|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
160.62.7.250
"high Resolution" DAC.
It seems to me that the best solutions for cd playback were more or less developed in the 1990s.
One should seek out top name DACs from that era that used the following chipsets (in descending order of preference):
Ultra Analog D20400 and D20400A, 20 bit ladder DAC. This is the top off-the-shelf DAC probably ever made. This was used by the biggest and best DACs of the 90s (Mark Levinson, Sonic Froniters, VTL, Manley, Spectral, Threshold, Audio Research, Krell, Counterpoint, STAX etc.)
Burr Brown PCM63K: 20 bit ladder DAC. Also used by top brands but at a tier lower in price usually. Excellent sound can be had from DACs with this chip but perhaps not quite at the Ultra Analog level of performance.
Analog Devices AD1862N: 20 bit ladder DAC. Also a top notch DAC chip but was not used as frequently as the BB. Excellent nonetheless.
Analog Devices AD1865N: 18 bit ladder DAC. Still used by Audio Note as their preferred DAC chip for the NOS (non-oversampling) designs. Capable of delivering a quite "analog" sound with extreme attention to the power supply and analog output sections.
Burr Brown PCM1704K: 24 bit ladder DAC. Out of production but still used widely today. Can be excellent but also perhaps a bit more analytical sounding than the earlier PCM63 and not really suitable for passive IV conversion. Still a winner in the right implementation.
Also, whether you go NOS or with traditional "oversampling" the sonic results from the DACs above can be stunning. A tube output stage done right can bring even higher performance.
I used to believe that the DAC chip itself made little to no difference...that it was all in the analog section and power supply. This I have come to realize is not true and the DAC/digital filter make an immense difference on the overall presentation of the information. The power supply and output have just as much impact but the digital conversion section cannot be ignored or handled by a cheap sigma/delta part and expect SOTA performance. Even really good sigma/deltas of the 32 bit variety don't do redbook as well. THere is something not natural that is happening with all the noise shaping that affects dynamics in a negative way and the impact of the music is lost even if the result is smooth and pleasing.
I personally haven't like very much the NOS DACs that are using the old Philips 16 bit chips and I don't know what Metrum is using (does anyone?) but their approach sounds pretty good too.
For those looking into getting a new DAC and don't really need high rez (or if 24/96 is good enough for you) then I say don't look at what is around now new but look to the past and get a SOTA DAC from yesteryear and you will be very surprised at what we have gone away from and what is missing in many of the new ones.
Follow Ups:
I have a 90s vintage Counterpoint DA-10A with the Rapture 24/96 DAC and power supply upgrade and I love it. It does an amazing job with Redbook. Unfortunately I haven't been able to compare it to more modern DACs in my system, so I don't know how it stacks up against them. But I'm very happy with it and haven't heard anything that sounds better in other systems. Makes every CD I play through it sound better than ever.
Best regards, Ralph
the 18 bit 1865b like Audio Note in a lot of their players.
ET
Edits: 04/18/14
With few exceptions, I personally have preferred the 20 bit DACs of the 1990s over the 24 and 32 bit products being marketed today. (For Redbook CD playback, all the extra bits do is fill in more points of the digital filter function. The resolution is not enhanced.) I suspect the reason for my preference being the extra bits generating more RF interference. I use 1990s vintage digital sources exclusively in my two home systems, and have been very happy with the performance.
I love it, for whatever the reason.
You have made a primary attribution error. Its not the older chips that are intrinsically good, its the DIGITAL FILTERING in the newer chips that is bad. Remove or replace these filters and the newer chips will beat the older chips every time IME.
Interesting premise. PLease elaborate what is wrong with the digital filters of today and what was so right about the ones of yesteryear. I don't really think it is just the filters but you might have part of the equation there.
The older chips for the most part have no digital filters in them. The new chips do and they are mostly poorly implemented. If you have a newer D/A chip that allows selection of the filters, this can make the new chips sound even better than the older chips.
I have extensive experience with high end "modern" chips that were not using their internal digital filters but were using some of the most advanced external digital filter extant (think Anagram with their ATF filter for example and DCS). Still think a properly implemented ladder DAC with external 8x DF or no DF and a really good analog stage sounds better. I remain unconvinced by your argument.
Look, I used to sell a product that was essentially a hot-rodded Monarchy PCM1704 based tube DAC called the Spoiler. It was the best of its type, beating the Zanden and EMM Labs etc. I know exactly what this sounds like. Very very good and analog-like, but no where near the resolution of my new DAC using modern D/A chips. Bass not as good either. Even the best Siemens CCA tubes are just not up to it.
To really hear a DAC, you cannot be using an active preamp. Adds too much compression and noise IMO.
Having heard the DAC with both PCM1704 and PCM63 with redbook the PCM63 version (the original version of the M24) still sounds the best to me...even more analog like and a bit less angular if that makes any sense.
Look, I don't know what DAC you are using now but I have heard plenty from the so-called SOTA (DCS, Meitner, Esoteric etc.) in terms of processors and/or DFs but they don't sound better to me at all...particularly with redbook...they simply sound more synthetic.
"they don't sound better to me at all...particularly with redbook...they simply sound more synthetic"
I agree. There are a handful of DACs that are not like these however. Don't ask me to list them because I'll be breaking the rules.
I will be looking to replace my source in about half a year's time. For my sonic preferences, Rowland Aeris is the only DAC using Delta-Sigma conversion that is near the top of my audition list. The Luxman DA-06 is a little further down on the list, but could suffice.IIRC, these DACs run AD or TI/BB converters respectively - not the currently popular AKM, Wolfson, or ESS.
I have more ladder DACs than D-S DACs on my list though...
Cheers.
“As long as we have any intention to be right… we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest.” Charlotte Joko Beck
Edits: 04/23/14
not the best, nor are the modern GEs and Phllips.
The wartime and postwar CV40xx military valves are something else
Have you tried Siemens CCA grey-plates pre-1960? New ones? Killer good.
And the best DAC for CD replay I've heard is the Chord Chordette Cute HD. Excellent.
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
LOL, the chordette, really!?!? Not in a million years...
BTW, it is not nostalgia that keeps them alive it is the obvious sound quality they produce that once one gets over being brainwashed about the "progress" of the DACs one can easily hear. It is the same for vinyl that is now highly regarded again and, due to ongoing TT/arm/cartridge development (only for the high end though) is probably better than it ever was.
With DACs, the main driver was always one thing...price and to have something new to sell to people, bit rate. In many ways it is a lot like digital photography. People originally thought megapixels were everything...then the reality is something very different above a certain level.
I just flopped a $350 modern DAC, the Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-11, which I preferred in pure SS mode, ran it without the tube in fact.
It was every bit the equal of my Consonance CD 120 Linear, a NOS design. A remarkable accomplishment for such a modestly priced DAC.
That's what I'm getting at, even entry level DAC there days had are the equal of or eclipse NOS designs, making choice of the latter to avoid the dreaded 'digital' sound a thing of the past ... and that's just entry level ... spend a little and a NOS alternatives becomes entirely archaic.
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
I am not necessarily endorsing NOS DACs...just ladder DACs with or without DF. Both of mine use an 8x oversampling DF (one the BB DF1704 and the other a Sony). One has a tube output and the other is all SS. Both kick the crap out of even very expensive upsampling, 24/192 sgima/delta dacs with normal cd. I have been quite impressed with the Metrum Hex and the Abingdon Research DAC and upper level Audio Note DACs but others have not impressed (like 47 labs).
You have to remember that many cheap DACs from China just stick a tube buffer on the end of a chain with several opamps and give the worst of all worlds. Monarchy uses passive IV and a single tube output stage with no transistors or opamps at all in the path after the DAC...that is highly unusual if not unique. The Kinergetics is more of a mystery but the output is at least all discrete and not opamp based.
Ah, so it's the ones you like, not the others.
What else is new?
lol
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
Come again? Not at all what I said. Try again with an answer that makes sense to what was written?
.
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
as expected...you can't.
He makes that noise often - and usually in a very short time after argument starts.
Let him swap eBay DACs, that kind of activity suits him well.
You make an interesting point but your reasoning is flawed.
First, this IS a Redbook world, whatever the hype..anyone who argues otherwise is full of it. Second, there are many ways to skin a cat. I have found that some DACs that upsample IMPROVE the sound. It is not all black an white.
Secondly, while the DAC chip is important, it is NOT as important as you claim against the over design and output stage. Your view is way to orthodox.
Lastly, you are not suggesting that folks use a SEPARATE DAC for their Redbook and higher resolution files???
And what if down the road one DOES find higher resolution attractive..why be boxed in?
I agree it's a Redbook world... most of the music I like I can find as used CDs on Amazon or Ebay. It will be a million years before they get around to hi-rez re-masterings of my favorites CDs, say the harpsichord and orchestral performances of Gustav Leonhardt.
My current DAC is a Grace m903 but I'm not sure it's that great for me. Looking for opinions..
On any given day, 90% of the music I want to listen to is in Redbook format, and through my set up, sounds excellent.
The Grace DAC is really good stuff.
Actually I think you are dead wrong. ALL of my friends, except for me, have gone over to computer and high rez downloads. Of course the spent a ton of time ripping their cds as well.
I haven't found a single example where upsampling actually improved the sound. Made it different and many times weird...sure but better...no.
A good example was a friend of mine with the DCS Delius DAC (later Elgar DAC) and Purcell upsampler. We played a lot with the digital filters and the upsampling and I found, without exception that the non-integer upsampling (i.e. 96KHz and 192Khz) sounded worse than the integer upsampling (88.2 and 176.4Khz). Oversampling is also an integer (so maybe the integer up and over sampling were really the same thing?? In that case it was only 2x and 4x with the Purcell while my old dacs all do 8x). I preferred the sound of Delius with the 4x upsampling and so did my friend and he left it that way. One wonders if a normal 8x oversampling chip would have improved things further. Regardless, the DCS stuff sounded very mechanical and synthetic.
As I stated below, I have also owned two versions of the Anagram technologies digital filters with sigma/delta DACs. It was a no go in both cases. This is relevant because the Audio Aero had a very nice tube output stage that got it the closest to acceptability I have heard from this kind of higher math conversion.
If you reread what I wrote you will note that I also made the comment that I thought power supply and output stage originally were the most important part and I still think they are important; however, I have now discovered how fundamentally different the two types of DAC technologies along with the attendent filters sound from each other. Furthermore, comparing the DACs with analog (both LP and tape) I have found that the older ones (in high end implementations of course...we are not talking budget DACs from the 80s here) get consistently closer to what I hear from those other sources.
I would not call my view orthodox at all...I would call it forgotten knowledge. Orthodox was that only the bits mattered and you can throw in any old DAC chip if you build the rest up like Hercules... If what I am proclaiming was orthodox then MSB technologies would be one of a dozen companies making high end mulitbit DAC chipsets from scratch...to my knowledge they are the only ones, which makes them rather heretical not orthodox.
Other than a few other companies who have done it (Lavry engineering did one of their own as did a British company whose name eludes me) the rest buy off-the-shelf parts. Cost of manufacturing of ladder dacs is very high and people wanted high bit rates and low prices...thus the rise of the sigma/delta DAC. The Ultra Analog chips were SERIOUSLY expensive for a manufactuer. THe cheapest DAC I have seen that used these was around $3K in the early 90s. I see why they were used now though as they were seriously good. Probably you have never heard a DAC with this chip in it?
I guess if you want high rez files and your older dac won't play them (my Monarchy will play up to 96Khz files the Kinergetics is limited to 48Khz) then you have to get another DAC to play them. Since you can get many of the good older DACs for not so much money (Ultra Analog DACs excepted...some still bring a high price) then you can blow your wad on high rez dac for high rez files.
No one is saying that the future is fixed to what I observe now. I am just stating where I think we are in the present.
"I have found that some DACs that upsample IMPROVE the sound."
If it's 4x/8x/16x oversampling, I agree in most part. If it's upsampling to 24/96 or 24/192, I totally disagree......
"Your view is way to orthodox."
I just like how 1990s vintage CD playback sounds.... If it's deemed "too orthodox", oh well.... I just hope nobody has compromised their satisfaction because some options were automatically rejected based on "orthodoxy".
As with anything, it comes down to implementation. I agree that upsampling ICs can negatively influence the sound since some rely on lookup tables and linear interpolation which results in errors in the output waveform, but the principle itself is not flawed as far as the benefits go.
Anagram Technologies have done a good job with their ATF curve fit method and to my ears is the best of the options out there at the moment at the consumer level. The problem is the computational requirements to do the job properly on streaming data. At least on a computer you can analyse the entire file with the required data precision in the calculations to give the best result!
Regards
Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I have owned TWO different DACs that use the Anagram Technolgies digital filters: An Audio Aero Prima DAC (this is the DAC section from their Capitole 24/192 cd player) and a OEM supplied version + high precision clock.
I have compared the Audio Aero Prima DAC (which uses the Analog Devices AD1853 sigma/delta 24/192 DAC) to my Monarchy Audio M24 (BB PCM63K) and my Kinergetics KCD55 Ultra (Analog Devices D20400). The Audio Aero has a very robust and well regulated power supply and uses subminiature tubes as the output stage. The same DAC is in the Capitole 24/192, which was highly regarded. The resolution of the AA was quite good and tone was also pretty nice. It got weird though when it came to imaging and soundstageing (air but diffuse) and I strongly preferred the Ladder DAC implementation, which despite one being tube and the other discrete transistor, sound more similar than different. I kept the AA about 3 months and then had enough of it and got a good deal trading it away.
The other OEM filter/DAC/clock has a similar character to the AA in terms of resolution and smoothness even though it is using a different DAC chipset (AD1855 I think). It lacks the dynamics of the AA, which are good but still not to the ladder DAC standard. This lack of dynamic contrast leads it to sound refined but somewhat boring. Bland very bland.
The more recent OEM setup is the exact same digital filter that is now used in the Audio Aero La Source as is the clock. I think they use a different DAC but maybe that is the same too. THe only difference is the power supply (important) and the output stage (also important). The AA La Source sounded quite good when I heard it at shows but the first listen with the AA Prima DAC is also pretty impressive. THe cracks show with time...
Needless to say the older DACs sound MORE like my very good vinyl setup than the Audio Aero implementation.
I'm not familiar with the STARS version of Anagram Technologies algorithm. However, as it is quoted as being specific to Audio Aero, you cannot assume that it is the same algorithm as the more recent ATF version employed in Cambridge Audio decks. Indeed they now have a newer refined ATF2 version which handles 24 bit input data better.
Often a clue is in the wording - they refer to this as being RE-sampling. Which implies that the data effectively goes through the D/A process, then is sampled at the new desired sample rate and therefore synchronised to the new clock reference.
ATF on the other hand uses polynomial interpolation from a series of input samples and a synthetic sample is created at the appropriate output sample rate.
This is very different. If STARS is what I think it is, then the quality of the output waveform will be dependent on the quality of the first stage in creating the waveform at the original sample rate.
The ATF system gives 3 different filter characteristics - conventional linear phase, minimum phase and "steep". The linear phase filter is anything but diffuse! The minimum phase gives greater realism to acoustic instruments at the expense of spatial precision. The steep filter is ....well... a classic brick wall filter with a rather coarse sound.
One other area you haven't addressed is in the quality of the I-V conversion and analogue filter. The quality of signal path capacitors in the filters and amplifier design will strongly influence your perception of soundstaging.
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
To the best of my knowledge, and I have met the guys in Switzerland who developed the Anagram modules, Audio Aero is putting fancy spin on the exact same modules that were used also by Audio Mecca (I think they did use the ATF name). The other DAC I have uses the latest version (Anagram is out of business now but there is an OEM company called ABC PCB that has their last generation ATF now called something else). I am pretty sure that the algorithms in these SHARC based processors is exactly the same because the math involved is quite complex to begin with.
Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think Anagram tweaked depending on the customer.
Either way, I had a circa 2006 version and a circa 2010 version and didn't love either of them.
This was my favorite.
Saw the article.... Very few CD players or DACs (or digital playback period) get symphony orchestra right.... If one his happy listening to orchestral music from CD, he's probably well ahead of the curve.
The DIY DAC design community suspect that Metrum use the 16-bit T.I. DAC8581 chip.
_
Ken Newton
Definitely one of the well beaten path of DAC land, eh? Still, what I heard of the HEX made me think that it was pretty darn good but I heard it only a couple of times at some shows.
You are scaring me here. I don't know much about digital technology. I'm a vinyl guy. But I recently got interested in headphones. I have a Rotel 971 CD player that I use for playback and a Shanling PH100 amp. I just purchased a used Xindac 5 tube DAC because it would give me higher resolution. Are you saying I wasted my money?
If I was going Chinese, I would have looked at the Lite Dacs...specifically the Lite DAC 83... Just IMO.
Have had our Lite Audio system - LT-1 transport and DAC 83 - for a couple of weeks now and we're glad we got it (wife and I).
It used to be just me that would have listening sessions - pulling out disc after disc to luxuriate in the music. Now the wife is doing this too.
big j.
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Do not be alarmed. The thread starter is only presenting their opinion of which DAC chips produce the best subjective performance with standard CD format; aka, the 'redbook' standard. Remember, the CD standard is 44,100 samples per second, at 16-bits resolution per sample. Xindak states that their model 5 DAC utilizes the Analog Devices AD1852 chip, which is an delta-sigma based D/A converter that is specified to achieve nearly 19-bits of effective resolution, at up to a 192,000 sample per second rate. Which means you not only can fully resolve the CD audio standard, but also can take substantial advantage of the increased resoulution provided by high-definition didigtal audio sources. Not that long ago, (although, I don't know if it is still the case) the AD1852 was used in Meridian's top-of-the-line 808 model DAC.The bottom line is, to my thinking, if you currently enjoy musical satisfaction via your Xindak DAC, ignore any feelings of audiophile neurosis over technical specifications. Just as the proof of an pudding is in the tasting, the proof of an home audio system is in the listening.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 04/15/14
I used a Scott Nixon SS NOS USB DAC before I started to experiment with Hi Rez. It sounded great and was a great value.
For redbook CD resolution, how would you rate the Scott Nixon NOS DAC vs the Schiit Bifrost with Uber analog stage? How do they compare / differ sonically? Thanks!
The Nixon DAC was a little smoother which is nice given the monitor like presentation of my speakers.
The Schiit Bifrost Uber has a tighter and more extended bass response and flatter top end.
The differences are not night and day. Both are made in America.
They are both great value DACs. I would not have changed, if I did not want Hi Rez capability and more input flexibility. The potential upgrade-ability of the Schiit was also very attractive. We will see, if that pays off in the long run.
BTW - I really like my Cary CAD-200 amp in my system. Thanks for the recommendation.
To a certain extent I agree with you... but only to a point!
No matter how good the DAC and supporting analogue circuitry, the final result will be ruined by a poorly designed digital filter.
I still find that the PMD100 is still a remarkably good sounding digital filter compared to the internal filters bundled with devices like the PCM1792 that claim to have superior stop band rejection. The only problem with these older devices (and I don't think the PMD100 is the only one to suffer from this) is that the bitclock must be reclocked for optimum performance otherwise jitter is injected into bitclock driving the DAC.
I still think it is possible to get equivalently excellent sound with the modern devices - it is now understood that delta sigma DACs have odd idle tones and patents have been filed that incorporate a dither module in the feedback loop to eliminate these effects. Like anything, it has taken time to understand how to implement this thing we call Digital Audio properly, it's just that you have to work harder to solve the problems that get introduced with progress!
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
FUnny enough the PMD100 and the BB DF1704 were found in one player, the Sim Audio Moon Eclipse cd player that used BB PCM1704K chips. Universally it was thought that the DF1704 was the superior digital filter and Sim Audio only added the PMD100 for the HDCD functionality. There is a German company that has a swap for the PMD100 (with the DF1704!) because frankly it is not the best of the older style oversampling filters out there.
I've not heard the DF1704 so can't comment on a direct comparison. However, you need to define whether you mean the reconstruction filter (as in the ACTUAL reconstruction filter impulse, phase and amplitude response or whether you mean the integrated system output from the analogue outputs of the DAC.
Without studying the circuit implementation, this still doesn't prove that the PMD100 reconstruction filter characteristic is necessarily inferior. It only shows that in the final system integration the DF1704 resulted in a subjective improvement and that could be down to inattention to device specific requirements in dealing with corrupted clock signals or suboptimal dither.
Note also, that clock jitter affects the performance of the reconstruction filter and can result in aliasing artifacts when it would seem unlikely based on the specification of the device.
The PMD100 requires the bitclock to be reclocked. Any design that doesn't do this important step will have a corrupted bitclock driving the DAC. This will cause a degraded sound from the DAC. The other bit of information you haven't provided is how the PMD100 was configured. You have control over the output bit depth and the dither amplitude and type of dither. An inappropriate combination for the chosen DAC will also cause an audible difference
If the original designer merely substituted one for the other without having specific circuitry to handle the clocking for the PMD100, then it is possible to hear a difference I'm sure, but I'm afraid that this is not sufficient proof until all of the information is known!
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
All the DAC chips I am talking about required an external DF of some kind (PMD, DF1704 or similar). All I can tell you is that enough people were ultimately dissatisfied with the PMD100 to warrant replacement offers. To my knowledge no one wants to remove their DF1704s unless they are thinking of going NOS.
WHo knows?? Maybe you are right and the PMD100 is wonderful but misunderstood chip but the history suggests otherwise.
I'm not precious about the PMD100 at all. Leaving aside the DF from the equation, it has been my experience that the I-V conversion and output analogue filtering topology has a much more significant effect on the output sound...without changing anything on the digital side.
For example, I wouldn't use any other dielectric than polystyrene for my signal path caps, and I would implement a DC servo to avoid the need for NP electrolytics that many manufacturers pollute the sound with!
The other thing I think that is important is the op amp topology to implement the analogue filter.
If you look at the PCM63 and PCM67/69 application notes, they recommend a GIC configuration rather than the more common MFB topology. This is a much better topology I feel as it has the advantage that the passive component properties are what will dominate the sound quality. Next to PTFE, polystyrene is the next best thing in terms of low dielectric absorption and the result is a huge lift in realism and clarity (to me).
Secondly, this may explain why older DAC designs may sound better than new ones, simply because the designers followed the guidelines which just happened to have the better topology!
For what it's worth, I personally wouldn't choose to use a PMD100 now for any perceived benefit since the sample rate is limited to 55kHz and the DF1704 is a bit more versatile.
I'm actually working on a DAC design of my own now (and actually have a PMD100 from my X-DAC which now has a totally trashed PCB from all my reworks!), but I will implement the DF in software using a DSP. A separate DF IC is just too limiting!
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I don't disagree with you about the importance of the analog I/V conversion and filtering (or lack thereof); however, even the best implementations I have heard fall short of what I am hearing when a good ladder DAC is in place with a really good output stage.
I find it interesting that my Audio Note 2.1 dac using the analog device dac uses no digital or analog filtering and the Audio Note transport uses no jitter reduction at all. Members of my audio club think it is the best sounding redbook playback they have ever heard. Maybe the simpler the better is the clue here. I also have a Mytek dac for "HIREZ" and I almost never listen to it any more. The audio note is much better. I also love vinyl
Alan
Heard the 3.1x with 3.1 transport into a Jinro amp with higher model E speakers...very natural in some ways but a little too rounded for my liking (a bit more than I think I hear live as well). Maybe too much AUdio Note in one chain??
regarding their Zero times oversampling and no digital/analog filters is this review of the DAC 1.1 linked below."With Audio Note the return to non-oversampling ties in with their earlier efforts on transformer-based DAC current-to-voltage conversion: a transformer forms an interesting low-pass filter to be used with a non-filtered DAC."
It's still different type of process than other design types (although there are some copycats out there) - and on sound quality I agree with you. The SQ is the key thing not one internal part - DACs are dirt cheap and Audio Note you can be sure tried them ALL.
It should be noted that the below review was when Audio Note used an Analog filter and termed it that.
Edits: 04/15/14
I hate to break it to you, but there is analogue filtering...it's just that it has been disguised in the output transformer as you can see. Not only is a shunt capacitor part of the transformer block, but the transformer itself will limit the bandwidth of the signal getting through to the tube output stage.
Regards
Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
nt
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
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: