|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.179.20.131
Hi, I just read Micheal Fremers review on the new Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista 800. I quess it's got both, fidelity and beauty according to Micheal. Fremer told of a new shake up team at Antony Michealsons team. The amp costs 13 grand. The old team has a DAC for 300 bucks that looks like a basic project box but has stunning low distortion, it's always seen in Audio Advisor, the V-90 DAC.Even though M Fremer reported tremendous sound quality how much money has been put into the looks? I kind of like Michealsons old team philosophy where most every buck is spent into circuitry and not the looks,then maybe I could get on board. Does anyone remember Stereo Cost Cutters? When Dynaco went down in the early 80's they took the flagship amp, the 400 seres and made a (black box) that was the Dyna less the looks for 1/3 the price, still the same thing sonically. So I ask, can anything bone ugly with great specs still sell or is high end just selling artwork that also makes sound? A great article and review!,but if you went back in time to HiFi's Golden Age and showed pictures of the latest amps in Stereophile to a listener would he or she know what they were? So what do you like assuming your on a budget?.....Mark Korda
Follow Ups:
Plus time and thought.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
I will also add that I'm probably in the minority but I often don't consider brands because I do NOT LIKE the styling. Stupid I know but it's true. For example, simm audio stuff is by all account excellent gear and sounds fantastic but the looks leave me cold.I know it's all in the eye of the beholder....but I also wouldn't dream of any Dagistino gear...I love radical styling but I think it's cheesy in this steampunk application.
Edits: 11/01/15
Have you ever seen Dan's amplifiers and pre-amp, they are gorgeous , Pics fail to capture how really good they are. i do understand your point thou, Parasound for one, old style retro looking toobies and class-D match box stuff rubs me that way.
12K amps which fit in your pockets would have to be a worlds best to fly.
Regards...
Edits: 11/02/15
I want to listen to music. I want it to sound good. I want the things that make the music sound good look good. I am prepared to pay for the privilege.Those who think everything should come in a grim box of ugly, go back to the 1950s where you belong. Those who think the world entire can be read through the traces on an oscilloscope, get laid more even if you have to pay for it. Neither of you speak for me. And looking around this world we occupy today, you don't seem to speak for anyone except your own little doomed cabals.
So... Fidelity or Beauty? I'll take both. Because I'm not mental.
-
They call me The Kosher Butcher. I only fight in Orthodox stance.
Edits: 10/30/15
nt
Running low on meds Huh..........
Who needs medication while it still watches me brush my teeth every morning, no matter what.
-
They call me The Kosher Butcher. I only fight in Orthodox stance.
and how do people feel about components with cosmetic damage? If you see something that would normally be out of your price range selling for cheap because it has a serious cosmetic imperfection, do you get excited about it?
Your premise is wrong.
What sells, in audiophilia-land is, in no particular order:
Name.
Cost.
Sound.
Size.
Reviews.
Asthetics.
You've constrained the parameters to only two of those parameters.
What sells, in audiophilia-land is, in no particular order:
Name.
Cost.
Sound.
Size.
Reviews.
Asthetics.
You've constrained the parameters to only two of those parameters.
- Inmate51
So which applies to you ..... ?
The OP posed a false dichotomy.
For me, Fidelity 1st. OTOH, have you ever seen and touched Dan D'Agostino
gear? It is simply beautiful!
Hey Fantja, you summed up what I meant faster than Perry Mason and in one sentence....Amen......Mark Korda
Slick advertising and flattering magazine reviews go a long way to pushing sales. It also helps to publish a paper filled with technobabble even if it is based on junk science....especially if it's based on junk science. Few engineers will admit they don't understand it, let alone audiophiles. If it sounds good....IT IS GOOD!!!!
A high end manufacturer told me once that when he made a budget version of his amp -- same amp but without the fancy faceplate -- nobody bought it. And I've heard similar stories from others -- audiophiles want something that looks impressive.
But it isn't only audiophiles -- Floyd Toole mentions a study in which listeners rated a cheap-looking speaker more highly when they couldn't see it than when they could -- and this was true even of audio engineers who thought they were beyond such stuff.
So I guess there are at least three major factors here -- the desire to impress, aesthetics, and confirmation bias.
I often wonder when I prefer one piece of gear to another how much of my preference is real, and how much is just that I'm hearing what I think I should hear.
Which makes it doubly impressive when a really cheap piece of gear garners raves -- I figure it has to be doubly good to overcome our natural tendency to assume that more expensive is best.
I knew a manufacturer of tube amps about 20 years ago who made 400 watt TRIODE monoblocks for $10,000 a pair. The dealers asked them to put on a fancier front plate, call it a MK2 and double the price because they could sell MORE of the fancier package. Part of the problem was the price was too low for the performance. But these guys were honest and didn't change. Too bad, they might still be around.
LOL, yeah. I learned the meaning of "Veblen good" on this site. And with the middle class pinched, it seems that manufacturers have been more pressed than ever to sell into the luxury good market.
Fortunately, there are still some companies that refuse to play in that space, and you can put together a great system for amazingly little.
That story is not rare and its driven by the same customers crying about prices ....
But therein lies the problem with blind listening - you won't always be listening blind.
I compared two CD players via a line level headphone amp chich had volume controls for each input. Sighted I preferred A to B. I listened blind with someone else at the controls. I did not meet statistical significance telling the two units apart.
So in the test I should simply choose the cheaper model right. After all they "sound the same statistically." - The problem is when I went back to listening to the two sighted again - I still preferred the "sound" of A over B.
And so unless you listen blind the rest of your life - A is going to sound better than B! Simply failing a DBT doesn't then all of a sudden remove your bias to this stuff.
So while sight bias, price bias, name brand bias, are factors they don't go away because you read a Floyd Toole paper. Floyd Toole who was bought by a mega corporation selling LOUDSPEAKERS! Obviously no mega corporation would ever fudge science for profit - that would never ever happen in a capitalist market.
Well, yeah, if your goal is to fool yourself, you can go with the impressive gear and feel good. Nothing wrong with that, really, even pro gear sometimes succumbs to that.If your goal is just good sound, well, you can do blind tests, put your cheap equipment in the closet, and make some impressive-looking cardboard cutouts for your equipment rack.
I don't think your aspersion on Floyd Toole is warranted. Anything can happen, but in the absence of any evidence that it has, I don't believe in making accusations. And Toole has done a lot of wonderful work.
Even if Toole could somehow fudge a peer-reviewed paper, it's hard to see how an erroneous conclusion would benefit Harman, since the purpose of their research laboratory is to make their products better and therefore more competitive. Blind testing plays a significant role in that. I may not always agree with Harman's methodology -- I mean, judging a dipole loudspeaker like the Martin-Logan in mono in the center of a room is pretty ridiculous -- but I've personally learned a lot from their research as well ss Floyd Toole's encyclopedic knowledge of the literature, and I think they've benefited the industry as a whole, and the audiophiles who benefit from better equipment, measurements, and placement.
Edits: 10/25/15
In my case - I chose the cheaper player, the uglier player and the brand I didn't like (because products I had owned from them failed early) as the unit that sounded better than the brand I did like, that looked better and that would put me in the audiophile in crowd. So go figure.
The goal is only about sound quality which is why I bother to do blind level matched listening sessions - and even when there is no time for that at least level matching of components. Although even here I have chosen amps under blind tests that were DOWN 3dB wherein one is supposed to choose the louder component. I chose it at even level as well. So much for that eh?
And the reason is simple - Few listen to music at the same level during a listening session - source discs have varying volumes and many users with a remote control will make adjustments throughout a listening session. I may adjust volume during any given track several times but in a blind test you can't do that. This is where the term validity comes into play - validity is to construct a "seamless" test that mirrors EXACTLY the way you would listen in a normal for pleasure music listening session. Listening to music for pleasure is an ENTIRELY different thing that listening FOR traits in the music playback. Listening for bass, or treble or SSSS on a vocal or tone. One strains and contorts their listening experience to PROVE that they can hear that A sounds better than B. I never quite get why non psychologists are running these tests because none of them seem to be bright enough to get that test environments don't mirror listening sessions just as a kid who may know the material cold fails a test on the subject under stress - others who are dim as burnt lightbulbs but who can memorize can do very well on tests and two months later don't know jack squat. Then there are those fortunate enough to be able to do both. Lucky them.
PS - I am not against blind tests - I am quite happy with them in fact as many of my components have been subjected to them and have won them with panels of listeners blind and level matched - but I didn't need to know that in order to buy them - I knew that within the first few piano keys that they pounded the other stuff in the room. So blind test away - indeed, I wish people would blind test my AN E or AN J - these things are BUTT fugly and go in corners and all the people see that and automatically say "that is wrong" and dismiss them or they read graphs from Stereophile and say nope that sucks - so I am definitely in the pro blind test camp. Same for the SET amps - people are heavily biased when they see measurements and spec sheets. So again - I'd love for people to do blind tests.
I just have some issues with the test (T) aspect of the DBT
The rule of thumb that the louder component sounds better is based on the Fletcher-Munsen curves, but I can also think of some cases in which the *quieter* component in an AB test has the advantage. One obvious one being that it's less susceptible to distortion and overload.
You made an interesting point about the fact that we listen differently in real life than during a blind test. Blind tests have their limitations in this regard but also advantages and you have to know which is which. I do believe in one thing -- the user should always know whether he's hearing A or B, and that should be consistent, not like ABX. It is just too difficult to keep sonics straight with complex, non-constant program material when you have a moving target. You'll hear obvious things but often with music we'll hear a difference only on a specific instrument or a particular note. I also think you have to do both short-term comparisons (to minimize aural accommodation) and long-term listening. The latter of course is hard to do in a blind test.
Finally, yeah, some things are just so obvious it doesn't matter what a piece of gear looks like. It's where equipment is more closely comparable I think that our evaluations are slanted.
DBT's can be gamed , its done all the time, DBX not so much, try that one , personally i like to do sighted after a DBX comparison test and then compare the results .
regards
"Well, yeah, if your goal is to fool yourself"
Apt phrasing and it seems to work for most subjectivists on here.
Well, I'd have to agree with mkuller in that the door swings both ways. It's kind of funny to read Hydrogen Audio and watch them dancing around their own regulations, it's like Kirk trying to save a planet without violating the Prime Directive. "A loud wail came out of the speakers and my amp caught fire." "Did you ABX it? Because if you didn't, that isn't a valid observation."
Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in between and that you have to work to find it. Forex, if I think I hear something I'll often invite a non-audiophile to listen and get her unprompted impression (since women have good ears but most have less than zero interest in audio). If it matches my own, great, if it doesn't, well chances are I've been fooling myself. Another trick I use is to read a review and see if the critic heard the same things I did. Typically, they did. (One drawback with this technique is that we could share the same confirmation bias, e.g., we might both expect a tube amp to do a good job of rendering depth -- so it works better for observations that are a bit unusual.)
Mostly, though, I just scratch my head!
"Well, I'd have to agree with mkuller in that the door swings both ways."
Sure, both camps suffer from dogmatic rigidity. That's obvious.
"It's kind of funny to read Hydrogen Audio and watch them dancing around their own regulations"
I'm unfamiliar with that publication/website.
"chances are I've been fooling myself."
That's the sort of refreshing honesty you rarely get from either camp.
"That's the sort of refreshing honesty you rarely get from either camp."
Maybe because I was in both camps myself when I was young?
Like many, I was raised on Julian "All Amplifiers Sound The Same" Hirsch. Only at some point, I discovered that that wasn't true. I discovered Stereophile and put together a system that in its realism made my first attempts seem like the efforts of a caveman.
Then Enid Lumley came along and people started hearing open faucets in the next room and spending thousands of dollars on cables, and the limitations of subjective evaluation started to become apparent.
The awful sound of early digital recordings only confirmed my belief that standard measurements weren't telling the whole truth and as I started working in pro audio I learned that most audio engineers agreed. But it seemed as well that people (including audio engineers) were hearing things that weren't there, owing to what I then thought of as the placebo effect. And snake oil salesmen were moving in to take advantage of that.
In recent years, I've learned more about confirmation bias, about the degree to which the brain processes information from many different streams, the degree to which what appears to be straightforward perception has actually been processed by our brains by the time it reaches consciousness. The Harman research, the McGurk effect, studies on the rapidity with which the ear adapts to an unfamiliar acoustic -- all of these mean that the evaluation of audio equipment is extremely difficult.
So I think we're in a difficult situation, one in which our understanding of the correlation between measurement and perception is still inadequate, but in which subjective assessments have been shown to be colored as well. ABX tests are great for demonstrating that we *can* hear something, but can't demonstrate that we can't hear something.
That being said, if you ignore the fringes, the subjectivist and objectivist perspectives aren't as different as their adherents sometimes like to imply. I mean, ABX'ers have successfully distinguished sampling rates (this of course would be valid only for the filter characteristics that they used), the sound of op amps (three in series was the magic number), and amplifiers (though the question of whether you can hear the difference between modern amps within their linear range after you've compensated for impedance interactions is an interesting one). So typically, I find that ABX results agree with our subjective assessments.
I think a lot of the problem is that we tend to make subjective assessments under the wrong conditions. We rarely control variables, we rarely do blind testing. And a similar objection applies to many supposedly objective tests -- statistically invalid ABX comparisons, inadequately revealing ancillary equipment, etc. Evaluating a dipole in the middle of the room, evaluating "high res" audio that turns out to be upsampled 44.1 -- some of the mistakes are frankly embarrassing.
"In recent years, I've learned more about confirmation bias"
When it comes to the subjective camp I wonder how much brand/price bias figures into the evaluation process?
It seems to me that when subjectivists insist on sighted testing what they are really after is brand/price identification/knowledge. Once they are given that information then they are on firm footing. Oftentimes, if an audiophile thinks he is evaluating a $500 amp the exercise becomes a yawner. But if he believes he is auditioning a $25,000 amp....
In his book "Why You Like the Wines You Like," wine writer, Tim Hanni, recalls the night a friend brought a five thousand dollar magnum to his house for a dinner party. "It was a lovely wine," says Hanni. The next day Kate, his wife, confronted him and demanded, "Why didn't you tell me how expensive that wine is!"
Hanni says like any insensitive and stupid husband he asked, "What would that have mattered? It's not as though someone is going to smell the wine and say, Wow!, this is worth thousands of dollars!"
His wife's response was: "If I had known it was that special I would have paid more attention and enjoyed it more."
Hanni says that, "She is, of course, right."
Hanni points to a study (link below). According to Stanford researchers, when a person is told they are comparing a $5 wine with a $45 wine, when they are, in fact, sampling the same wine, the part of the brain that experiences pleasure will become more active when the drinker believes he is tasting the $45 wine.
I suspect further research will demonstrate the same holds true for evaluations of high-end audio and other luxury goods.
Tim Hanni here. And i am heavily into audio! Yes, many of the same biases are evident in audio evaluation as well as wine.
"When it comes to the subjective camp I wonder how much brand/price bias figures into the evaluation process?"
I wonder too. It certainly figures in, the Harman research shows that. But I have no idea to what degree its affecting a given review, or my own impressions.
"It seems to me that when subjectivists insist on sighted testing what they are really after is brand/price identification/knowledge. Once they are given that information then they are on firm footing. Oftentimes, if an audiophile thinks he is evaluating a $500 amp the exercise becomes a yawner. But if he believes he is auditioning a $25,000 amp...."
But who insists on that? I think that the issue with blind testing usually has more to do with practical logistics. Side-by-side double blind AB tests are hard to arrange.
"Hanni points to a study (link below). According to Stanford researchers, when a person is told they are comparing a $5 wine with a $45 wine, when they are, in fact, sampling the same wine, the part of the brain that experiences pleasure will become more active when the drinker believes he is tasting the $45 wine.
"I suspect further research will demonstrate the same holds true for evaluations of high-end audio and other luxury goods."
I wouldn't be at all surprised. And, really, is there anything wrong with that, if your goal is to feel good? The issue that I have is that it makes it harder to put together a really good *sounding* system.
Personally, I try to find those few magical components that punch way above their price class.
"And, really, is there anything wrong with that, if your goal is to feel good?"
No. Nor am I suggesting there is. I understand why some audiophiles take pride and comfort in owning certain brands.
"Personally, I try to find those few magical components that punch way above their price class."
Yes, that is the difficult part, isn't it?
Yes, it can be very time consuming. It helps that there's so much great used stuff available now. Also to focus on major rather than minor issues, e.g., improving room acoustics rather than buying expensive interconnects. And to give a listen to the components that reviewers consider a great value while trying to ignore the allure of hideously expensive items that reach the point of diminishing returns.
And maybe to be a bit canny. Forex, I just got a couple of Crown 2500's to try on my woofers, they were on sale for $300 each because the new model is coming out. I'd never expect to run a cheap Class D amp full range, the highs aren't very good. But they're typically great at bass frequencies. And if these don't pan out (as usual, I've heard conflicting reports) I can just send the back to Amazon.
There was a time when I did buy the fancy stuff, and some of it was beautiful. But eventually I found that I could outdo most systems for very little, and make a system that lights up the eyes of audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike -- and more importantly, that sounds so remarkable I could be happy with it forever. And the interconnects will be nothing more than 14 gauge lamp cord, because I'm focusing on the major stuff rather than costly improvements with consequences so subtle you aren't even sure whether they're real or not.
When it comes to the subjective camp I wonder how much brand/price bias figures into the evaluation process?
They are of the same price and both are of unknown brands to the listener? That happened to me on one of my visits to Sea Cliff back in '01. The two contenders were a pair of Edge Signature Monoblocks:
vs VTL Wotans:
Visually, it was like comparing Jenny McCarthy to Rosie O'Donnell. Chassis of milled and engraved aluminum using countersunk machine bolts vs rolled sheet metal and plain screws.
Guess which I preferred in terms of making the walls disappear and sounding more like live music? Soon after that, I purchased new amps and remain giddily happy using them to this day. If you check my system, you'll find the answer to the question. :)
Visually, it was like comparing Jenny McCarthy to Rosie O'Donnell, Guess which I preferred in terms of making the walls disappear and sounding more like live music? Soon after that, I purchased new amps and remain giddily happy using them to this day. If you check my system, you'll find the answer to the question. :) - EStat
Sooooo, Since it was not a blind test, my guess..? you like Ugly amps and or Big women .. :)
Edits: 10/29/15 10/29/15
Sooooo, Since it was not a blind test, my guess..? you like Ugly amps and or Big women .. :)
That's what DBT proponents would say. :)
"Visually, it was like comparing Jenny McCarthy to Rosie O'Donnell. Chassis of milled and engraved aluminum using countersunk machine bolts vs rolled sheet metal and plain screws."
It's to your credit that you weren't swayed by a pretty face. But my point has to do with brand/price, not cosmetics.
"They are of the same price and both are of unknown brands to the listener?"
Again, my example has to do with situations in which the listener does know the brands and prices under review (or, as in the Stanford study, believes he does).
But my point has to do with brand/price, not cosmetics.
I had never heard of either brand before, so I had no prior bias about either - one way or another.
Their price was the same.
My choice was based upon my emotional reaction to how each reproduced music. One was exceptionally good. The other had me laughing out loud listening to my favorite music. :)
"My choice was based upon my emotional reaction to how each reproduced music."
Good for you. I can think of no better criteria for purchasing an audio component.
...don't you list your system?
...and objectivists as well - fooling yourself with pseudoscience is still fooling yourself.
Audio is about fooling oneself into thinking its " live " when only large format high powered Sota systems come within 40-50% of real ...
Alot of foolery and psycho babble to go around ....
40% or 50% is still a lot better than most systems (including some very expensive ones). We really need a paradigm shift to go the rest of the way -- wave field synthesis or crosstalk cancellation/HRTF compensation with head tracking -- or just headphone with HRTF compesnation and head tracking - and record producers who care about realism.
Still, you can achieve some pretty remarkable and more to the point musically delightful results with the flawed two-channel systems we have, if you choose equipment wisely. You do need those big speakers, but they don't have to be SOTA to be surprisingly realistic. Indeed, I've found that the quality of recordings is typically the limiting factor when it comes to realism. So many suffer from compression, distortion on peaks, screechy violin syndrome, instruments out of balance or even spotlighted by unmusical idiots, a multimiked stereo image that's the soundstage equivalent of scrambled eggs, etc. And what with the loudness wars, the situation in popular music is even worse than classical.
Interestingly, I've fund that non-audiophiles do respond to that realism and can be quite adept at identifying it if they're familiar with the sound of live acoustical music.
"You do need those big speakers, but they don't have to be SOTA to be surprisingly realistic."
Is it the size of the speaker or size of the musical group that matters most when it comes to a convincing performance in your listening room? It's much easier to produce a realistic recording of a small chamber group performing a Bach violin concerto than a one-hundred piece symphony performing Mahler, for all the obvious reasons, regardless of how large your speakers are.
Is it the size of the speaker or size of the musical group that matters most when it comes to a convincing performance in your listening room? It's much easier to produce a realistic recording of a small chamber group performing a Bach violin concerto than a one-hundred piece symphony performing Mahler, for all the obvious reasons, regardless of how large your speakers are. - regmacAgree, but a large SOTA speaker will still do everything better in the right room vs small , but i do understand why most feel, a small speaker( monitor) wont give up much to , or captures 85-90% of the music vs a larger version, this is because most large speakers are not really SOTA vs their mini equivalent, yes they have less distortion in the bass and because of this ability to reach into the low frequencies of all recordings, they pressurize the room in a different manner, but they all have the same dynamic limitations and compression from 1K up because they are sprouting the same single point source tweeter, the tweeter is the conductor, dynamic compression will be reached at the same point.
Listen to any large line-source or multiple point source type speakers, the difference is immediately apparent on choral or large symphony music, really big horns make it happen also..
Find it hilarious, to see Audiophiles paying 6 figures for a single point source speaker with such limitations and thinking Sota.
They are not ..
Regards
Edits: 10/29/15 10/29/15
I think it's both, actually. As you say, it's easier to reproduce a small ensemble. And all other things being equal, size can confer many advantages on speakers -- better bass response, lower distortion and higher output, more realistic imaging. (It can also have some disadvantages, e.g., less consistent polar response in dynamics.) And while dynamics have improved radically over the years, the most realistic speakers I've heard for conventional two-channel stereo are planar dipoles, which have to be big by nature.
...do find in films on the big screen?
I don't mind plain black boxes as long as it sounds good.
Why else would mfgr's spend a fortune on solid milled cases? First Watt is a example of plain chassis with good sound.
and the question of "beauty" is likewise in the eyes of the beholder.
Some like pretty blue meters (on everything, including turntables) with lots of dials and switches. I favor the reserved instrumentation look of Audio Research gear.
To each is own.
Audio research and reserved Is not a match ......
Off topic, I know ... but, would you mind posting up a pic of, and some comments about, your Probe Audio Labs Martinet speakers? Thanks!
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
- Leonard Cohen
Sure is flashy, isn't it?
Edits: 10/26/15
Yep understated beauty
.
I would Hate to see the $$$ come re-toob time on those babies ...
I will be doing that this afternoon with the four year old ones in the MB-450s.
Such a wall flower , love the reserved instrumentation look .... :)
Edits: 10/24/15
...to an audiophile, beauty is just icing on the fidelity cake.
To a non-audiophile, fidelity is an unsuspected and possibly under appreciated bonus.
There is a saying in bass fishing circles that lures are designed to catch fisherman as much as they are to catch fish. I suspect that equally applies in audio.
...particularly at higher price levels .
Say the basic audio design including research, components, manufacturing, marketing and distribution results in something that can retail for $500 then purchasers will probably be happy if it comes in a decent folded steel box. If, however, the item needs to sell at $10,000 to make a profit then at that level a folded steel box will be unlikely to appeal to a purchaser. As such the result would have the visual characteristics of a typical inexpensive product yet cost a small fortune. It would thus offer a perception of poor value irrespective of its audio performance. Hence all of those hewn from solid aluminium cases that dominate equipment over a certain price point.
Incidentally as my system is in my living room and not in a dedicated space I must spend more time having to look at it rather than listening to it so its appearance does have some relative importance (albeit subservient to its functional merits).
A true sports car doesn't have anything on it that doesn't make it go faster. True high performance audio equipment should be held to the same standard. Nothing on it that doesn't make it sound more like the real thing.Doc
Edits: 10/24/15
That is right. You must be referring to those true hifi components without any casing, indicator lights or even graphics/logos to identify the manufacturer. Most of these are, of course, owned by people who have true sports cars without gauges, paint or seats.
:-)
Nope more like a sports car with an automatic transmission ....
You mean like those not true sports cars like Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren etc. none of which offers a current model with a manual shift?
They are not automatics, but i get your drift ....
Edits: 10/25/15
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: