Hi Orb. Yes, I believe Jeff did write somewhere he was going to incorporate hi-res digital, consistent with the "best" theme. I would hope though that 2 systems would not be required...but rather that 1 system [might] have 2 digital sources: 1 for redbook, and 1 for high-res...assuming Jeff finds (as some of us have) a redbook-only DAC/player that still reigns within the world of redbook (where most of the digital music still lies today).
Your "World's Best Audio System" . . . 2012 Edition
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
Ah thanks,
there is a chance hi-res may be better on a secondary system due to more "digital preamps-amps" compared to traditional seperates that may perform better at hi-rez, so it may not be possible to differentiate by traditional 2 digital sources.
Cheers
Orb
Just to add something that may not be as obvious and I admit muddies the water as they say, is whether the traditional component (pre or power amp) has the specification to present hi-rez, as an example signal/noise ratio through the audioband.
It may be possible that the best sound or most preferred does not have the capability to provide hi-rez and therefore more applicable to CD.
This is complicating the project more than necessary and the narrative may not be required or even wanted for the articles, but shows why it could be possible at the end of the project for there to be two systems in terms of preference/sound quality when also considering hi-rez, which could be traditional type audio components or as suggested in earlier post digital pre-power audio gear.
Cheers
Orb
May be because we are framing the posts on S. Linkwitz and speakers. If the posts were about electronics (or even cables) the same facts would generate more controversy.
May be because we are framing the posts on S. Linkwitz and speakers. If the posts were about electronics (or even cables) the same facts would generate more controversy.
Well, that and we haven't fully explained ourselves. If I hadn't just shown pictures but, instead, had simply proposed that I thought an absolutely competitive WBAS could be assembled from a pair of semi-DIY, kit built, active, open baffle, omni-polar speakers that, including crossovers and 12 channels of amplification would come in under 10 grand, it may have generated a bit more controversey.
Perhaps it belongs on the "How much is too much" thread.
Tim
I thought I would provide you guys with an update as to where I am at right now in the process. One thing I found out early on, and that was quite different from the first TWBAS event, is that virtually all the super-high-end manufacturers know of TWBAS now. The result is that I have gotten an outpouring of response from the industry. Lots of folks want their products and companies to be involved in TWBAS 2012. The first time around I simply made the picks and then had to make the calls to pitch the ideas to people who did not initially even understand the concept. This time is much better in that regard!
The upshot here is that I have multiple proposals in each product genre (except one, which I’ll get to) and some that are extremely interesting. I have some products on the way now that will be assessed, and I will be taking some trips to assess others. Still others are still under development and do not exist as finished products yet, but are close enough to completion to warrant consideration as some are awfully ambitious.
The one product genre I am somewhat stuck with is the racks. I see (and have read) a thread devoted to that, but I am kind of amazed there aren’t more alternatives. Ideas and contacts welcome.
I can’t say that I’m not having a ball with all this. In many ways this is like the ultimate shopping spree for the audiophile (except that it ends when it all goes back!).
The upshot here is that I have multiple proposals in each product genre (except one, which I’ll get to) and some that are extremely interesting. I have some products on the way now that will be assessed, and I will be taking some trips to assess others. Still others are still under development and do not exist as finished products yet, but are close enough to completion to warrant consideration as some are awfully ambitious.
The one product genre I am somewhat stuck with is the racks. I see (and have read) a thread devoted to that, but I am kind of amazed there aren’t more alternatives. Ideas and contacts welcome.
I can’t say that I’m not having a ball with all this. In many ways this is like the ultimate shopping spree for the audiophile (except that it ends when it all goes back!).
Finite Elements racks from Germany. I own the pagode Master Reference (Six resonator types (220 Hz, 486 Hz, 512 Hz, 550 Hz, 670 Hz and 882 Hz.)
are distributed in two possible variations across the whole rack) , but now they also have them with better looks - the Pagode Edition.
Attachments
Hi Jeff,
Besides Finite Elemente, i would suggest: HRS (incredible, incredible...and expensive...probably 30 large for a full rack...i have not experienced anything quite like it.) From what i am hearing from many people, the Wave Kinetics A10-U8s...people are replacing entire rack system with these feet ($700/4). I have heard good things about Living Voice G8 table (which looks like a Finite Elemente).
In terms of audio racks I cannot hide a little skepticism... Despite the influence of resonances can be very relevant to certain pieces of gear (tubed, turntables...), in terms of value-for-money (even if not relevant for TWBAS!) some of them seem really excessive to me. Have to say I've never made any comparison tough...
The racks I encountered in audio shows were from HRS (great look, also!), Finite Elemente, Omicron (an Italian company), BCD (another Italian company, partner of the electronics Audio Analogue), Solidsteel, Music Tools, SRA, Steelpoints, and probably others... I've seen impressive prices from Critical Mass (which also look good): a full set could be even more expensive than one from HRS.
The racks I encountered in audio shows were from HRS (great look, also!), Finite Elemente, Omicron (an Italian company), BCD (another Italian company, partner of the electronics Audio Analogue), Solidsteel, Music Tools, SRA, Steelpoints, and probably others... I've seen impressive prices from Critical Mass (which also look good): a full set could be even more expensive than one from HRS.
Hi Jeff,
Best of luck with your endevour!
A question if I may about your stated goal. I haven't read all 35 pages of the thread so please excuse me if you have already been asked this...
How will you know if the gear you are listening to is reproducing the recording with "100% truthfulness -- faithfulness, aka fidelity -- to the source"?
What do you define as "the source"? The live (such as it is) event in the recording space?
I imagine you weren't at every recording session - and even if you were audio memory does not last very long. And of course effects can be added (reverb etc...) in post-production which means the recording is not even true to the source - let alone a reproduction of it.
Thanks in advance
Mark
Best of luck with your endevour!
A question if I may about your stated goal. I haven't read all 35 pages of the thread so please excuse me if you have already been asked this...
How will you know if the gear you are listening to is reproducing the recording with "100% truthfulness -- faithfulness, aka fidelity -- to the source"?
What do you define as "the source"? The live (such as it is) event in the recording space?
I imagine you weren't at every recording session - and even if you were audio memory does not last very long. And of course effects can be added (reverb etc...) in post-production which means the recording is not even true to the source - let alone a reproduction of it.
Thanks in advance
Mark
Mark,
Your questions strike directly to the core of the audio dilemma. The answers, certainly not easily found, are only partially disclosed by any system. That is why Jeff has elected to assemble various systems using the acronym TWBAS and run continual experiments. I hope that Jeff will join in to explain his vision further.
Lee
Jeff,
This was an article in the NY Times. i know the componenents themselves may not be SOTA, but the attempt at SOTA has merit. this is an 11.2 channel system (3 front, 2 up, 2 front/side, 2 subs, 2 off-center rear and 2 rear) using digital delays/filters where they recreated Boston Symphony in a 30x45 room in California in terms of sound delays, echos, etc from a recording of Handel's Messiah. Their goal is to be able to recreate original recording venues...whether there are enough cues in any original recording or not...or whether they were able to do it because they were the ones who originally recorded the event as part of this experiment...no idea. But certainly sounds like an interesting approach. i have a good friend who was an engineer with BBC...he has Tannoy speakers...14 of them...and built his own digital delays, and claims to be able to much more completely recreate original sound venues.
i dont think this qualifies for TWBAS because it is an experiment and not commercially available. However, i thought WBF members might be intrigued to peek into what may be the future.
Sound, the Way the Brain Prefers to Hear It
By GUY GUGLIOTTA
Published: September 5, 2011
LOS ANGELES — There is, perhaps, no more uplifting musical experience than hearing the “Hallelujah” chorus from Handel’s “Messiah” performed in a perfect space. Many critics regard Symphony Hall in Boston — 70 feet wide, 120 feet long and 65 feet high — as just that space.
Some 3,000 miles away, however, a visitor led into the pitch-blackness of Chris Kyriakakis’s audio lab at the University of Southern California to hear a recording of the performance would have no way to know how big the room was.
At first it sounded like elegant music played in the parlor on good equipment. Nothing special. But as engineers added combinations of speakers, the room seemed to expand and the music swelled in richness and depth, until finally it was as if the visitor were sitting with the audience in Boston.
Then the music stopped and the lights came on. It turned out that the Immersive Audio Lab at U.S.C.’s Viterbi School of Engineering is dark, a bit dingy, and only 30 feet wide, 45 feet long and 14 feet high.
Acousticians have been designing concert halls for more than a century, but Dr. Kyriakakis does something different. He shapes the sound of music to conform to the space in which it is played. The goal is what Dr. Kyriakakis calls the “ground truth” — to replicate the original in every respect. “We remove the room,” he said, “so the ground truth can be delivered.”
Dr. Kyriakakis, an electrical engineer at U.S.C. and the founder and chief technical officer of Audyssey Laboratories, a Los Angeles-based audio firm, could not achieve his results without modern sound filters and digital microprocessors.
But the basis of his technique is rooted in the science of psychoacoustics, the study of sound perception by the human auditory system. “It’s about the human ear and the human brain, and understanding how the human ear perceives sound,” Dr. Kyriakakis said.
Psychoacoustics has become an invaluable tool in designing hearing aids and cochlear implants, and in the study of hearing generally. “Psychoacoustics is fundamental,” said Andrew J. Oxenham, a psychologist and hearing expert at the University of Minnesota. “You need to know how the normally functioning auditory system works — how sound relates to human perception.”
The field’s origins date back more than a century, to the first efforts to quantify the psychological properties of sound. What tones could humans hear, and how loudly or softly did they need to be heard?
Pitch could be measured in hertz and loudness in decibels, but other phenomena were not so easily quantified. Human hearing can discern the movement of sound with a surprising degree of accuracy. It can distinguish timbre, the difference between a clarinet and a saxophone. It can remember patterns of speech, to immediately identify a friend in a phone call years after last hearing the voice. And a parent can effortlessly sift the sound of an infant’s cry from the blare of a televised football game.
Finally there were the imponderables, things we do with our hearing simply because we can. “Everyone knows the sound of a bowling ball as it rolls down the alley,” said William M. Hartmann, a Michigan State University physicist and former president of the Acoustical Society of America. “What is it about that sound that we can identify?”
For much of the 20th century, engineers devoted themselves to developing acoustical hardware like amplifiers, speakers and recording systems. After World War II, scientists learned how to use mathematical formulas to “subtract” unwanted noise from sound signals. Then they learned how to make sound signals without any unwanted noise.
Next came stereo. By recording two tracks, engineers could localize sound for the listener. “Simple enough,” said Alan Kraemer, chief technological officer for SRS Labs, an audio company in Santa Ana, Calif. “If something’s louder on one side, you’ll hear it on that side.”
But stereo had no real psychoacoustics. It created an artificial sense of space with a second track, but did so by dealing with only one variable — loudness — and enhanced human perception simply by suggesting that listeners separate their speakers.
The digital age changed all this, allowing engineers to manipulate sound in ways that had never been tried before. They could create sounds that had never existed, eliminate sounds they did not want and use constant changes in filter combinations to deliver sound to listeners with a fidelity that had never before been possible.
Digital technology has led to innovations that have been critical in improving sound reproduction, in tailoring hearing aids for individual patients and in treating hearing impairment and developing cochlear implants — tiny electronic devices linking sound directly to the auditory nerve of a deaf person.
“Hearing aids are not the same as glasses,” said Dr. Oxenham, at the University of Minnesota. “It’s never been just about hearing sound; it’s also about understanding sound and separating it from background noise. We can help with microprocessors. Without them it would have been impossible.”
Despite recent advances, however, psychoacoustics has shown engineers that they still have a long way to go. No machine can yet duplicate the ability of the human ear to understand a conversation in a crowded restaurant. People with cochlear implants have “a terrible time” with background noise, Dr. Oxenham said. They also have trouble with pitch perception and distinguishing the sounds of different instruments. “Hearing loops,” which are transmitters that broadcast sound signals directly to a receiver in a hearing aid, are catching on in concert halls, places of worship and even subway booths.
“The technology is really being strained,” said Dr. Hartmann, at Michigan State. Because of psychoacoustics, “we know so much more, and therefore we can do so much more,” but “there is so much more to do.”
One factor that slows the pace of innovation, Dr. Hartmann suggested, is that the human auditory system is “highly nonlinear.” It is difficult to isolate or change a single variable — like loudness — without affecting several others in unanticipated ways. “Things don’t follow an intuitive pattern,” he said.
It was this anomaly, in part, that led Dr. Kyriakakis in the 1990s to venture into psychoacoustics. He, his U.S.C. film school associate Tomlinson Holman, and their students were trying to improve the listening qualities of a room by measuring sound with strategically placed microphones.
“Often our changes were worse than doing nothing at all,” Dr. Kyriakakis recalled. “The mic liked the sound, but the human ear wasn’t liking it at all. We needed to find out what we had to do. We had to learn about psychoacoustics.”
The trick was to establish a baseline for what sounded best, and there was no guidebook. So Dr. Kyriakakis and his students went to Boston Symphony Hall in 1998 to conduct a series of sound tests and to record the “Messiah.”
At that time, acousticians had long known that a shoebox-shaped concert hall like Boston’s offered the best sound, but what was important for Dr. Kyriakakis was to know why the human ear and the human brain that processed the signal felt that way.
Back in Los Angeles, his team began a series of simple experiments. Listeners were invited into the labs to hear the Boston tests and music and to rate the sound, using a scale of 1 to 5. Researchers shifted the sound to different combinations of speakers around the room.
Statistics showed that speakers directly ahead, combined with speakers 55 degrees to either side of the listener, provided the most attractive soundstage. The “wide” speakers mimicked the reflection from the side walls of the concert hall by causing the sound to arrive at the listener’s ears milliseconds after the sound from the front. Sound from other angles did not have as great an effect.
Next, the team asked listeners what combination of speakers gave the best impression of “depth of stage.” Here again, statistics showed a clear preference for speakers in front of listeners and high above them. This sound — also slightly delayed — gave the ear and the human brain a sense of where the different instruments were on a bandstand.
With these results as his template, Dr. Kyriakakis founded Audyssey. His idea was to make dens and living rooms sound like concert halls and movie theaters. Microprocessors made it possible to filter sound to minimize distortion and add the delays that make the music sound nearly perfect to the human ear from anywhere in the room.
Audyssey’s first product, MultEQ, started with a five-speaker configuration, but for a full concert-hall-like effect, it now offers what Dr. Kyriakakis calls an “11.2” system: three speakers in front of the listener; two elevated speakers; two wides; two speakers slightly behind the listener, and two speakers directly in back. Audio-video receivers with Audyssey’s latest MultEQ technology cost $1,000 to $2,000.
For the unsophisticated listener, top-of-the-line sound equipment by itself seems good enough, but it is not like the psychoacoustically adjusted version. A video of the Eagles singing “Hotel California” sounded nice to a visitor until Audyssey’s hardware director, Andrew Turner, pointed out that there was no bass when the volume was low. He flicked a switch and the bass returned, enriching the music with startling effect.
“At the concert itself, where there was a big room with a lot of high-volume sound, you could hear the low tones,” he said. “But here in the studio, your brain is filtering them out as irrelevant at low volume. So you have to restore them.
“It’s pure psychoacoustics.”
This was an article in the NY Times. i know the componenents themselves may not be SOTA, but the attempt at SOTA has merit. this is an 11.2 channel system (3 front, 2 up, 2 front/side, 2 subs, 2 off-center rear and 2 rear) using digital delays/filters where they recreated Boston Symphony in a 30x45 room in California in terms of sound delays, echos, etc from a recording of Handel's Messiah. Their goal is to be able to recreate original recording venues...whether there are enough cues in any original recording or not...or whether they were able to do it because they were the ones who originally recorded the event as part of this experiment...no idea. But certainly sounds like an interesting approach. i have a good friend who was an engineer with BBC...he has Tannoy speakers...14 of them...and built his own digital delays, and claims to be able to much more completely recreate original sound venues.
i dont think this qualifies for TWBAS because it is an experiment and not commercially available. However, i thought WBF members might be intrigued to peek into what may be the future.
Sound, the Way the Brain Prefers to Hear It
By GUY GUGLIOTTA
Published: September 5, 2011
LOS ANGELES — There is, perhaps, no more uplifting musical experience than hearing the “Hallelujah” chorus from Handel’s “Messiah” performed in a perfect space. Many critics regard Symphony Hall in Boston — 70 feet wide, 120 feet long and 65 feet high — as just that space.
Some 3,000 miles away, however, a visitor led into the pitch-blackness of Chris Kyriakakis’s audio lab at the University of Southern California to hear a recording of the performance would have no way to know how big the room was.
At first it sounded like elegant music played in the parlor on good equipment. Nothing special. But as engineers added combinations of speakers, the room seemed to expand and the music swelled in richness and depth, until finally it was as if the visitor were sitting with the audience in Boston.
Then the music stopped and the lights came on. It turned out that the Immersive Audio Lab at U.S.C.’s Viterbi School of Engineering is dark, a bit dingy, and only 30 feet wide, 45 feet long and 14 feet high.
Acousticians have been designing concert halls for more than a century, but Dr. Kyriakakis does something different. He shapes the sound of music to conform to the space in which it is played. The goal is what Dr. Kyriakakis calls the “ground truth” — to replicate the original in every respect. “We remove the room,” he said, “so the ground truth can be delivered.”
Dr. Kyriakakis, an electrical engineer at U.S.C. and the founder and chief technical officer of Audyssey Laboratories, a Los Angeles-based audio firm, could not achieve his results without modern sound filters and digital microprocessors.
But the basis of his technique is rooted in the science of psychoacoustics, the study of sound perception by the human auditory system. “It’s about the human ear and the human brain, and understanding how the human ear perceives sound,” Dr. Kyriakakis said.
Psychoacoustics has become an invaluable tool in designing hearing aids and cochlear implants, and in the study of hearing generally. “Psychoacoustics is fundamental,” said Andrew J. Oxenham, a psychologist and hearing expert at the University of Minnesota. “You need to know how the normally functioning auditory system works — how sound relates to human perception.”
The field’s origins date back more than a century, to the first efforts to quantify the psychological properties of sound. What tones could humans hear, and how loudly or softly did they need to be heard?
Pitch could be measured in hertz and loudness in decibels, but other phenomena were not so easily quantified. Human hearing can discern the movement of sound with a surprising degree of accuracy. It can distinguish timbre, the difference between a clarinet and a saxophone. It can remember patterns of speech, to immediately identify a friend in a phone call years after last hearing the voice. And a parent can effortlessly sift the sound of an infant’s cry from the blare of a televised football game.
Finally there were the imponderables, things we do with our hearing simply because we can. “Everyone knows the sound of a bowling ball as it rolls down the alley,” said William M. Hartmann, a Michigan State University physicist and former president of the Acoustical Society of America. “What is it about that sound that we can identify?”
For much of the 20th century, engineers devoted themselves to developing acoustical hardware like amplifiers, speakers and recording systems. After World War II, scientists learned how to use mathematical formulas to “subtract” unwanted noise from sound signals. Then they learned how to make sound signals without any unwanted noise.
Next came stereo. By recording two tracks, engineers could localize sound for the listener. “Simple enough,” said Alan Kraemer, chief technological officer for SRS Labs, an audio company in Santa Ana, Calif. “If something’s louder on one side, you’ll hear it on that side.”
But stereo had no real psychoacoustics. It created an artificial sense of space with a second track, but did so by dealing with only one variable — loudness — and enhanced human perception simply by suggesting that listeners separate their speakers.
The digital age changed all this, allowing engineers to manipulate sound in ways that had never been tried before. They could create sounds that had never existed, eliminate sounds they did not want and use constant changes in filter combinations to deliver sound to listeners with a fidelity that had never before been possible.
Digital technology has led to innovations that have been critical in improving sound reproduction, in tailoring hearing aids for individual patients and in treating hearing impairment and developing cochlear implants — tiny electronic devices linking sound directly to the auditory nerve of a deaf person.
“Hearing aids are not the same as glasses,” said Dr. Oxenham, at the University of Minnesota. “It’s never been just about hearing sound; it’s also about understanding sound and separating it from background noise. We can help with microprocessors. Without them it would have been impossible.”
Despite recent advances, however, psychoacoustics has shown engineers that they still have a long way to go. No machine can yet duplicate the ability of the human ear to understand a conversation in a crowded restaurant. People with cochlear implants have “a terrible time” with background noise, Dr. Oxenham said. They also have trouble with pitch perception and distinguishing the sounds of different instruments. “Hearing loops,” which are transmitters that broadcast sound signals directly to a receiver in a hearing aid, are catching on in concert halls, places of worship and even subway booths.
“The technology is really being strained,” said Dr. Hartmann, at Michigan State. Because of psychoacoustics, “we know so much more, and therefore we can do so much more,” but “there is so much more to do.”
One factor that slows the pace of innovation, Dr. Hartmann suggested, is that the human auditory system is “highly nonlinear.” It is difficult to isolate or change a single variable — like loudness — without affecting several others in unanticipated ways. “Things don’t follow an intuitive pattern,” he said.
It was this anomaly, in part, that led Dr. Kyriakakis in the 1990s to venture into psychoacoustics. He, his U.S.C. film school associate Tomlinson Holman, and their students were trying to improve the listening qualities of a room by measuring sound with strategically placed microphones.
“Often our changes were worse than doing nothing at all,” Dr. Kyriakakis recalled. “The mic liked the sound, but the human ear wasn’t liking it at all. We needed to find out what we had to do. We had to learn about psychoacoustics.”
The trick was to establish a baseline for what sounded best, and there was no guidebook. So Dr. Kyriakakis and his students went to Boston Symphony Hall in 1998 to conduct a series of sound tests and to record the “Messiah.”
At that time, acousticians had long known that a shoebox-shaped concert hall like Boston’s offered the best sound, but what was important for Dr. Kyriakakis was to know why the human ear and the human brain that processed the signal felt that way.
Back in Los Angeles, his team began a series of simple experiments. Listeners were invited into the labs to hear the Boston tests and music and to rate the sound, using a scale of 1 to 5. Researchers shifted the sound to different combinations of speakers around the room.
Statistics showed that speakers directly ahead, combined with speakers 55 degrees to either side of the listener, provided the most attractive soundstage. The “wide” speakers mimicked the reflection from the side walls of the concert hall by causing the sound to arrive at the listener’s ears milliseconds after the sound from the front. Sound from other angles did not have as great an effect.
Next, the team asked listeners what combination of speakers gave the best impression of “depth of stage.” Here again, statistics showed a clear preference for speakers in front of listeners and high above them. This sound — also slightly delayed — gave the ear and the human brain a sense of where the different instruments were on a bandstand.
With these results as his template, Dr. Kyriakakis founded Audyssey. His idea was to make dens and living rooms sound like concert halls and movie theaters. Microprocessors made it possible to filter sound to minimize distortion and add the delays that make the music sound nearly perfect to the human ear from anywhere in the room.
Audyssey’s first product, MultEQ, started with a five-speaker configuration, but for a full concert-hall-like effect, it now offers what Dr. Kyriakakis calls an “11.2” system: three speakers in front of the listener; two elevated speakers; two wides; two speakers slightly behind the listener, and two speakers directly in back. Audio-video receivers with Audyssey’s latest MultEQ technology cost $1,000 to $2,000.
For the unsophisticated listener, top-of-the-line sound equipment by itself seems good enough, but it is not like the psychoacoustically adjusted version. A video of the Eagles singing “Hotel California” sounded nice to a visitor until Audyssey’s hardware director, Andrew Turner, pointed out that there was no bass when the volume was low. He flicked a switch and the bass returned, enriching the music with startling effect.
“At the concert itself, where there was a big room with a lot of high-volume sound, you could hear the low tones,” he said. “But here in the studio, your brain is filtering them out as irrelevant at low volume. So you have to restore them.
“It’s pure psychoacoustics.”
Unfortunately it sounds like another chapter in the playing of games with phase and all the other things after the fact. Which sorta works ...
But ultimately it sounds to me like just another gimmick, which is impressive in the short term, but which would irritate more and more in long term listening ...
Frank
But ultimately it sounds to me like just another gimmick, which is impressive in the short term, but which would irritate more and more in long term listening ...
Frank
Hi Jeff.
There are a lot of racks out there which are very good, but Finite Elemente from Germany has come up with something very special with their latest Emperor model. The vibration damping inside the shelves of this rack is active. It is an active vibration damping system controlled by elecronics inside the shelves and in an outboard controller. Check it out.
Thanks,
Roy
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Jeff if I had done that to the floor of my room which BTW is also over the garage, I would be in divorce court
Jeff if I had done that to the floor of my room which BTW is also over the garage, I would be in divorce court
Oh I know.
The two worst times:
when I moved the Wilson XS into my living room; when I knocked out a wall to get the Rockport Altairs into the stairwell.
My wife, way back when, developed what she calls APBs: Automatic Psychological Blinders. These enable her to completely ignore things that would cause a normal woman apoplexy.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
The things we do in this hobby. I must say however that doing what you did would not shine well if I had done it
Similar threads
