Natural Sound

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,620
4,839
940

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,688
4,477
963
Greater Boston
Al, you already said the above video is poor a couple of years ago, so just saving you the trouble

Just listened to it. Oh yeah, oldie but goodie :D.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,688
4,477
963
Greater Boston
Yes, it was a nice listening session yesterday at Peter's place. It was great to meet you, Andy!

A lot of the music sounded enjoyable, but the highlight of the session was for me a recording that Andy brought, a masterpiece by Stravinsky, "The Flood", a gem from his late, serial period (written in 1962):


(click on the small image in the link to see all five images enlarged)

It is a quirky piece, with some quirky humor, too. The brief, sudden instrumental flickerings were presented with great vividness and dynamics, as were the vocals. In fact, I would say that the presentation was extraordinarily dynamic overall, and incredibly engaging to me as listener -- a great way to hear this work for the first time. It was Peter's system at its best, for me. We listened with the Colibri XPP, and I was also pleased that I did not miss HF extension, unlike at other times listening to Peter's system. I also found HF extension fine on the other recordings that we listened to, all with the XPP cartridge.

On this particular recording we also did a brief comparison with the Master Signature, and the difference was not subtle, in favor of the XPP cartridge. The presentation had more clarity with the XPP, considerably better dynamics and, as Andy said, more color. It also sounded more open, and with the Master Signature I had again a feeling of somewhat lacking extension and air. There just seemed to be a better synergy of the XPP cartridge with Peter's system. This was a comparison on just one recording though; I joined later in the session, and Andy may have heard more comparisons between the two cartridges.

After the experience of "The Flood" by Stravinsky on Peter's system I ordered the same recording on CD from Discogs and got it yesterday from France. The CD transfer (Sony, 1991) is excellent, and the recording sounds dramatic on my system as well, so I am pleased.

Yet the presentation is still lacking in an important way compared to what I heard on Peter's system. While my system can throw a rather large soundstage on recordings that sound a bit more recessed, set in an audibly large acoustic (yet still not as large a soundstage as possible in Peter's system), it becomes more restricted in its dimensions on very upfront, direct sounding recordings as this one. In Peter's system with those corner horns that fill the entire room, wider than mine, with sound from left to right, the soundstage was very wide also on this recording. Hearing the direct sounding music not just presented in such a dynamic and dramatic way, but also with the singers and instruments spread over such a wide stage of action was an unforgettable experience. Just amazing.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,525
10,689
3,515
USA
Having lived with my system for the better part of a year now, I would like to share some of my recent thoughts about audio. My ideas continue to evolve. The more I listen to my system, the more I am learning about music and how it is reproduced in my room. I thought about starting a dedicated thread on this topic, but decided to share my thoughts here because my thinking has evolved specifically from listening to my new system in the context of my room with my music.

I have been thinking about three topics as I sit and learn while listening to my new system:
1. The expanding listening window
2. How do we listen and evaluate
3. Our language and references

The Listening Window

I posted a link to Jeff's Day's very interesting article in Positive Feedback and started a thread on the subject: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...g-window-by-jeff-day-positive-feedback.31367/. Mr. Day discusses the idea that systems could be assembled to increase the variety of music and recordings one can enjoy on his system. My new system has expanded my listening window. I listen to an increasing range of music, and I enjoy it more than ever before. My old system seemed to reduce the listening window and also the volume at which the music was enjoyable.

I think this expansion of the listening window is a direct result of the type of system I now have. I do not yet fully understand why this is happening, but I suspect the actual component selection and set up are partly responsible. It is easier for me to understand the results of what I hear than it is to analyze the cause. My new system is highly efficient, very resolving, and there is an ease and naturalness to the way the music is presented and fills the room.

I now listen to and thoroughly enjoy solo instruments and chamber music up to full orchestra, lieder to full chorus, jazz trio to big band, girl with guitar, blues and rock to classical and jazz, even some vintage pop/folk and current pop on vinyl. This was not the case with my former systems, but the window did expand during my set up and cable experiments with my last system.

Upon reflection, by earlier systems were less efficient and resolving. They sounded a bit forced and excelled only with very specific types of music of a certain scale. The system broke down or struggled with complex music and when it was pushed loud. Reissues sounded wonderful because they were quiet and full of contrast. The old systems were less nuanced and highlighted certain aspects of the sound. They sounded exciting at times and presented black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, high frequency detail, image outlines, space between instruments – all of the hi-fi stuff. It was almost as though I sat and saw the music in front of me. It was a visual presentation. Some music really highlighted these sonic attributes, and as a result, I gravitated toward those records in my collection.

I enjoy almost all of my LPs in my new system, even the mediocre recordings, and I listen to many that I hardly ever pulled out before. I am now focused on expanding my collection and searching for new and different performances rather than those that were more familiar. One interesting result though, is that some highly touted reissues that I used to love and collected, now sound a bit flat and dull. I still enjoy them for the music, but the originals, or even earlier pressings on thin vinyl, though sometimes noisier, sound more alive with energy. They sound more like real music to me.

Listening and Evaluating

I bought my new system in stages, first the turntable, then the electronics, and finally the speakers. During the process, I compared my old components to my new ones. We read about the importance of level matching components within +/- 0.5 dB so as to not advantage one component over the other. In all of my comparisons, the differences were so stark and obvious, that I did not feel in necessary to level match the volumes so precisely. I just went by ear and listened.

My listening preferences have also changed. I now listen primarily for a few very specific things: balance and information, and are dynamics and tone presented in a natural way. The rest usually falls into place. If the system or a component in the system is able to do these things well, differences are usually pretty obvious, and it was as I was comparing my new components to my old ones. The system is now quite settled and seems fully broken in, but I continue to learn and hear new things and appreciate what it does differently.

Interestingly, I now enjoy listening at lower volumes later at night than I ever did before, because the system still is dynamic and engaging, but I can also crank it up more than before with lower distortion when in the mood and when the music calls out for it. My old system needed to be played fairly loudly to enjoy. Perhaps this volume range is also an example of an expanding listening window.

Audio Language and References

I have been reading Karen Sumner’s essays here on WBF with some interest. She repeats the importance of referencing live acoustic music to guide us in system evaluation and building. I listened to live music, or did before Covid, and I used to reference that sound to gauge my progress with my system. But, I also compared the sound of my system to what I heard from other systems.

When people compare digital or analog, they often discuss how one sounds relative to the other. We see this all the time. What we see less often is a discussion of how each format sounds relative to live music. Why is that? As with different systems, should we not evaluate each relative to the reference of live music, rather than to each other?

Since I have been living with my new system, I find myself not really thinking about the sound of other systems; how one does some things better than another, and visa versa. I think of how similar or different an oboe or clarinet in my system sounds compared to my now distant memory of these instruments up on the stage in Boston Symphony hall.

This new system has me thinking more about the sounds of the actual instruments than it does about reproduced sound from some other system. This is a new thing for me and is a direct result of living with this system.

@tima and others have spoken about the high end audio language for a while now. That language, codified in the Audiophile Glossary of terms, has little meaning to me anymore. It is not what I think about when I hear live music, and it is no longer what I think about when listening to my new system. That language is about describing sounds, not music. I find it increasingly difficult to break music down. This system is not about individual sounds, emphasis and accents, it is about the whole gestalt of the music. Sound is simply presented in the room, and I am now hearing the music removed from the system.

These reflections are surely not unique, but they are a direct result of having lived with this system for a while now. I suspect many others have had similar changes in the way they think about these things as their exposure increased and their learning continued. I remain fascinated by the hobby and by just how much these music systems can teach us.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,018
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Thank you for updating us on how your new system has driven changes to the way you think about music and about sound!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterA and Tim Link

Tim Link

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
271
182
128
55
This system is not about individual sounds, emphasis and accents, it is about the whole gestalt of the music. Sound is simply presented in the room, and I am now hearing the music removed from the system.
I'm going to attempt an analogy that I think is appropriate here. I recently bought an HDR television and have been looking at HDR content and even attempting to make some of my own from raw photos out of my Nikon camera. What I've learned that I think applies here is that we cannot fully reproduce reality even with dramatically increased specifications on our reproduction equipment. The key is to fail gracefully in a way that presents the music, or the visual scene convincingly and naturally. A problem with visuals is that the real world has too much contrast and color much of the time. This morning I reproduced my dimly lighted room on the TV with remarkable accuracy and very little effort was required because nothing in the room was brighter or more saturated than what the camera could capture or the TV could produce. Once sunlight started hitting the walls the situation changed. My camera could expose it but the TV can't get that bright. What to do? Somehow the sunlit area has to be squished down in brightness without making it look weird. That's a dynamic range problem, and I don't know much yet about how to deal with it from scratch. The camera does a great job automatically if I just shoot jpeg. There's also color in some scenes that has to be limited without looking weird. With our sound systems the problems are not limited dynamic range or frequency response. It's more about directional presentation limits, non-original interference patterns, and perhaps absolute volume levels, and more I'm sure. We don't always want to listen at realistic levels but expect it to still sound good. We want sound from two speakers to sound like it's coming from many directions. It's going to fail in certain ways. Something panned directly to one speaker will have a different tonality than a center phantom image. It's unavoidable but it can be masked in a way that's natural and believable so the effect does not become distracting. Back to the imaging, the High Dynamic Range format is truly more capable of producing compelling and beautiful imagery. But the old standard dynamic range can still look beautiful and natural. In both cases the limits have to be managed properly and it could be argued that HDR improperly implemented can result in a look that is more jarring and irritating than ever before even if it is more accurate up to a point.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,018
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Sound is simply presented in the room, and I am now hearing the music removed from the system.
When you think about your prior Magico + Pass + SME system, did you not feel then that sound was simply presented in the room?

What are you (not) hearing now, that you didn't (did) hear then? Do you now think that you were hearing something then that you now realize was artificial or unconvincing?

Asking the question from a different angle don't most audiophiles in your experience feel that their systems are simply presenting the sound in the room, and that the music is liberated from the electronic artifice of their systems?
 

jeff1225

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2012
3,011
3,259
1,410
51
When you think about your prior Magico + Pass + SME system, did you not feel then that sound was simply presented in the room?

What are you (not) hearing now, that you didn't (did) hear then? Do you now think that you were hearing something then that you now realize was artificial or unconvincing?

Asking the question from a different angle don't most audiophiles in your experience feel that their systems are simply presenting the sound in the room, and that the music is liberated from the electronic artifice of their systems?
Peter's Magico + Pass system presented itself as a very good and accurate sounding stereo system. Peter's Vitavox + Lamm system presents itself as an event. Each record is something you look forward to hearing; you want to hear how a record that you've heard multiple times sounds on this truly unique and world class system.

The tone, the unique forward imaging, the resolution, etc....you've never heard anything quite like it before and you want to hear more of it. One of my top 5 systems ever.....period, end of sentence.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,525
10,689
3,515
USA
When you think about your prior Magico + Pass + SME system, did you not feel then that sound was simply presented in the room?

What are you (not) hearing now, that you didn't (did) hear then? Do you now think that you were hearing something then that you now realize was artificial or unconvincing?

Asking the question from a different angle don't most audiophiles in your experience feel that their systems are simply presenting the sound in the room, and that the music is liberated from the electronic artifice of their systems?

Ron, this is my own experience with my new system in the context of my room and with my familiar music. I will not presume to speak to what other audiophiles experience from their systems. Based on conversations with a handful of people, I do know that a few members here do experience things similarly to what I’m describing when they listen to their systems, but I do not know how many beyond those few would describe it as I do.

In regards to my old system, it’s not a matter that I heard things from that system which I do not from this system. It is just the opposite. This system presents so much more information from the recording, and it presents it in a more natural way, that it frees up the sound and allows me to hear or focus on the music rather than on the system.

I am hearing the music on the recording now while before I heard much more of an impression from the system. With my former system, sound was presented in the room, but it was less natural, less convincing, and less believable and the music was a bit lost.

It took living with and experiencing the new system for me to grasp the difference. I was exposed for a week to what is possible when I visited David in Utah. I am now living with something very similar, and it is making me think about audio reproduction in a whole new way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Resnick

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,018
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
That's wonderful, Peter! I understand you to be saying that the new system brings you closer emotionally to the re-creation of the sound of live music. An element of electronic artifice or synthesized reproduction has been stripped away, leaving you closer to, and more engaged by, the music itself.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,525
10,689
3,515
USA
That's wonderful, Peter! I understand you to be saying that the new system brings you closer emotionally to the re-creation of the sound of live music. An element of electronic artifice or synthesized reproduction has been stripped away, leaving you closer to, and more engaged by, the music itself.

Thank you Ron. I am simply saying that my system presents the music in a more natural way, so I enjoy listen to my records more.

Emotional engagement, electronic artifice and synthesized reproduction is just fancy language that makes things confusing. The new system is simply less noticeable than the old one was. My thoughts about audio are becoming more simple rather than more complex.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jespera

jespera

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2018
494
539
200
London
Having lived with my system for the better part of a year now, I would like to share some of my recent thoughts about audio. My ideas continue to evolve. The more I listen to my system, the more I am learning about music and how it is reproduced in my room. I thought about starting a dedicated thread on this topic, but decided to share my thoughts here because my thinking has evolved specifically from listening to my new system in the context of my room with my music.

I have been thinking about three topics as I sit and learn while listening to my new system:
1. The expanding listening window
2. How do we listen and evaluate
3. Our language and references

The Listening Window

I posted a link to Jeff's Day's very interesting article in Positive Feedback and started a thread on the subject: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...g-window-by-jeff-day-positive-feedback.31367/. Mr. Day discusses the idea that systems could be assembled to increase the variety of music and recordings one can enjoy on his system. My new system has expanded my listening window. I listen to an increasing range of music, and I enjoy it more than ever before. My old system seemed to reduce the listening window and also the volume at which the music was enjoyable.

I think this expansion of the listening window is a direct result of the type of system I now have. I do not yet fully understand why this is happening, but I suspect the actual component selection and set up are partly responsible. It is easier for me to understand the results of what I hear than it is to analyze the cause. My new system is highly efficient, very resolving, and there is an ease and naturalness to the way the music is presented and fills the room.

I now listen to and thoroughly enjoy solo instruments and chamber music up to full orchestra, lieder to full chorus, jazz trio to big band, girl with guitar, blues and rock to classical and jazz, even some vintage pop/folk and current pop on vinyl. This was not the case with my former systems, but the window did expand during my set up and cable experiments with my last system.

Upon reflection, by earlier systems were less efficient and resolving. They sounded a bit forced and excelled only with very specific types of music of a certain scale. The system broke down or struggled with complex music and when it was pushed loud. Reissues sounded wonderful because they were quiet and full of contrast. The old systems were less nuanced and highlighted certain aspects of the sound. They sounded exciting at times and presented black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, high frequency detail, image outlines, space between instruments – all of the hi-fi stuff. It was almost as though I sat and saw the music in front of me. It was a visual presentation. Some music really highlighted these sonic attributes, and as a result, I gravitated toward those records in my collection.

I enjoy almost all of my LPs in my new system, even the mediocre recordings, and I listen to many that I hardly ever pulled out before. I am now focused on expanding my collection and searching for new and different performances rather than those that were more familiar. One interesting result though, is that some highly touted reissues that I used to love and collected, now sound a bit flat and dull. I still enjoy them for the music, but the originals, or even earlier pressings on thin vinyl, though sometimes noisier, sound more alive with energy. They sound more like real music to me.

Listening and Evaluating

I bought my new system in stages, first the turntable, then the electronics, and finally the speakers. During the process, I compared my old components to my new ones. We read about the importance of level matching components within +/- 0.5 dB so as to not advantage one component over the other. In all of my comparisons, the differences were so stark and obvious, that I did not feel in necessary to level match the volumes so precisely. I just went by ear and listened.

My listening preferences have also changed. I now listen primarily for a few very specific things: balance and information, and are dynamics and tone presented in a natural way. The rest usually falls into place. If the system or a component in the system is able to do these things well, differences are usually pretty obvious, and it was as I was comparing my new components to my old ones. The system is now quite settled and seems fully broken in, but I continue to learn and hear new things and appreciate what it does differently.

Interestingly, I now enjoy listening at lower volumes later at night than I ever did before, because the system still is dynamic and engaging, but I can also crank it up more than before with lower distortion when in the mood and when the music calls out for it. My old system needed to be played fairly loudly to enjoy. Perhaps this volume range is also an example of an expanding listening window.

Audio Language and References

I have been reading Karen Sumner’s essays here on WBF with some interest. She repeats the importance of referencing live acoustic music to guide us in system evaluation and building. I listened to live music, or did before Covid, and I used to reference that sound to gauge my progress with my system. But, I also compared the sound of my system to what I heard from other systems.

When people compare digital or analog, they often discuss how one sounds relative to the other. We see this all the time. What we see less often is a discussion of how each format sounds relative to live music. Why is that? As with different systems, should we not evaluate each relative to the reference of live music, rather than to each other?

Since I have been living with my new system, I find myself not really thinking about the sound of other systems; how one does some things better than another, and visa versa. I think of how similar or different an oboe or clarinet in my system sounds compared to my now distant memory of these instruments up on the stage in Boston Symphony hall.

This new system has me thinking more about the sounds of the actual instruments than it does about reproduced sound from some other system. This is a new thing for me and is a direct result of living with this system.

@tima and others have spoken about the high end audio language for a while now. That language, codified in the Audiophile Glossary of terms, has little meaning to me anymore. It is not what I think about when I hear live music, and it is no longer what I think about when listening to my new system. That language is about describing sounds, not music. I find it increasingly difficult to break music down. This system is not about individual sounds, emphasis and accents, it is about the whole gestalt of the music. Sound is simply presented in the room, and I am now hearing the music removed from the system.

These reflections are surely not unique, but they are a direct result of having lived with this system for a while now. I suspect many others have had similar changes in the way they think about these things as their exposure increased and their learning continued. I remain fascinated by the hobby and by just how much these music systems can teach us.

Try 78’s.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,688
4,477
963
Greater Boston
I'm going to attempt an analogy that I think is appropriate here. I recently bought an HDR television and have been looking at HDR content and even attempting to make some of my own from raw photos out of my Nikon camera. What I've learned that I think applies here is that we cannot fully reproduce reality even with dramatically increased specifications on our reproduction equipment. The key is to fail gracefully in a way that presents the music, or the visual scene convincingly and naturally. A problem with visuals is that the real world has too much contrast and color much of the time. This morning I reproduced my dimly lighted room on the TV with remarkable accuracy and very little effort was required because nothing in the room was brighter or more saturated than what the camera could capture or the TV could produce. Once sunlight started hitting the walls the situation changed. My camera could expose it but the TV can't get that bright. What to do? Somehow the sunlit area has to be squished down in brightness without making it look weird. That's a dynamic range problem, and I don't know much yet about how to deal with it from scratch. The camera does a great job automatically if I just shoot jpeg. There's also color in some scenes that has to be limited without looking weird. With our sound systems the problems are not limited dynamic range or frequency response. It's more about directional presentation limits, non-original interference patterns, and perhaps absolute volume levels, and more I'm sure. We don't always want to listen at realistic levels but expect it to still sound good. We want sound from two speakers to sound like it's coming from many directions. It's going to fail in certain ways. Something panned directly to one speaker will have a different tonality than a center phantom image. It's unavoidable but it can be masked in a way that's natural and believable so the effect does not become distracting. Back to the imaging, the High Dynamic Range format is truly more capable of producing compelling and beautiful imagery. But the old standard dynamic range can still look beautiful and natural. In both cases the limits have to be managed properly and it could be argued that HDR improperly implemented can result in a look that is more jarring and irritating than ever before even if it is more accurate up to a point.

Good post.

"and it could be argued that HDR improperly implemented can result in a look that is more jarring and irritating than ever before even if it is more accurate up to a point."

Why is a car radio rarely irritating, but a stereo often is? Objectively the sound quality of a regular car stereo is much worse than that of a good home stereo, and it usually has clear limitations in the frequency extremes. But perhaps it "fails gracefully", to use your term, while a home stereo often fails in a, to again use your words, jarring and irritating way, even though its failings are objectively less.

It takes a lot of work to have a home stereo fail gracefully, but in a good way -- by solving problems, such as are individual emphases and accents, not by masking them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,688
4,477
963
Greater Boston
I dream of having a system that moves me emotionally by how lifelike I think it is!

That depends on how you define lifelike.

If you mean timbre that sounds like live music, that is a very elusive goal. Especially when it comes to orchestral music.

If you concentrate on "life" in lifelike, and you want to reproduce the liveliness, the vivid nature of live (unamplified) music, that is more realistically achievable, at least to a good extent. And it certainly can move emotionally.

But the achievability of liveliness in reproduction also depends on the design approach of a system.
 
Last edited:

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
That depends on how you define lifelike.

If you mean timbre that sounds like live music, that is a very elusive goal. Especially when it comes to orchestral music.

If you concentrate on "life" in lifelike, and you want to reproduce the liveliness, the vivid nature of live (unamplified) music, that is more realistically achievable, at least to a good extent. And it certainly can move emotionally.

But the achievability of liveliness in reproduction also depends on the design approach of a system.

Doesn't Scott get to decide if he is emotionally moved?
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
What I've learned that I think applies here is that we cannot fully reproduce reality even with dramatically increased specifications on our reproduction equipment.

Visual-audio analogies are not my thing, but I do agree with you here. If there comes a day we cannot distinguish reality from reproduction I think we are truly lost.

There is no spoon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
Thanks for your post. I enjoy reading you talk about your new system. It is a source of hope. :)

When people compare digital or analog, they often discuss how one sounds relative to the other. We see this all the time. What we see less often is a discussion of how each format sounds relative to live music. Why is that? As with different systems, should we not evaluate each relative to the reference of live music, rather than to each other?

Describing music is difficult. Some prefer to describe sound using diagrams and numbers. People do not relate to describing music with charts and numbers. Comparing a component with another component allows us to pick winners and losers. Comparing a system to live music, the system always loses. Comparing a system to a system to live music may let us talk about which system brings us closer to reality.

That language, codified in the Audiophile Glossary of terms, has little meaning to me anymore. It is not what I think about when I hear live music, and it is no longer what I think about when listening to my new system. That language is about describing sounds, not music.

So, you are there. Congratulations.

Perhaps the real goal of being an audiophile is not to be an audiophile.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,525
10,689
3,515
USA
Try 78’s.

Jespera, you are not the first to make that suggestion to me. I've considered it, but I don't really know how to go about it. I don't really have the recordings, and I would really prefer to have a second turntable for this so that I would not have to change the motor pulley each time. I'm also not sure about flipping the record that often, but I hear you. Thank you.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing