Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed,
one should not acquire or listen to surround recordings?


No, but a good argument can be made that one should not
invest money in their production which could be better spent
on more lucrative investments like Ukranian yoghurt futures.


Mmmm... Ukranian yoghurt... Mmmm...

"The public" seems generally pleased with mediocrity. The only reason we have
high-fidelity recording and playback is that the people who designed the
equipment wanted it.

  #322   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I think there is still a small market for realistic recordings that are
designed to be listened to rather than listened through. I agree that
the market is small and shrinking but I don't think it's zero yet.


Small, yes. Shrinking... I don't know. Blu-ray Audio seems destined to become
the hi-res format for serious listeners. It will, perforce, include surround
programs. Whether people will actually listen to those programs is something
else.

  #325   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_] Neil[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Ping-pong stereo

On 12/29/2014 3:20 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...

This is what I call the "Floyd fallacy" -- the belief that testing
listener preference gives you useful information about the /quality/
of sound reproduction. Count Floyd has built a career around this.


Why are you conflating "preference" with "quality"? See above.


I'M NOT.

Do you (meaning everyone reading this) see why I get so exasperated --
ANGRY -- at people's illiteracy -- their utter inability to read and
understand plain English?

READ THAT PARAGRAPH OUT LOUD. What does it actually say?

Was your above "stand-alone" paragraph the only comment you presented,
it would probably have been ignored as another pointless diversion.
However, in context, it is clear that *you are the only one in this
discussion* that is using the statistical results of the presentation to
infer something about audio quality. NONE OF THE REST OF US ARE DOING
ANYTHING OF THE KIND.

On 12/29 @ 6:51 AM, William wrote, and the inference in question began:
"I'll say it again -- when anyone comes to the conclusion that
two-channel, two-speaker stereo is about as good as you can get -- you
know something is wrong. Badly wrong."

No one but YOU asserted such nonsense, and its intent is unmistakable.
The rest of your comments in that post only strengthen the inferred
relationship between preference and audio quality, and Luxey's comments
in that post and my follow-up posting clarified that the statistical
results simply reflect the preferences of the sample group. THAT IS THE
CONTEXT of your "stand-alone" paragraph, above. As expected, the result
was yet another ridiculous attempt at obfuscation. Got more? Bring it.
--
best regards,

Neil


  #326   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Ping-pong stereo

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:


I wouldn't dismiss the whole notion of surround recordings so
quickly, although I would dismiss a lot of surround recordings
for being gimmicky rather than any attempt to realistically
reproduce anything.


I would dismiss it completely because it's contrary to how people
consume media other than people who attend live acoustic
performances. At least for now, media consumption is pointed
at earbuds, camera video and tablets/phones.


So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should
not acquire or listen to surround recordings?


It might not hurt you to get out a little more...


I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and
reproduction has come about largely because of scientists and engineers
who wanted that progress -- not because the public desired it.


There's little doubt of that. I am thinking that the problem would
be more one of having a culture or subculture that supports it - which
might actually be a solvable problem.

I just despair of what passes for entertainment these days. I got
a Facebook link of a camera video. Not only was it out of focus, the
audio was just a blur. I am pretty sure it was of human
performers using some variation on Western diatonic tonality, but that's
about all I could say. I'm pretty sure that 1) the "videographer" paid
to be there and 2) probably heard about what the video sounded like.

Lotta *THOOM* now and again. I presume it was a "kik drum" synthesis
of some sort. Coulda been mortar fire for all I could tell.

But Blu-Ray burners and multichannel formats are available, so there's
nothing to prevent a "maker" movement towards this.

I am, frankly, just not the guy to ask about this sort of thing. I have,
uh, Queen records Not my wheelhouse.

--
Les Cargill


  #327   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

Here are my final, nasty, ad-hominem thoughts on the subject...

Neil, you are an illiterate, self-deluded jerk. As far as your education is
concerned, you are a trained monkey. You know a great deal, and understand
nothing. Your idea of "truth" is what you think is true. And you never
question it.

  #328   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default Ping-pong stereo

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Here are my final, nasty, ad-hominem thoughts on the subject...

Neil, you are an illiterate, self-deluded jerk. As far as your
education is concerned, you are a trained monkey. You know a great
deal, and understand nothing. Your idea of "truth" is what you think
is true. And you never question it.

Stooping to ad-hominem attacks when your ability to argue fails so miserably
does not speak well of you, William. But, surely you know that such insults
are meaningless? If not, that's really sad, and in spite of your venomous
attitude, you have my sympathy.
--
best regards,

Neil



  #329   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Ping-pong stereo

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
So, out of respect for the tastes of the great unwashed, one should not
acquire or listen to surround recordings?


Well, having just stepped out of the shower, I'm not one of them at the
moment at least.

I classify *most* surround rather like 3D movies or TV. Something which
crops up regularly when the equipment makers need to sell a 'fresh' idea,
but which doesn't stand the test of time.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #330   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Ping-pong stereo

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"The public" seems generally pleased with mediocrity. The only reason we
have high-fidelity recording and playback is that the people who
designed the equipment wanted it.


Nonsense. In the UK at least the desired for high fidelity was very much
enthusiast lead - including enthusiasts in the broadcast/recording
industry.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


  #331   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Ping-pong stereo

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Blu-ray Audio seems destined to become
the hi-res format for serious listeners.


Only for those conned by advertising. And, of course, makers of such
things who may well take proper care etc when producing them. But the
format offers no true advantage for the end user.

--
*DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #332   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Ping-pong stereo

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

-snips-


I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and reproduction
has come about largely because of scientists and engineers who wanted that
progress -- not because the public desired it.


There's truth in that; but it's also often more complicated. Sometimes the public
(and even the "professionals") are never exposed to "something better", and exposed
in such a way that truly reveals "something better."

Take one of the Big Audio Debates of the middle 20th Century -- should radio
transmission move from a 5 Khz bandwidth to a 15 Khz bandwidth? This was a big deal,
because upgrading that crude broadcast network to 50-15K would be difficult and
expensive.

One camp said, correctly, that human hearing is much wider than 5K, and we ought to
support that for more realistic reproduction.

The other camp said, also correctly, that we've tried it and it sounds terrible so
why spend all that extra money?

It took visionaries, thinking outside the box of the day, to devise an experiment
that could show what was going on. (This might have been Avery Fisher
wanting to sell higher fidelity audio equipment who did this; don't remember.)

A live orchestra played in a setting where special baffling could be quickly dropped
in such that a narrow or wide band experience was possible. IIRC, the stage included
an acoustically transparent front scrim lit such that deployment of the HF absorbers
could not be seen and thus bias the listeners.

Of course, hands down, the wide-band presentation won over everybody, including the
nay-sayers. Then the search was on to find out why this worked, even though
wideband experiments with radio gear had yielded awful results.

Turned out that much of that primitive gear in the signal path was full of all sorts
of distortions mercifully masked by the narrow bandwidth. A wide-band system
revealed those distortions.

Once those distortions were peeled back a few orders of magnitude, indeed wider band
reproduction was a Good Thing. This all seems so obvious now.

But at that the time, there was a debate, experiments up to that point were flawed,
and the public really didn't care because they'd not been exposed to wider band
radio. (They might have even complained about the terrible sound of high-distortion
wideband. Remember, back in those days many more average folks were musicians to
some degree or were exposed to much more live, acoustic music.)

Pick your pet idea. If it really is something better, it probably needs an
experiment of some drama (such as the above) to bring it to life.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
  #333   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Ping-pong stereo

In article ,
Frank Stearns wrote:
Take one of the Big Audio Debates of the middle 20th Century -- should
radio transmission move from a 5 Khz bandwidth to a 15 Khz bandwidth?
This was a big deal, because upgrading that crude broadcast network to
50-15K would be difficult and expensive.


One camp said, correctly, that human hearing is much wider than 5K, and
we ought to support that for more realistic reproduction.


The other camp said, also correctly, that we've tried it and it sounds
terrible so why spend all that extra money?


I don't quite understand this. In the UK, AM radio transmissions (until
long after FM arrived) were not all restricted to 5 kHz. That came later
by international agreement as the AM bands got overcrowded. The individual
radio receiver, however, very likely did restrict the bandwidth to 5kHz or
less. But those wishing high quality radio reception used FM anyway - not
only for the wider frequency response, but better signal to noise ratio,
and being less prone to interference.

When TV started in the UK in the mid 1930s, one of the advantages stated
was the higher quality sound offered by going to short wave rather than
MW. But still AM.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #334   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"The public" seems generally pleased with mediocrity. The only
reason we have high-fidelity recording and playback is that the
people who designed the equipment wanted it.


Nonsense. In the UK at least the desired for high fidelity was very
much enthusiast lead -- including enthusiasts in the broadcast/recording
industry.


Well, yes -- that was the point I was making. How much of the //general
public// knew about wideband sound reproduction and demanded it? 1%?

  #335   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" writes:

I'll repeat what I said before... Progress in sound recording and
reproduction
has come about largely because of scientists and engineers who wanted that
progress -- not because the public desired it.


argument about wideband versus narrowband snipped


It took visionaries, thinking outside the box of the day, to devise an
experiment that could show what was going on. (This might have been
Avery Fisher wanting to sell higher fidelity audio equipment who did this.)


It was Harry F Olson, at RCA, who performed the experiment you describe.

Listeners had shown an overwhelming preference for narrowband phono
reproduction. Olson guessed that this was because wideband recording and
playback suffered from unacceptable levels of noise and distortion. His test
showed that people did prefer wideband sound. He used to be called "the man
who save high fidelity".



  #336   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Ping-pong stereo

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Here are my final, nasty, ad-hominem thoughts on the subject...


Any bets on how many more posts Willie will spew on this thread? He's
usually good for a dozen or more after he declares his "final".



  #337   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Frank Stearns wrote:

Take one of the Big Audio Debates of the middle 20th Century -- should
radio transmission move from a 5 Khz bandwidth to a 15 Khz bandwidth?


I don't quite understand this. In the UK, AM radio transmissions (until
long after FM arrived) were not all restricted to 5 kHz. That came later
by international agreement as the AM bands got overcrowded. The individual
radio receiver, however, very likely did restrict the bandwidth to 5kHz or
less. But those wishing high quality radio reception used FM anyway - not
only for the wider frequency response, but better signal to noise ratio,
and being less prone to interference.


This is a complex story. Suffice it to say that AM in the US was always
"narrowband", simply to make room for the stations needed in such a large
country. There were exceptions. WQXR -- a classical AM station -- had 10kHz
bandwidth for many years (it probably still does), and was located at a
frequency where its sidebands wouldn't cause much interference with distant
stations.

FM is inherently wideband and quiet. Not surprisingly, the head of RCA, David
Sarnoff (a man of debased rottenness arguably greater than that of the Waltons
and the Kochs combined), wanted to block or even destroy FM. He assumed that
low-noise, high-fidelity sound would destroy the AM infrastructure he had
worked to build -- and that was not permissible. * Part of his efforts
included driving Edwin Armstrong -- the man who developed wideband FM -- to
suicide.

You can read about this in a number of books, and draw your own conclusions.

* He apparently overlooked the fact that FM radios were -- and for many years
would remain -- expensive, putting them beyond the average listener's reach.

  #338   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Blu-ray Audio seems destined to become the hi-res format for serious
listeners.


Only for those conned by advertising.


I guess I wasn't wearing my aluminum-foil cap when Blu-ray was introduced.


But the format offers no true advantage for the end user.


No, none at all. Certainly not...

Up to 7.1 channels of discrete surround sound.
High sampling rates and increased bit depth.
The ability to put the equivalent of a dozen CDs on a single disk.


No, those aren't advantages -- especially "true" ones -- for the end user.

Hey, let's go back to 78s -- in convenient changer sequence, of course.

  #339   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Ping-pong stereo

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
But the format offers no true advantage for the end user.


No, none at all. Certainly not...


Up to 7.1 channels of discrete surround sound.


As I said, no true advantage.

High sampling rates and increased bit depth.


As I said, no true advantage.

The ability to put the equivalent of a dozen CDs on a single disk.


You need 15 hours worth of uninterrupted music on one disc?

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #340   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I classify *most* surround rather like 3D movies or TV. Something
which crops up regularly when the equipment makers need to sell
a 'fresh' idea, but which doesn't stand the test of time.


The movie industry has never been able to make 3D "stick". The problem isn't
so much that people have to wear glasses, it's that 3D doesn't generally add
anything that enhances one's enjoyment of the film. It isn't inherently
gimmicky, but it's often used in a gimmicky fashion. Its presence draws
attention to itself -- which could be considered pointlessly distracting. *

There was a similar argument in the 1920s about whether color motion pictures
were artistically acceptable. The apparent reason for the argument was that
all the practical systems (including the original Technicolor) used only two
primaries, which made for a narrow (and ultimately unappealing) color gamut.
Once three-strip Technicolor was introduced, the arguing largely stopped.

So the issue with surround sound is, basically, whether it enhances or
distracts. Or, if you like, it sounds natural or artificial.

I'm not going to rehash the arguments about ambient surround, whether natural
or synthesized. The fact is that it can greatly enhance one's listening
pleasure, because it brings one closer to the sound of a live performance,
without becoming audible. Anyone in this group is welcome to stop by for a
//proper// demonstration of both approaches, and decide for themselves. (I
agree that Ambisonics is the gold standard here, ** but well-made "discrete"
recordings are acceptable.)

So what happens when you immerse the listener within the performers or
instruments? You're now asking him to pay attention to something that's hardly
ever heard in real life. How is one supposed to react to instruments
all-around? Some people like this, simply for the added acoustic complexity.
(I do.) Others find it irritating, probably because there's no way to decide
what one should pay attention to. *** The listener might feel "battered".

And then there's the psychoacoustics of hearing sounds from behind you. The
mechanisms that control rear localization are not those that control frontal
localization. You can confirm this simply by turning around while playing a
recording with good imaging. It doesn't sound the same. Most notably, sounds
seem to come out of the speakers, rather than forming a continuous image.
Center-rear sounds can appear to be inside your head. For this type of
immersive surround to work well, the mix has to be closely monitored. In
particular, the rear channels should be limited to "discrete" sources, not
used to create a panoramic image.

There are current classical recordings that immerse the listener in this
fashion. In the Jacobs' "Nozze", the dancers and associated musicians enter
from the front and takes places around the listener. In the Jacobs' "St
Matthew Passion", the work is performed in a church with the choirs split
front and rear, //as it was in Bach's time//. The rear singers sometimes
appear to be localized at the speakers, rather than forming a plausible
spatial image (as the front singers do). A similar problem occurs with the
Rilling "War Requiem", which attempts to duplicate the spatiality of a live
performance.

I suspect a larger listening room would let me better position the speakers to
reduce these effects. (I have large planar speakers, each driven by a bulky
amplifier.) It's time to give it serious thought.

Regardless... Anyone testing listener perceptions of surround sound ought to
be aware of these problems, which necessarily interfere with drawing valid
judgments. Dr Rumsey's presentation gives no indication of how he handled
them -- or if he was even aware of them.

* I was impressed with the understated way "Up!" used 3D. But if it's so
natural you aren't aware of it -- why use it?

** Ambisonics is simply a better way of recording than any two-channel system.
It resolves a lot of the problems of conventional stereo. This is one of the
reasons why I got so upset at Dr Rumsey's ill-drawn conclusions.

*** I would be curious to know how people in rec.audio-pro react to the quad
version of DSM.



  #341   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

I would be curious to know how people in rec.audio-pro react to the
quad version of DSM.


I don't yet have a surround system set up, but when I do, Alan Parson's
quad DSM mix is my targeted first experience, for sure. I've heard a lot
of good things about it, and DSM is one of my all-time favorite albums.


I have both the SQ LP and the surround SACD of a decade ago. (The mixes are
slightly different, aren't they?) It has always been a model of how to do this
sort of thing well.

I have several Elton John surround SACDs -- the original recordings of which
were /not/ conceived for surround -- and they sort of sit there and die.
Simply having a multi-track master is not enough to guarantee an interesting
surround mix.

  #342   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Ping-pong stereo

One of the best things about having a surround SACD of DSM -- for a classical
listener -- is that I always have something to play for the rock listener.
Most people have never heard anything remotely like it, and are usually wildly
impressed.

  #343   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Ping-pong stereo

Jeff Henig wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

I would be curious to know how people in rec.audio-pro react to the
quad version of DSM.


I don't yet have a surround system set up, but when I do, Alan Parson's
quad DSM mix is my targeted first experience, for sure. I've heard a lot
of good things about it, and DSM is one of my all-time favorite albums.


I have both the SQ LP and the surround SACD of a decade ago. (The mixes
are slightly different, aren't they?) It has always been a model of how
to do this sort of thing well.

I have several Elton John surround SACDs -- the original recordings of
which were /not/ conceived for surround -- and they sort of sit there and
die. Simply having a multi-track master is not enough to guarantee an
interesting surround mix.


At some point, I think I'd enjoy working with surround for the creative
opportunities it presents. But I think I need to, ahem, master conventional
recording first.


The thing about Dark Side of the Moon is that it wasn't intended to be mixed
to surround, but it was intended to be open and have a wide sense of large
spaces, so the tracks were made with that in mind.

The thing about surround is that you don't actually have to use it. You can
put instruments in the surrounds, you can put ambience in the surrounds, or
you can consciously decide not to put anything back there at all. Just because
you have all these channels doesn't mean you have to do anything with them.

They're there if you want, but people feel obligated to cram them full of stuff
so they feel they're getting their money's worth. It's like how once we had
24 tracks everybody had to put more instrumentation on because they couldn't
waste all that tape area....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #344   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_] Neil[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Ping-pong stereo

On 12/31/2014 2:52 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The thing about surround is that you don't actually have to use it. You can
put instruments in the surrounds, you can put ambience in the surrounds, or
you can consciously decide not to put anything back there at all. Just because
you have all these channels doesn't mean you have to do anything with them.

That speaks to the heart of the issue; the artist &/or producer has a
concept that they represent in the final product. What is the best way
to experience their intent?

I prefer a system that adds as little coloration or alteration of the
original sound as possible. There is a marked difference between the
"bootleg" version of the "Let it Be" album and the final commercial
release, and although the audio quality of the former is far below the
latter, it is a more enjoyable experience to me.

Others prefer systems that have a "character" that pleases them or that
add to the presentation with sub-woofers or spatial effects like hall
synthesis. That's OK... just not what I'm interested in.

They're there if you want, but people feel obligated to cram them full of stuff
so they feel they're getting their money's worth. It's like how once we had
24 tracks everybody had to put more instrumentation on because they couldn't
waste all that tape area....

Yes, there is that, too. But, some of those people have produced the
same thing with lesser equipment, whether it be Specter's "wall of
sound" or Les Paul and Mary Ford's many overlays. In those cases, their
artistic concepts connected well enough.
--
best regards,

Neil
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ping Scott Dorsey, The New Stereo Soundbook, Time Gary Eickmeier Pro Audio 65 September 28th 13 09:53 AM
Ping Max Andre Jute Vacuum Tubes 2 August 16th 07 02:20 AM
ping Les MZ Car Audio 19 May 26th 05 07:54 PM
Ping Ned Jon Yaeger Vacuum Tubes 0 April 5th 05 05:27 AM
>Ping Tim W. west Vacuum Tubes 3 April 28th 04 07:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"