
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
burke111 / The Good News Channel
4
dannygold / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump