|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.126.5.126
As I've posted before, I've been in the slow process (more than a year) of transferring my CD's to iTunes. IMHO, not only is the convenience of playing an album increased by getting the files onto computer, but the audio quality is also improved. In fact, the improvement has even increased for me over the past month and a half, since I've been using Audirvana software to replace iTunes playback (although - and many will find this difficult to believe - I found even straight iTunes to be preferable to CD-player playback, as long as we're dealing with uncompressed file formats, such as WAV or AIFF). Needless to say, all the files these days come in to iTunes as uncompressed AIFF's, although a few early ones came in as Apple Lossless (ALAC) files. All the meta information remains in iTunes, even with Audirvana playback, and it is very time consuming to get this meta information into the iTunes database (especially the album cover art). This was one of the reasons I chose Audirvana (because it can use the iTunes database if you want, and I didn't want to lose all the work I'd done getting all this meta information into iTunes). Another advantage for Audirvana lies ina its ability to support multi-channel playback (unlike a lot of audiophile computer software).
Since I have my CD's mostly filed by record label, I'll usually grab about 10 or so at a time for transfer on a given day. So recently, I've been transferring the Mercury CD's. I'm leaving the hi-rez stuff (such as the SACD's, DVD-A's, and blu-rays) on the shelves for now. I always listen to at least one track per album after the transfer to make sure there were no problems - that's another thing that slows this whole process down. But in doing so, I've been amazed at the extraordinary quality on these CD's which I'd forgotten about. This has been doubly true of the Mercury CD's I've been transferring over the last couple of weeks, and I thought I'd write up my most recent impressions of the latest batch of 10, now on the computer and played back through iTunes:
Wow! Just. . . wow! Ive always loved the LSO portion of this recording since I was a teenager, and it's unbelievable how well it wears its years! Not only do the bass instruments growl in ferocious fashion, but the whole spatial placement and tone quality of the orchestra is SO true to life - yes indeed, you DO feel as if you're in the LIVING PRESENCE of the music. Sure, I know we've moved on in terms of our ability to capture even wider dynamic ranges, but, psychologically, I don't miss much from this 1959 (!) recording. The only thing I would criticize is the chintzy reproduction of the cover on the CD booklet (left, above) - what, not enough money in the budget for red ink?
The use of 35mm magnetic film allowed for an even more liquid presentation of the sound, and in some ways, these recordings were the pinnacle of Mercury's efforts, only limited by the acoustic of the hall itself (in this case, Edison High School Auditorium in Minneapolis). Skrowaczewski conducts a vivid, life-and-death performance, even if one could pick at certain minor details, such as the relatively thin oboe tone. And once again, the sound is so holistic, with the details emerging as they should within the overall symphonic texture.
There are some stylistic no-no's in Fennell's Mozart (and some cuts AFAIR too), but what beautiful sounds and spirit in the performance. The Serenade by the teenaged Strauss is just a gem - if you don't know this lovely work, it's very worthwhile making its acquaintance. I love the last movement of the Milhaud too (with the parts that sound like American Indians dancing - even though that's not what Milhaud intended!).
Once in a great while, the Mercury team would have a misfire, and the Haydn recording on this disc was one of those occasions. As wonderful as minimally microphoned recordings can be, you have to make sure you get the mic's in exactly the right location, and in this Haydn performance, they didn't quite do that. The winds are missing in action for pretty much the whole performance, and even when the trumpets come in, they're hard to hear in the balance, which REALLY favors the strings. It may sound perverse of me, but I still love this recording! ;-)
(Sorry about the tiny image!) I've never been on the Maag bandwagon for the Scottish Symphony, and Dorati is one of only a tiny few conductors who observe the maestoso (in the Allegro maestoso assai marking) near the end of the final movement. I love it - how grand and unhustled it is! And the Skrowaczewski Italian Symphony brings out the virtuosity and zest in this work in a totally irresistible way (to me anyway, although one contemporaneous critic found the slow movement impatient!) in 35mm magnificence!
More 35mm wonders and great performances from Janis (just as on his RCA set - but this Mercury repertoire, particularly the Liszt Concertos, was mostly not recorded in Janis' RCA days). The tone quality of the Russian orchestras, especially Rozhdestvensky's Moscow Radio SO, is very Soviet sounding - listen to the saxophone-like quality of those French horns in the Second Concerto! Nevertheless, the performances are full of the Byronic poetry (another contemporaneous critic actually said that, although he did apologize for the pun!) that Liszt's music thrives on. Again, we're living in 35mm luxury, although there seems to be a bit of damage right at the start of the First Concerto.
The Kreisler portion of this disc has been an audiophile favorite for some time - it sounds to me as if Szeryng and Charles Reiner are in my living room as I play it! There was even an XRCD release of this recording a few years ago (with K2 processing!), that listed for about $40. I got mine on sale for $35, and it was worth it. But now, having heard the original Mercury CD reissue via Audirvana, I feel that the difference is getting vanishingly small! Another thing I like about this recital is Szeryng's inclusion of 18th-century repertoire in Romantic 19th-century arrangements, such as the Sonata and D major by Jean-Marie Leclair, or Locatelli's "The Labyrinth". This kind of repertoire has been vanishing from concert programs and you don't find todays babe (and boy-babe) violinists indulging in it, so as not to offend our current precious notions of "style"!
Oh boy! What an exciting disc! The Khachaturian was made for Dorati, the LSO, and the Mercury team - do they ever tear into this music! And the SQ is similar to that on the Prokofiev disc that I started this little survey with: outstanding in every way!
I love Paray's recordings and this is one of my very favorites: the microphones are really close, however the 35mm process still allows for some refinement to the SQ. But make no mistake - you are really onstage with the orchestra! And yet (and miraculously!) the hall reverberation is caught superbly well too - just listen to the decay into silence after the outburst in the second movement of the Rapsodie espagnole! Ibert's Escales (Ports of Call) were dedicated to Paray, and you won't hear a more exciting performance. (The Oue/Minnesota performance on an equally wonderful Reference Recordings release takes an entirely different, but nevertheless valid, laid-back approach!)
These are fairly early Mercury stereos (1957 and 1958 respectively), but what a wallop they pack, especially the Fistoulari/LSO Sylvia. And it's so terrific to have the complete scores of both ballets. The impact of the bass is tremendous and the clarity of the image throughout is remarkable! Once again, there's been a more recent audiophile release of these ballets (suites only) on the Reference Recordings label: again, it too is excellent, but it doesn't quite knock my socks off like these older recordings do!
If you like driven Brahms, this is the recording for you: Dorati does not spare the horses! I must say, I'm amazed that Dorati's reputation didn't attain the heights of such fellow Hungarians and Reiner and Solti. IMHO, he's every bit their equal - in fact, I like him a bit better than I do Solti! (I read Dorati's memoirs, and it's true he's not quite as articulate as Solti was in his own memoirs - but that shouldn't count for much in terms of musical reputation. I think I also posted here years ago a remark that Harold Lawrence made to me that Dorati expressed his frustration that his Decca recordings weren't capturing the excitement of his performances like the Mercury recordings did. Maybe that had something to do with his posthumous reputation too.)
In these works, Dorati goes for maximum kinetic energy and electric charge, and you just can't argue with the exhilarating results! Of their type, these are great, magnificent performances. I prefer Dorati's Brahms Third (with its spikey, almost staccato quarter notes in the operning theme) to Reiner's more conventional RCA recording. I found the SQ in Dorati's first and fourth movements of the Third Symphony (my sample tracks from last night) a little less good (in terms of liquidity and smoothness) than most of the other recordings I've discussed in this post. Also, there's the thin oboe in the third movement of the Second Symphony - really not as bad as I had remembered however.
Sometimes, Mercury recordings get criticized for what seems (to some listeners) to be a thin and unpleasantly aggressive sound quality. I perhaps can understand "aggressive". But thinness in the sound was nowhere evident on these ten releases I transferred yesterday. What a breathtaking catalogue in terms of both recording and performance quality!
Follow Ups:
it's counterintuitive and illogical. Of course, the system you're playing the downloads through could be superior.
from CD to JRiver MC19 running on a midrange Toshiba laptop (converting to DSD on-the-fly) through a Schiit Loki sound "better" than the original CD through the same system. Even when the CDs are played through the Toshiba through the same system, the rips sound better to my ears.
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.
Galileo Galilei
. . . it might make sense because you're a listener who prefers DSD?
formats, I definitely prefer it to Redbook. DSD is definitely different sounding, I am still on the fence as to whether it is better. My preference is vinyl and IMO that is the standard to which other formats are measured. YMMV!
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.
Galileo Galilei
Better is a subjective term.When we talk about the "Audio Quality" of something digital we are definitely on a "slippery
slope" . It could just be "some" of us really are'nt that impressed with the original digital "rendering" of whatever it is we happen to be talking about. Some of us just consider the
original digital as a point of departure, & nothing more. (One more thing, there is really no way to be sure what the producer (not the engineer) deemed important enough to give us on
the release that may go as far enough to effect the SQ)I tend to be more concerned with the "Enjoyment Quality" of what I'm listening to. You guys should back to talking about music over here ,so that I can get some useful information that
I would care to use. (For myself the old Abbott & Costello "Who's on First" is vastly more "Coherent" than most discussions about "Digital Truths". Me , I'd rather be a "Rebel" & enjoy
the "Audio Truths" that I've used my own perceptive discretion to discover)(Man, I talk too much !!!)
Edits: 09/19/14
So it's more like two originals, rather than an original and a copy.
d
With digital as long as the bit stream is left intact the copy can't sound any different than the original.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
changing equipment, with no change in the sonic characteristics.
I don't think that's a "starter" in this forum.
It doesn't have anything to do with whether CD players sound different. (They do!) Your original argument however, in answer to my contention that both the original digital file and the digital copy are bit-for-bit the same, was, if I may quote, "Not that simple. All processing involves degradation. Extra steps aren't free."
Let's try a little thought experiment to test whether your assertions are true or not. Let's say you've created a complex Microsoft Word document (.doc), and then you make a copy of it. And then you make a copy of the copy, And then another copy of the copy. And then more copies of the most recent copies still. Let's say you eventually get to the fifteenth (or hundredth for that matter) generation copy. Now, let's say you open that fiftenth (or hundredth) generation copy with the Microsoft Word application. What will happen? Will the file open at all? Will the fonts have changed? Will some of the characters now be nonsense? I trust you can answer those questions correctly. Now suppose that instead of a .doc file, you copy an .aiff file instead. Is there any reason to suppose that the results of multi-generation copying will be any different from what happened (or didn't happen!) with the .doc file?
The computer software business DEPENDS on the reliability of digital file copies, and to argue that "Extra steps aren't free" is either disingenuous or just reflects a lack of basic knowledge as to how computers work.
Would that it be so simple. A friend sent a Word document to an associate, he got back an edited version. Unfortunately some of the words ran together without spaces. It might be different versions of Word. It might be a font problem. It might ... Similarly, if you copy a digital audio file with a "lossless" compression such as FLAC and then expand it you get back the "same" file, except that it may not be the same. They headers may differ due to software issues. Do they sound different? Maybe. If so, try different software and then they might sound the same, or not.And let's say you take a file on one hard drive and copy it to another, this time bit perfect. Do the two files sound the same when you play them? That's the theory, but if you listen carefully you may just find that practice doesn't always accord with theory. These are all real differences that I and others have observed. In some cases it was possible to trace down the ultimate cause of differences. In others it wasn't.
A dogmatic attitude is not productive to uncovering the truth.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 09/19/14
I do not disagree with you about a copied file, even though it may be bit for bit identical, sounding different. In fact, that was one of the main points I made in my OP, where the copied files now sound better than they did on the CD's - not because of the files themselves, but because of the different processing chain now involved. What tin was contending is that there must necessarily be a DETERIORATION in the copied file, and I still vigorously deny this. If you want to call that dogmatic, so be it.But then you bring all these other items from out of left field - compression, decompression, FLAC - which do not even apply to the case at hand. I was doing a straight copy from a CD to a hard disc. No compression was involved at any stage. Forget FLAC.
Also, your example of the Microsoft Word document does not involve straight copies (as I was trying to show in my example) if there was editing or other processing going on with possibly different versions of Microsoft Word. Of course changes in the file are possible after that! Duh!
All we should be discussing here is the equivalency of a straight copied file to the original. And I say again, that the computer industry would not exist today if there were a problem with this.
Edits: 09/19/14 09/20/14
profile has enhanced the sound. That is as close to impossible as could be. What is possible is the placebo effect; you're fooling yourself after spending all that time and effort. And copies of copies can change, per Tony's example.
If all your discs sound better, you should be asking yourself some other questions.
Actually, if you change the bits (audio samples) in the file you may improve the sound quality, particularly if it was a bad recording to start with, but also possibly to compensate for some quirk in your playback. :-) This works best if you are prepared to keep a 24 bit file and play that as the conversion from 16 bits to floating point and back to 16 bits adds dither noise.
As to true copies of files (e.g. done by an operating system file copy), a copy may sound the same, better or worse than the original, depending on the quirks of your system. If there is any difference at all and the copies have the same bits in them then it is an indictment of the quality of your playback chain. I routinely copy files from hard drive to RAM disk before playback, because I don't like to hear any seek "clunks" from the 4 TB drive that holds my music library. This is definitely a problem with my system which sits too close to my listening position, but it is easily fixed by a copy.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You take a file, copy it (with no loss to the integrity of the file), then run the copy through a different processing chain for playback, and different (in this case, improved) sound results. The original file's "digital profile" (as you call it) has not been changed.Get it?
Edits: 09/20/14 09/21/14
Funny -- the ability to make perfect copies in the digital era was main thing the music industry seized upon as a basis for demanding more copyright protection. People had been taping LPs, radio and live concerts (especially Grateful Dead ones) for years, and pirated, counterfeit LPs were pretty common.
Later there were counterfeit CD factories too. But the real reason most people have been copying CDs is to do exactly what you are doing. And when you are done ripping, it would be perfectly legal for you to sell the original CDs under US copyright law.
Are you still using your iMac as your playback source for these files? And in your opinion, the result sounds better played back from your computer than it does playing the original CDs with your CD players?
So, how do you explain that? You cannot improve on the original CD audio unless you are re-processing the audio, which you don't mention. And the audio circuitry built into the iMac is certainly not up to the same specs as your CD players.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
My set-up is as follows: I have a RAID drive connected to my iMac in another room. This RAID drive however is shared with the Mac Mini in my actual listening room via wired ethernet. Yes, I do feel that the result sounds better played back from the computer (even directly from iTunes) than from my $2,000+ Marantz universal player. Yes - it is mysterious. All the more so, because my Marantz pre-pro is acting as my DAC in both cases. (Both the Mac Mini and the Universal player are connected to the pre-pro via HDMI.) I've also heard all the horror stories about internal computer noise that might get picked up, thereby muddying the signal - if its there, I'm happy to say that I don't notice it at all!
So. . . I would just be guessing as to why the computer playback sounds better to me. But I do have my guesses - mainly, that the memory of the computer can hold larger blocks of data than the buffer of a CD player can, and therefore is somehow more stable. But that's just a guess.
Well, of course, it might sound better to you just because you want it to. Which is fine. Whatever contributes to one's enjoyment of music is a positive.
For one guy, it is unplugging the connector cables between his amp to his CD player, then reversing them before plugging them back in, because the signal travels one direction better than the other.
For another, it always sounds better when he's drinking a 20 year old cab - he swears it improves his acuity for nuances in the music that he doesn't get with other quaffs.
Me, I swear by the tried and true "smell the vinyl" approach -- the music always sounds better on vinyl than on CD, and I'm convinced it is the smell of the vinyl that does it.
Because, in the end, all the technology for recording and replaying sound is just foreplay. The music is the magic that happens between your ears. Whatever improves that experience makes life better. And you can quote me on that.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
The first guy seems to have the most practical approach. Nothing out of pocket, no empties to trash the next morning and no hangover.
As to smelling the vinyl, I hope your collection didn't get caught in a flood as some of mind did. Sound OK after cleaning, but the vinyl smelled a bit moldy. :-(
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Hey Chris, Nice post on the Mercuries. They are many of my favorites also. I also agree Dorati was way under rated. I think if he had been the conductor of Chicago, Boston, or New York he would have been highly recognized. Also at the time Mercury was a small guy compared to RCA, Columbia and Decca. I would like to know when you say your computer played back copies sound better to you in what ways do they sound better. This certainly has to be a difference in the quality of the playback gear and not a difference in the quality of the actual source material.. Also bit perfect seldom is. There is still induced jitter, reclocking problems and noise problems. Things are much more complicated in ripping copies than just bits are bits.
Alan
Another question is why Audirvana SW seems to make such a difference too. The improvements have to do with bass extension, clarity, and image stability. I honestly don't know why that should be the case, other than some of those other factors you mention are somehow in play.
was apparently a tempermental, difficult guy who didn't really calm down until old age. He might have had a hard time in Chicago, Boston or New York.
I have friends from the National Symphony (now retired) who were there from Howard Mitchell, to Dorati, to Rostropovich, to Slatkin, and they look at the Dorati years as the best ones of their career. He may have mellowed a bit in his relationships with the players, but he still had trouble with management. Dorati pretty much got himself fired. I can't recall the details right now, but they were negotiating a contract and Dorati basically drew a line in the sand, calling their bluff, and they told him to hit the bricks. They hired Rostropovich figuring that it would raise the reputation of the orchestra. Well, what happened was that Rostropovich got more famous for being the conductor of the NSO, but the NSO's reputation didn't come along for the ride.
"a tempermental, difficult guy" That defines most conductors.Toscanini, Reiner and Karajan are good examples.
Alan
Tempremental, maybe, but you pick three tempraments that are so radically different from each other that I'm not sure that says much.
Yes, and those three all had problems with their orchestras, didn't they? Especially Toscanini, though his players were devoted to him despite his outbursts of temper. Too bad he didn't get his own orchestra sooner.
Yes - I read that many LSO members didn't like working with him. And apparently, the more excited he would get during the rehearsals, the higher up in pitch his voice would go - and it was the high pitch that some of the players couldn't stand! ;-)
But what great results he obtained!
Chris,You should hear this series transfered to 24/176.4
(dBPoweramp & then JRMC)
Edits: 09/19/14
All those extra bits would just be padded with 0's, and the masters are CD resolution (16/44.1) anyway (unless the particular title was remastered for SACD release!), so going up to 176.4 wouldn't do any good either. However, I did read that the remasters for the 35mm SACD releases were done at 24/176.4 PCM, rather than DSD, and I've always wondered if the downloads for those particular titles (for instance at HD Tracks) were really the 24/176.4 files or just a conversion from the commercial SACD back to PCM.
BTW, I did try JRMC and did not get good results with it - I would get these occasional bursts of VERY loud white noise that sent the cat bolting out of the room and me desperately trying to find the mute button! I get the feeling that the JR SW is not as far along for the Mac platform as for the PC platform.
You know I've been waiting for someone to bring up the "Empty Bits" argument . In my experience the only time that I've noticed any empty bit problems is when I was using a Musical Fidelity M1 Asynch DAC. I honestly don't know what to tell you why or how the JRMC upsampled files have worked so well for me,but they do. For a long time I tried to detect artificial "frequency contouring" & there very well may be empty bits at play here,but the only thing I'm noticing is how nicely extended the dynamic contrasts in my music seems to be (I have'nt come across anything that does'nt seem to belong in the music).
I can only go by,what works for me.(I was a bit shocked to discover how well things sound, given the fact that I'm using an NOS DAC. I read somewhere that the "sweet spot" for my Metrum Hex DAC may be at 24/176.4
so that is what I tried. It works)
but largely on vinyl and SACD. The CDs, I'm sorry to say, were mostly too harsh-sounding for me.
IMO nothing compares with the warm, detailed sound of my 180g vinyl re-issue of the Ibert/Ravel pictured above. Or one not shown--the Paray/DSO LP of Chabrier.
Needless to say, the original Mercury vinyls were pretty bad.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
once I heard the piece in its original version, with the chorus and baritone soloist, the orchestral version now just sounds like half of a piece to me. As far as I can tell, there was little, if any, alteration to the orchestra parts. The orchestra-only version is exactly the same, just without the singers (and I think it's a little shorter).
It's like "Ride of the Valkyries", minus the Valkyries!
on all of it.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
Nice post, Chris. For the most part I think we agree about these, but a few observations.
One thing about the CD issues that can be a little jarring is that they combine recordings made at different venues with different orchestras, which can be somewhat unsettling if you aren’t aware of the different sound that Mercury got at different locations. The most obvious is the Prokofiev disc. You would be hard pressed to find two more different sounds than that of the Minneapolis SO in Northrup Auditorium and the London SO in Walthamstow Hall. Northrup was an awful place to record, and the reason that many of the early MSO recordings are the most closely mic’d of all of the Mercurys is that it was the only way they found to get a reasonably balanced recording. It wasn’t until Skrowaczewski’s time that they finally moved to a different location (with great results, like the Prokofiev R &J).To the Paray Haydn, which I would agree is one of the poorer Mercs, I would add the Mendelssohn Reformation. It might have something to do with not liking the piece much to start with, but that’s a Merc that I hardly ever listen to.
The Paray Ibert/Ravel CD is a bit of a two-headed monster as well. The Tombeau de Couperin was an earlier recording, done in old Orchestra Hall, whereas the rest was recorded at Cass Technical High School. Certainly one of the best Mercs, although if you really want to hear something, you should give a listen to Paray’s earlier mono-only recording of La Valse. IMHO, it’s a better, more energetic/intense performance, and dare I say, I like the sound better. The dynamic impact is simply astounding. I miss the stereo for about 15 seconds, but that’s about it.
We agree about the Fistoulari Sylvia. They play the hell out of it and the sound is great (and I like his Giselle, as well). I have never been a big fan of either the sound or the performance on the Dorati Coppelia.
The Dorati Brahms symphonies are a mixed bag. Of course, the second is with Minneapolis, the rest are with London. The first, a relatively early recording, is torture for a Mercury-hater. At least on the LP, it has a top end that’ll take the chrome off your trailer hitch. Good performance, though. Maybe they’ve tamed the sound a bit on the CD. The last two are among the last titles to come out on Mercury, and IIRC, they may have been done after Robert Fine had jumped ship. Good recordings, though.
Finally, about the principal oboe in Minneapolis. He did have a sound that, shall we say, took a little getting used to, but Jeez did he have some chops! His playing on the Dorati/MSO Rossini Overtures album is a jaw-dropper. I’ve forgotten his name, but oboe players in my acquaintance all know who I’m talking about right away. He was a bit of a legend.
Cheers!
P.S. I describe the difference between RCA and Mercury this way: RCA wanted to put you in the concert hall, but Mercury wanted to put the orchestra in your living room.
Edits: 09/18/14 09/18/14 09/18/14
Perhaps I shouldn't have been too hard on that Minneapolis oboist - as I said, his sound really wasn't quite as thin as I remembered.
Re the Paray Mendelssohn - I didn't mention it because I didn't check it on this last go around, but I had thought it was much better recorded than the Haydn (and besides, I actually like the Reformation). I should check it myself now. I do remember liking the performance quite a bit better than the roughly contemporaneous Munch/Boston, because I felt that Paray got better, clearer articulation (probably helped by closer microphones!).
Re the Dorati Coppelia - again, I didn't mention it, but I did listen to a few tracks and it was better than I had remembered it (not bad at all, really).
One Mercury (stereo) recording that was never reissued on CD and which I'd love to hear again is the (in)famous Dorati Eroica with Minneapolis, wherein the great dissonant chords in the development section don't quite register - because all you can hear is the oboes, not the horns! ;-)
Another Dorati Mercury that was never reissued (to my knowledge) on CD is the Schumann Fourth Symphony with the LSO. This was another very late one, and it had the Mozart 40 on the other side AFAIR. In any case, I remember the Schumann performance as very compelling.
A lot of good information from both of you. What will happen to my "metadata" when I chuck my iPod Classic and get a high-rez portable player?
As for Northrup Auditorium in Minneapolis, when Eugene Ormandy was asked what would improve its acoustics, he replied, "dynamite". See the link for more Ormandy gems lovingly collected by his players.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: