 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.252.103.26
In Reply to: At the risk of stating the obvious... posted by Jim Austin on March 23, 2007 at 08:11:44:
People are free to read Bohm's own words, or whatever they wish. Just as you, or anyone, is free to read my post, or not. Don't get so all uppity and riled up. Suggest maybe cutting back on the coffee...You got something against "speculation?" Isn't what you are calling "speculation" really thinking outside the conventional wisdom? Without "speculation" how are we to grow?
~ Cheers
Follow Ups:
The difference between science and speculation is that the former is peer reviewed and published in scholarly science journals, while the latter isn't peer reviewed and is published in the popular press. You should know that Geoff.Jim
Sorry Jim but you seem to be using stock sentences to hide behind. To quote you in a reply to Geoff Kait:-
> > > "The difference between science and speculation is that the former is peer reviewed and published in scholarly science journals, while the latter isn't peer reviewed and is published in the popular press. You should know that Geoff." < < <Logic No. 1. There would be NOTHING for any "peer" group to review without someone, somewhere, at some time introduced something new or a new 'speculation' !! Without any new speculation, the so called 'peer' group would be just sitting there, twiddling their thumbs - with nothing to 'peer group review' !!
Logic No 2. Who exactly is the "peer" group going to consist of ?The equivalent of Alexander Fleming's "peer" group ? - when Alexander Fleming found that after returning from holiday "something" had got in through an open window and had 'stopped the growth' of bacteria which had been growing in a culture dish ? Fleming DEDUCED (or to use a word you don't particularly seem to like - SPECULATED !!) that this particular mould must have released a substance that had inhibited the growth of the bacteria. But, because of Fleming's "PEER GROUP" there was insufficient support from the medical community so the initial research had to stop !!!!
Or the equivalent of Edward Jenner's "peer group" ? Who, after Jenner submitted a paper to the Royal Society describing his vaccination experiment, he was ridiculed - by HIS "peer group" !!!
Or the equivalent of Joseph Lister's "peer group" ? Who, after describing his concept that the 'germs were in the air' and after introducing his antiseptic techniques, he was ridiculed - by HIS "peer group"
And, in MY own lifetime - plate tectonics !! Ridiculed again by the existing "peer group".
In reading the history of discoveries it has been mainly the tenacity of individuals in the past which has driven science forward - and only when THEY (the individuals) have established that there is anything to look seriously at, do the 'peer group' finally decide to 'review' the situation.
Obviously, Jim, you must never have experienced the difficulty of dealing with so called "peer groups" or you would not use such sentences so glibly nor have such blind faith in them. Nor would you presume to lecture anyone else on the subject. I can actually 'feel' Fleming, Jenner, Lister et al who have come up against their own versions of "peer groups" turning in their graves !!Which leaves me with my original question. "Exactly which "peer group" is any different to the "peer groups" in the past ? Who is the "peer group" you refer to going to consist of who you would have such faith in ?"
You seem to be hiding, Jim, behind glib sentences about 'peer review' as though the people who would be reading the sentences have no understanding, have no actual 'hands on' experience ! A similar thing happens with the glib sentence of "blind trials would answer the question once and for all"!!
That does not mean, obviously, that I am naive enough to advocate accepting 'everything anyone says' - I am as sceptical as the next person - but the blind acceptance that 'peer group' review or 'blind trials' are THE answers is as equally naive. Of course things have eventually to be proved to the satisfaction of the majority of people but the word 'peer' only means 'of the same status' - it does not mean that there is a special (super duper ) tribe of 'all knowing', 'all seeing' people who can be called upon to provide THE TRUTH !!
In another reply to me you said "I think you credit people's experiences too much, and you think I credit them too little. That's an interesting difference." < <
Absolutely correct. I do believe that you, Jim, credit people's experiences too little. But, I actually think it is more serious than that. It is not that you PASSIVELY credit people's experiences too little - it is that you ACTIVELY DISCREDIT some people's experiences !!!
Nor do I have an " irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception". Nor do I have "a blind spot" which allows me to "reject the fallibility of human perception too easily and with too little reason". I am just more aware than you that people are more likely to have actually "heard" the improvements in the sound which they claim to have heard, and that these "improvements in the sound" are far more REAL (not imagined) than you believe !!!
Also in another reply you said "Nordost liquid? Never heard of it, never tried it."
You claim to be a scientist, and you write for an audio magazine but you have never heard of the liquid (chemical) which Nordost manufacture. Even though quite a few years back now, the editor of a UK audio trade magazine wrote about it, having had a demonstration of it's effect at a USA audio fair and just last year, the UK magazine Hi Fi Choice had a cloth impregnated with this liquid attached to every front cover of one month's magazine issue !! THEY have all heard about it, why haven't you ?
And, do you really think that the president of Nordost (Joe Reynolds) would go to all the trouble to claim, in an interview in the magazine referred to, that the chemical can be used on video cables, power cables, CDs and even the centre label of vinyl LPs - merely as a marketing ploy ? You might not like their explanation that the chemical is 'dealing with' static - I certainly do not go along with that explanation - but if we reject the explanation, then what we are left with is an 'observation' without an adequate explanation !! Which is something completely different to dismissing the whole suggestion that a chemical can change the 'sound' - which is the path you seem to be preferring. So, what happens when we are left with an observation without an adequate explanation, is that we can either SEARCH for an adequate explanation or dismiss the whole thing - and with that dismissal rejecting people's observations !!If you don't know any of these things, no wonder you cannot believe me when I have repeatedly claimed that chemicals can change 'sound' !!!
Regards,
May Belt
Of course. Few would argue with this.So are you working on this? If so, how?
If not, why not?
Which story do you want, tunenut ?The story of our work on improving the sound of hearing aids 22 years ago (and the story of the discoveries leading up to that) is well known - correction - is well known to the people who are interested ?
The story of the blind trials carried out at one of the largest teaching hospitals in the UK ?
The story of the results of those blind trials ?
The story of how members of the 'peer group' ( people of equal status in the medical profession) deciding that they preferred (to safeguard their professional reputation) to hide behind the parapets to avoid the arrows of ridicule ?Which of the numerous stories, over the past 25 years, would you like ?
Regards,
May Belt.
I don't care whatever reactions others had. Can you provide a link where your work was published? Thank you.
I do not have the articles which I think you would like. I do not have published details of the blind trials results nor do I have articles published in scientific journals because the full set of blind trials were never completed. But in 1986 (21 years ago) I wrote a paper describing our work up to that date - and this article - "Challenging the Conventional" 1986 Paper - May Belt - is available to read on our home page and describes that particular period.http://www.belt.demon.co.uk
I will explain why the blind trials were never completed.
The Chief Technician of the hospital's audiology department was asked by the ENT consultant to carry out some blind trials on the techniques for 'treating' hearing aid batteries I had described to them. One early advantage (which unfortunately later turned out to be the Achilles heel) was that the Chief Technician was interested in audio and loved listening to music at home so this enabled him to overcome his initial reluctance to do any trials and also because of Peter's reputation as someone who manufactured 'state of the art' audio equipment. The results of the blind trials were as described in my paper - over 75 % of the patients taking part in the trials recorded an improvement in the sound of their hearing aids when using a 'treated' battery !! Because the hearing aid batteries are tiny and fiddly and because each time when a new battery would have to be fitted, it would have to be similarly 'treated', we decided that the next set of blind trials would be to see if Peter could 'treat' the actual plastic case of the hearing aid, giving one single treatment to the actual hearing aid itself and to see if untreated batteries could then be used without any deterioration in the beneficial effect.The Chief technician's interest in audio meant that he was also a reader of the Hi Fi magazines of that time and, in one of these magazines in the mid 1980s, there appeared an article by Jonathan Kettle entitled "Beyond the Fringe" where amongst other things, Jonathan described something which Peter Belt had sent to a number of journalists to try. Jonathan explained that he had not actually tried it because he could not understand how it could possibly work but, nevertheless, decided to include it in the list of things which he, Jonathan, regarded as "Beyond the Fringe". After reading this article the Chief Technician was somewhat reluctant to continue with any trials but I managed to persuade him otherwise.
But, now comes the part where the Achilles heel really comes into the story. Just as we were completing work on a 'treatment' for the actual hearing aid itself and preparing for the next set of blind trials J. Gordon Holt's infamous article appeared in Stereophile where, at the end, J. Gordon Holt refers to Peter as a 'charlatan'. That was it, after the Chief Technician read that article - that was the last straw !! There was no way that any Chief Technician, with an ounce of sense, with a professional reputation to uphold, would want to be seen to be associating with someone who was being described as a 'charlatan' and who earlier had been included in a "Beyond the Fringe" list !! And, our Chief Technician was no exception !! So, it became a case of "Oh, we are now too busy to do any further trials".
During a discussion recently on the Stereophile forum I was taken to task by someone who accused me of being disparaging to the medical profession because 'I should be aware that they are extremely dedicated people'. OF COURSE THEY ARE !! No one would dispute that. But they are also human beings as anxious as the next person not to be at risk of being ridiculed, particularly within a professional context !!
So, we decided that if we were going to face such resistance from a so called 'peer group' and it was going to be difficult (and extremely slow) going down that path, then we might as well describe how people can do the treatment for themselves and then it would be generally available.
Which we did !! What happened then ? Well, surprise, surprise, we are criticised for not going down the 'peer group review' path !!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
In contrast to others who may post here, I get a good feeling that you are interested in real testing and sincerely trying to verify your observations. Also, I very much appreciate that you suggest things that are free, that you don't make money on. I will certainly read your account when time permits. Certainly a blind trial is a big step in the right direction of controlling extraneous variables.It is not unusual in the world of science for people to become personally offended when their experiments or results are questioned. In the ideal world, nothing would be taken personally, because people are supposedly trying to collaborate in learning about the world. If one peer notices a potential flaw in an experiment, that ideally should be taken as helpful rather than as an attack. That's what peer review is really supposed to be about. It's a good system when it works.
Very well said, May.
I often try to convey the same ideas, but I certainly can't put them on paper as well as you can.
IF people would read up on the history of science, they would find that many more discoverers than just Galileo have been ridiculed and actively suppressed by 'peer reviewers'.
John, comparing the peer review process to the Catholic church inquisition is stretching things WAY too far.
I don't think so. I have heard reports from several audio authors about 'peer review' in the AES. It is much the same as it was centuries ago.
Well its not the same as my experiences. I am on number 14 (papers published) and counting and have had some difficult but fair evaluations. Maybe the AES is lax but I have published in about 6 or 7 different scientific journals and all had a severe but fair reviewing policy. IMO, it serves a very valuable function to prevent people from putting out anything and everything that suits their fancy. Do politics get involved? Sometimes. What else is new but it doesn't mean the process is inherent or even practically flawed.
> > IF people would read up on the history of science, they would find that many more discoverers than just Galileo have been ridiculed and actively suppressed by 'peer reviewers'. < <Yep. And also that countless others were ridiculed who richly deserved to be--though that's not a major part of the narrative, for obvious reasons.
Jim
May, I can't tell you how many times I've heard this empty-headed argument. Actually, in this case you're doing two things:Calling into question the social mechanism--peer review--that's responsible for pretty much all technological progress over the last, say, 150 years. No intelligent person ever suggested that peer review was the source of ideas; rather, it's an arbiter between ideas that have demonstrable merit (on the one hand) and (on the other) ideas that have no merit and those whose merit cannot, at present, be demonstrated. And "at present" is the key phrase there, because, though not everything that doesn't pass peer review is wrong, history has shown (as in the cases you cite, and many others) that eventually scientists are clever enough to come up with evidence that convinces the scientific community. It's a social, imperfect mechanism, and it works (in the long run) very, very well. My point, though, is that, while its obvious that peer review is rarely itself a SOURCE for scientific ideas, it is an essential arbiter. It's not an ideal tool but it's by far the best thing we've got going. Among other things, it helps--at least a little--to protect the world from HIV deniers like Pratt and his gang, not to mention folks selling hope in the form of snake-oil cancer (and audio?) remedies. Still, there will always be willing victims.
But the second (and most tiresome) point embedded in your post is one that every charlatan in history has repeated incessantly, the whole Thomas Kuhn, paradigm-shift thing. Sure, a handful of times in history--maybe two handfuls--an idea has come along that's so bizarre that the scientific community rejects it, even though it's right. But the point that people tend to miss (and those charlatans tend to obscure) is that for every such paradigm-busting idea that seem silly but then prove to be right, there are countless others--thousands, tens of thousands, who knows?--that prove to be just plain silly. After hundreds of years of development, our scientific paradigms are robust enough to resist the marketing claims of Geoff Kait, the Belts, and--yes--Joe Reynolds, who I'm sure is nonetheless a very fine person, as you are too, no doubt. (What is the job of corporate VPs if not to market the company's products?)
In case that wasn't plain enough, let me try to make it plainer. It's very easy to claim to be a paradigm-breaker, and such claims are easily and commonly made (especially in marketing literature) but scientific paradigms are broken very rarely. It's the height of arrogance to conflate your own little entrepreneurial venture with these scientific greats. You will deny that that was your intention, but the implication was clear.
There's one other point I can't pass over. Before there can be any claims of new paradigms, there has to be evidence. And so far, for the chip or for the Belt tweaks, there is none. Nothing but a few people's opinions. Science doesn't even enter into this.
By the way, you wrote:
> > Nor do I have an "irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception". Nor do I have "a blind spot" which allows me to "reject the fallibility of human perception too easily and with too little reason". I am just more aware than you that people are more likely to have actually "heard" the improvements in the sound which they claim to have heard...etc. < <
which is all just another way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong!" which I think is about where this exhange has ended up. May, at this point I don't really doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, though I may someday regret saying so on a public forum. Still, your arguments are unconvincing.
I've taken what I can from these exchanges--not a lot, but something--so I can't see much advantage for m in continuing them. And I can't imagine many others are finding them anything other than tiresome.
Best,
Jim
So, Jimbo, audio tweak marketeers are now in the same class as snake oil cancer cures?! Are you on psychotropic drugs??Thinking up even meaner, nastier things to say seems to be your order of the day. What makes your "contributions" on these threads SO ironic and phoney is I don't think you actually believe your own arguments. I think you are most likely coming up with such bile just to be nasty and perhaps because you think it's the right thing to do for Sterophile magazine and your boss.
Jim, how sleazy and phoney can you get?
Hopefully, you won't have to wait very long to "regret saying these things in a public forum."
Sincerely, Geoff Kait
> > So, Jimbo, audio tweak marketeers are now in the same class as snake oil cancer cures?! < <Let's be careful here. I'm not talking about ALL audio tweak marketeers, only some of them.
Seriously, there is no moral equivalence, since instead of dying in misery in some roach-infested Mexican clinic, your customers sit happily in their million-dollar homes humming along to their favorite tunes on their "improved" $100K steros. I readily admit--even assert--that you might even be providing real value by selling them something they really want: the opportunity to part with their money and feel good about it. So--again--there's no moral equivalence.
In terms of tactics, however, the equivalence seems quite obvious to me, and that is what I wrote in my post.
Jim
Jim, its now become abundantly clear to me that you wish to remain willfully ignorant about science and audio, and that your arguments are specious, at best. But I love you anyway. Without head-in-the-sand "objectivists" like you, these discussion forums would be pretty boring, wouldn't they. So please don't think your contributions are "tiresome". I find them entertaining, and I'm sure I'm not alone. The subject matter is an important one, as it gets at the heart of all that is audio for audiophiles (what is and isn't real and valid).BTW, I'm not even suggesting here that you should debate me. I know that when I tried to engage you in debate a few days ago, it resulted in what I know just has to be the fastest cave-ins I've ever seen in over 20 years of debating audio with people on the net. I mean you hadn't even finished writing your first response before declaring yourself the "winner" of the debate, and then running away from the thread as fast as your legs could carry you, before you even received my reply. Which if I may be so humble, knocked your half-baked arguments clean out of the park, and even tidied up your spot for you after you amscrayed. But knowing how careful you are to avoid risking embarassment, I don't blame you for failing to meet my challenge.
However, I'm a little disappointed at the fact that you still seem to be trying to present yourself as "scientifically inclined", given how easily you give up when your views are challenged, or, as May noted, how glib your responses become. A real scientist would, for one, have the curiousity to examine the subject properly before dismissing it, and not offer simple-minded knee-jerk rhetoric to dismiss important subjects out of hand, before returning to "safer" trivial ones, that are less taxing on his areas of expertise. To my knowledge, you've never done so.
I'm at a loss to explain some of the comments I've read from you, such as where you seem to think that you have a "fresh take" on things here, or that it is others that are representing the status quo. I figure I must have read or misinterpreted that wrong, because there is absolutely nothing fresh about your views here, they passed their staledate by about 30 years, and you are representing nothing other than the 100% pure "status quo" of the audio industry in your views on audio. Most every argument I've seen you make, I've also seen it made by someone before you. Long before you. That's also why I don't need to debate you, because I've already debated you hundreds of times. Example:
Jim: "There only a few wingnuts who believe in such products..."
PR: No, there are actually thousands of audiophiles across the world who have found differences in such products that as yet there is no "peer-reviewed" scientific evidence for. Some of them include the editor of the magazine you write for, so you might want to be careful about who you call a wingnut....
Jim: "It's rare that scientific breakthroughs are..."
PR: You're finally correct on something. But check out what "rare" means. It means "possible", however likely or unlikely. Not only is it possible, but it happened.
Jim: "There are many would-be discoverers throughout history who were rightly ridiculed and proven false".
PR: And some who weren't. That btw is a variation of the preceding argument. Typical cynic's belief that because something seems unlikely, it must not be. Both arguments are meaningless comments and they say nothing about the products being argued, and more about the prejudices of those making the arguments.
Jim: "It has to be peer-reviewed evidence, otherwise I won't buy it".
PR: This is what audio cynics like you say when they confuse the various other scientific disciplines with that of audio. While we both agree that (the peer-review process) is certainly a viable tool in other scientific domains (although far from perfect), it is incredibly naive for you to think that somehow, the hobby of subjective audio should be directly comparable, simply because you want it to be.
But then, that naive view is perfectly in step with some of the presumptions I've seen you make to John Curl about the ABX comparator. While I can't speak for the rest of the Stereophile staff, I can say that I was embarassed -for you-, after reading that. To say that you "think it should be invisible..." shows that you are clearly not familiar with this device, and I believe its well known by any audio enthusiast worth his salt, that John is. (And btw Jim, yes, there IS someone alive who questions the efficacy of testing compression codecs under ABX methodology, to address one of your previous posts. I'm that someone, and I'm sure I've done more tests than you on all manner of digital processing software, including audio codecs. It is glib, ignorant statements like this that characterize much of what you write on the subject of audio, from what little I've read of you so far).
So then the question becomes, who are the "peers" and what do they decide is "objective evidence"? You can't objectively measure the effects of -any- of the products we're talking about here. So, in audio, since you obviously don't trust your own ears or your own mind (and given all that you write I'm not sure I would either if I were you), then all we have left to satisfy naysayers like you is the DBT. In fact, scratch the DBT, we only have the ABX test. The plain old DBT won't stand the scrutiny of the ABX "peers", they'll just see it as a subset of ABX. Ergo, the only thing that can be "universally accepted" as "peer-reviewed evidence", are statistically significant tests involving the ABX methodology.
But the ABX test has been discredited for many years, with far too much evidence that it -doesn't- offer meaningful data in the end. Your boss presented us with an entire litany of reasons why on his own forums, and the results of ABX tests when viewed collectively, even speak against themselves. If we are to believe in your "inidisputable scientifically accurate evidence" as demonstrated by the "infallible ABX test", there is pretty much NOTHING in audio that should make any difference, other than perhaps, speakers, -some of the time-. So it looks like we can all go home and trade in our hifi systems for an iPod and a cute looking speaker dock, yes?
But wait! Familiar with Dave Clark at all? He authored "Comparing Audio Components", in 1983, submitted to the JAES. According to your scientific standards of "proof" of the legitimacy of an audio product, the millions of people who think they hear differences among amps, preamps, cd players, wires, cables, electronic parts, etc etc, are all suffering from terrible placebo effects. Clark's comparator tests couldn't conclude differentiations among test subjects in all those things, including pick-up cartridges and even loudspeakers (p.337). So according to Jim Austin's "threshold of credibility", or "scientific standards" if we may, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN AUDIO THAT SOUNDS ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
You've just saved me a packet of money Jim, thanks! But.. on the sad side of things, it looks like you're out of a job. Because since it can't be objectively proven by indisputable evidence that there is anything to differentiate among audio components, you have nothing further to review. (And so-called "objectivists" wonder why audiophiles think they're silly!...).
Jim - my goodness, you just go on and on. Pathetic.
I'm comfortable with what I wrote Geoff. Others will draw their own conclusions, with or without your attempts to drum up outrage.Jim
The only one who's displaying outrage is you. And it is very humorous.Geoff
> > The only one who's displaying outrage is you. < <That's not how I see things Geoff. But like I said, people can draw their own conclusions.
Jim
I'd wager there has been a lot of good science published without peer review...maybe not recently, but surely this is not the (or even a) primary distinction between the two.
...goes back a long way.The only common exception I can think of is some applied research done in industry. But even in industrial science, it's very common to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
It certainly is a--and, I would suggest, probably the--primary distinction.
Jim
Galileo was peer reviewed by...the Inquisition? Newton peer reviewed by.... Aristotle peer reviewed....Copernicus.....??? maybe everyday science of the last couple hundred years.. but to call peer review the primary distinction is unbelievable...the results, the content of the "work" (science, speculation) is what has to count most.
Tom,I'll have to concede something here, but I'm not sure it's your point exactly. Fact is, peer review isn't even as old as you say it is. It has only been universal (or nearly so) in the sciences for maybe 60 years, since around WW II. Einstein's famous 1905 papers were not peer reviewed in the modern sense. (The editor evaluated them, but no one else did.)
Nevertheless, over the last half century, peer review has indeed become the hallmark of scientific rigor. As I indicated in my original post, almost every practicing scientist is likely to dismiss any bit of science unless--or until--it has been peer reviewed. There are exceptions--scientists trust the work of other scientists and so may accept a conclusion tentatively before a peer-reviewed article is published--but eventually the article will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, or dismissed. These days, peer-review is a near-universal arbiter of scientific rigor. Even today however, there's disagreement over how important and effective it is. The process really isn't that well understood, in cognitive terms.
Still, I don't accept your larger point. The historical examples you gave are from a time before formal peer review was widespread--but that fact doesn't negate your point. What does, I think, is that for every Galileo many thousands of snake-oil salesmen have stood on street corners selling ointments made from a piece of the one true cross, or the Virgin's spit, or whatever, all claiming some breakthrough that helps line their pockets. You cite the rare, historic exceptions, and I concede those. But unless you place Kait's Clever Little Clock and the Belt's foils or whatever in the category of Galileo's insights--brilliant scientific advances unfairly disparaged by their contemporaries, which history will stand in awe of a hundred years and more from now--your point, however true narrowly (or even broadly) just doesn't apply to the present case. Their products are neither great scientific advances disparaged by narrow-minded scientists nor--as the other common argument goes--tentative, phenomenological advances that will someday be confirmed by (presumably, peer-reviewed) science. They are more akin to medieval "remedies" made from Virgin piss, IMO (though, as I made clear in a different post, I'm suggesting no ethical equivalence, only a logial and tactical one). I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it.
Best,
Jim
And what about other "scientific" theories that existed before an organized peer review. Like Phlogisten theory? For every one that you know of, because they proved more or less right, there were countless others that were utter rubbish (like using mercury to treat syphillis or leaching), even though they perhaps seemed reasonable at the time.Peer review serves a very valuable purpose to keep fantastic claims in check. Without it science progresses actually at a much slower pace because it becomes much more difficult to sort out competing claims. If the US patent office still had to assess each and every claim of a perpetual motion machine they would probably never patent anything else. Now they simply refuse to see any claims of perpetual motion because it is frankly not possible.
Peer review does not prevent all bogus research from getting through but it definitely limits the flood to a trickle. Guys like Einstein and Feynman still had to produce convincing arguments (mathematical that is) for their work in order to have it accepted and strove to gain the acceptance of their peers because an idea needs widespread acceptance to survive. The fact that you don't understand this says that you don't understand what the process is all about and why it is vital.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
