Beyond the Ariel - Page 220 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th May 2009, 06:28 PM   #5476
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Nice post Matt - well said.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 07:00 PM   #5477
xpert is offline xpert  Afghanistan
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally posted by pjpoes
I believe the debate over cabinet materials was never whether measurements of their characteristic resonances could be done ...
Hmm,

DIY tends to over emphasize things that are at hand. In this case, the housing of the speakers. From wood over concrete to lead (in last consequence) is anything affordable for the hobbyist including the neccesary craftsmanship. Excellence is the minimum ...

Sound that transmitts through cabinet walls is not distortion in its own. In most cases it wouldn't add to distortion at all. No intermodulation. Just some little ragged amplitude response on +/-0.2dB level. And consequently some micro seconds of group delay. Harmless.

Good speaker design is about linearity, directivity, distortion. May be Wilson is through with that. From the graphs I've seen published I'm not to sure.

so long

ps: I took a glance at Wilsons "science" page. Great misuse of Cummulative Spectral Decay pictures, isn't it? Really catchy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 07:47 PM   #5478
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee


In that situation, would you bother with anything subjective?


Of course - its a part of life.

..and you can always add "others under control testing either do or don't support this position". (perhaps even offering limited but specific data if you desire.) You can use subjective excerpts from others (on the particular issues being argued), as you have done in the past (..though again, better to quote those statements to the specific issue discussed with a link for the rest). (..and of course you can compare and contrast such opinions to measurements.)

The goal isn't to preach "this is the way it is", rather it's there to say:

"hey, you might find this interesting enough to explore for yourself and perhaps share your own experiences".
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 07:51 PM   #5479
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee


Soongsc

There is a great deal of difference spectrally in these two things. It has to do with "spectral leakage". When a sine wave fits exactly into the FFT window - at the zero crossings - then there is no "leakage" and the spectral peak will be exactly as it should be - on the sine wave frequency. However, if the sine wave does not fit exactly from zero to zero then the spectral peak will leak into the bins on either side. The greater the "bad fit" the greater the leakage.
Thanks. I was expecting Baseballbatboy to respond. There were some following questions related with Group Delay and Cumulative Spectral Decay.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 08:08 PM   #5480
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Quote:
Originally posted by Rick Miller
We have talked about the influence of cabinet material in the past, and I wanted to share a link to some measurement data from Wilson Audio. It shows the different “signatures?of material used to make speaker enclosures. It’s interesting to see how the walls of your speakers react to stimulation. A thanks goes out to Wilson for posting the measurements on the web. http://www.wilsonaudio.com/sasha/science.html
I kind of think we need to look at how this stimulation compares against speaker driver decay and room decay characteristics to determine whether effort in this area is well spent or not.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 08:23 PM   #5481
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally posted by xpert


BTW: hasn't been Fincham at K.E.F. been the inventor of the CSD perspective on group delay an amplitude response?

Hmm ... I'm not too sure. Laurie Fincham was one of the first to use FFT's, but he was also closely collaborating with the BBC since KEF made custom-spec drivers for some of the BBC monitors (like the LS3/5A). The BBC and KEF shared a mutual interest in time-decay colorations, and this started with D.E.L. Shorter's publications in Wireless World in the Sixties.

I would put the earliest use of CSD-like measurements in Shorter's Wireless World articles of what he called "buried resonance" and their relation to audibility. Shorter found that resonances that were too small to have much effect on the FR curve (less than 0.5 dB ripple) could still be audible as a coloration - and that the "buried resonance" chopped-sinewave technique would reveal their frequency and Q. Once revealed, the driver could be modified to remove them (dustcap resonances et al).

Ten years later, Laurie Fincham at KEF was using the more direct FFT method - and both the BBC and KEF were interested in minimizing time-storage artifacts. This led directly to the BBC's work on polypropylene cones in the late Seventies.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 08:34 PM   #5482
Salas is online now Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
I love Lynn's look in the historical process of audio (and in everywhere else I would suppose). Good order holds keys.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 08:40 PM   #5483
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee


In that situation, would you bother with anything subjective?

Why are you asking !

Your conflict isn't whatever *I* may answer - but in what you'll may find for yourself over the course.


- you already have gone far...

Best
Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2009, 08:54 PM   #5484
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by mige0

Just for the record – its been me who provided “post processing” CSD's – Earl did the IR measurement of his OS wave guide.

What you mean by “less than stellar CSD” if I may ask?
I mean – decay looks great for me – as long as we would not like to go into hairsplitting (sub msec terretory) – no?
Any signs you could identify for reflections at the mouth / throat etc?

Michael

True, it was your effort in processing the data. Thank you.

"hair splitting".

As freq.s increase hair splitting is "where it's at".

..as far as the full bandwidth is concerned, there are significant limitations by not having comparisons to the compression driver without waveguide.. however:

The driver appears to have its fundamental resonance just below 2 kHz (..and frankly looks like the DE 10, not the 250). Of course the waveguide could be "pushing" that resonance farther up in freq.. and in fact I think at the very least it is as you go off-axis. There you can see the ripple prominently near 5 kHz 15 degrees off axis.

It's also interesting that the waveguide appears to be suppressing (in amplitude), and extending (in time) the fundamental resonance of the driver as you go farther off-axis. It also extends (in freq.) the ripple, while again marginally suppressing it (in amplitude).

IMO it rather clearly is intended to be listened to near its 30 degree axis. It not only represents a better low-pass response to be filtered, but it also suppresses the fundamental resonance to a more significant level for its freq. while incurring less objectionable ripple (in comparison to the 15 and 45 degree positions). (..and yes, I realize that "significant level" and "less objectionable" aren't defined.. but that would take a bit more writing.)

The real problem with all of this is:

1. The response shown does not include its CD compensation low-pass filter. When you apply it those upper freq. ripples will become more pronounced.

2. The display is set for 25 db down, not 30 db or 36 db. Again, additional amplitude will display the resonances better.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 08:53 AM   #5485
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rick Miller
We have talked about the influence of cabinet material in the past, and I wanted to share a link to some measurement data from Wilson Audio. It shows the different “signatures” of material used to make speaker enclosures. It’s interesting to see how the walls of your speakers react to stimulation. A thanks goes out to Wilson for posting the measurements on the web. http://www.wilsonaudio.com/sasha/science.html

Hi Rick thanks, but its not only Wilson Audio that is interested in getting a handle on that subject.

Below a link to an early reserch done by Friedemann Hausdorf from VISATON published in the ELEKTOR magazine 1988:

http://www.exdreamaudio.de/?Akustik:Geh%E4use

The big advvantage is that Hausdorf also documents his measurement set up. Sadly the scaling of the CSD Y-axix isn't clear.
Scroll down the pix to

"Bild 12b" whis is for marble

or to

"Bild 16b" where you see the benefits of bracing to the opposite wall for simple 19mm / 3/4"chipboard

"Bild 3b" shows the same simple 19mm / 3/4"chipboard *without* bracing for comparison


Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 12:51 PM   #5486
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by ScottG

True, it was your effort in processing the data. Thank you.

"hair splitting".

......

The real problem with all of this is:

1. The response shown does not include its CD compensation low-pass filter. When you apply it those upper freq. ripples will become more pronounced.

2. The display is set for 25 db down, not 30 db or 36 db. Again, additional amplitude will display the resonances better.

Yes, but I wouldn't go too deep into the very details as we don't have data of other horns to compare with done under same measurement circumstances and – even more important – the ripples are small - not really worth to complain IMO as long as there are no pronounced decay tails that can be seen..

But - I did some more processing on Earls IR files - as said - Acourate software is pretty powerful stuff:

What I did, is to explore what we would see on axis with a XO optimised for 30deg response.

Click the image to open in full size.

Well, as the 30deg response gets close to perfect (as should be)

Click the image to open in full size.

the on axis response gets more rugged also showing some decay tails in CSD.

I don't wanna show this pix' as they might be a little bit "overcooked" and also – not knowing the exact circumstances of measurement - there might be (over) compensation for diffraction effects not related to the OS wave guide .

But all in all I feel save to say from the IR files got, that even OS isn't constant directivity (be this good or bad) when it comes to a veeeery close look.

Compared to my OB measurements – they both are pretty close regarding decay time range and smoothness - not that much better in this regard one or the other.

Though OS does *not* show the clear shift in directivity as does OB.

Maybe we could put it that way:
in the macro view OS is CD
in the micro view OS isn't CD (I doubt any horn is anyway)



Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 03:09 PM   #5487
Sheldon is offline Sheldon  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego
The measurements Michael shows feel like they have a realistic level of detail. I could be off base, but I'm skeptical of trying to dig fine detail our of these type of measurements. I'm no mathematician, but I have spent a lot of time doing analytical work in biochemistry. And it strikes me that the measurement errors for the typical set up, have to obscure much of what can be read into some of these detailed CSD profiles. Most of what I see here are single measurements of two or more different conditions. Looking at the comparison that BudP cited, for instance: how much different are they really? Would you see as much difference by moving the mic a few cm? Can you duplicate the measurement on a different day to that level of detail? How much is measurement/calculation artifact, how much represents real differences?

Sheldon
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 03:47 PM   #5488
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Sheldon

I have done a lot of work in the past on the repeatability of acoustic measurements and I agree that one cannot reasonably look at the fine detail as its not stable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 03:58 PM   #5489
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sheldon
The measurements Michael shows feel like they have a realistic level of detail. ...

Looking at the comparison that BudP cited, for instance: how much different are they really? Would you see as much difference by moving the mic a few cm? Can you duplicate the measurement on a different day to that level of detail? How much is measurement/calculation artifact, how much represents real differences?

Sheldon
As for my own measuremets - I feel pretty confident - within the limits outlined.


Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee
Sheldon

I have done a lot of work in the past on the repeatability of acoustic measurements and I agree that one cannot reasonably look at the fine detail as its not stable.

Agree - as said several times..

Maybe we should say results are almost stable *if* we would repeat at the exact coordinates for the speaker and the mic.

even one or two cm / 1" is quite a difference if we look into "micro directivity" of a speaker plus whatever diffraction "artefacts".
From that - smoothing isn't necessarily a bad thing when used to get an overview - rather than to hide small but irritating errors by intention.

As said it does not make sense to do equalisation down to the last dB of every ripple by measurement.
To tune to sub dB values is more a matter of good taste to get the tonal balance right..


Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 04:12 PM   #5490
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Quote:
Originally posted by mige0



Yes, but I wouldn't go too deep into the very details as we don't have data of other horns to compare with done under same measurement circumstances and ?even more important ?the ripples are small - not really worth to complain IMO as long as there are no pronounced decay tails that can be seen..

But - I did some more processing on Earls IR files - as said - Acourate software is pretty powerful stuff:

What I did, is to explore what we would see on axis with a XO optimised for 30deg response.

Click the image to open in full size.

Well, as the 30deg response gets close to perfect (as should be)

Click the image to open in full size.

the on axis response gets more rugged also showing some decay tails in CSD.

I don't wanna show this pix' as they might be a little bit "overcooked" and also ?not knowing the exact circumstances of measurement - there might be (over) compensation for diffraction effects not related to the OS wave guide .

But all in all I feel save to say from the IR files got, that even OS isn't constant directivity (be this good or bad) when it comes to a veeeery close look.

Compared to my OB measurements ?they both are pretty close regarding decay time range and smoothness - not that much better in this regard one or the other.

Though OS does *not* show the clear shift in directivity as does OB.

Maybe we could put it that way:
in the macro view OS is CD
in the micro view OS isn't CD (I doubt any horn is anyway)



Michael
Aren't Earl's files 44.1KHz? It seemed that sample rate based on the text file you posted a while back. If so, what's with the 48KHz sample rate setting here?

__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 04:33 PM   #5491
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by soongsc

Aren't Earl's files 44.1KHz? It seemed that sample rate based on the text file you posted a while back. If so, what's with the 48KHz sample rate setting here?


I checked with Earl before publishing the processed results - he thought it's rather been 48kHz sampling rate
But anyway - it would only be a mere freqeuncy shift of less than 10% - nothing that interests me in this frame of comparison OB versus horn (OS)

Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 04:38 PM   #5492
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
If you look at the timing interval, it clearly is 44.1KHz. Not really sure what it effects because I never tried that.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 04:45 PM   #5493
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
might be we have got different files - mine is a mere list of numbers (as XPert would have loved it) with no header at all...

Actually, i first did all processing in 44.1k but repeated in 48k after got advice otherwise - again - it does not matter - at least for me


Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 05:11 PM   #5494
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by mige0



Yes, but I wouldn't go too deep into the very details as we don't have data of other horns to compare with done under same measurement circumstances and – even more important – the ripples are small - not really worth to complain IMO as long as there are no pronounced decay tails that can be seen..

Michael

My recent analysis *only* concerned your results. Basically, it is what it is - look at it for what's shown or don't look at it at all. (..of course you could say the same about any measurement and data "view".)

IMO all that I discussed would in one way or another be audible to a critical listener in a good system. Are the resonances worth complaining about? To some, yes. Would most of it be a big deal? No.

What would likely be most objectionable would almost certainly be the on-axis waveguide + driver resonance (that 1-2 kHz range, particularly as extends to 3+ kHz on axis). Even if it is 30 degrees off of the listening axis, I still think the on-axis portion would be audible.

Again, the net result isn't bad - but it isn't particularly good (and certainly not "stellar").

BTW, Zaph had the DE10 with ME10 waveguide posted here:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/tidbits/

As far as a comparison is concerned, I'd agree that without CSD at different axis's that it is difficult to make a comparison *except* for the on-axis response. However, note the freq. response plots off-axis and how they don't have a great deal of ripple - which likely means that their CSD probably has fewer problems.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 07:00 PM   #5495
xpert is offline xpert  Afghanistan
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally posted by ScottG
IMO all that I discussed would in one way or another be audible to a critical listener in a good system.
With this You emphazise that You have concerns. But we don't know where they come from. If I don't bring those effects to my perception, what is the reason? Bad system, non critical listening?

Quote:
Originally posted by ScottG
What would likely be most objectionable would almost certainly be the on-axis waveguide + driver resonance (that 1-2 kHz range, particularly as extends to 3+ kHz on axis). Even if it is 30 degrees off of the listening axis, I still think the on-axis portion would be audible.
Sorry, there is NO resonance. Take it as said, no resonance. None. What You see is a group delay that comes with bandwith limiting. In this case obviously it is a highpass. Group delay is unavoidable with any common bandwith limiting, may be a horn (mechanics) or crossover (electrics). Calculus and nothing else: No resonance. Not bad. No concerns. No perceptibility. No degradation of zound.

Your misconception is quite common with Cumm. Spectr. Decay. You should leave that CSD reading behind.

so long
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 07:56 PM   #5496
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally posted by xpert

Sorry, there is NO resonance. Take it as said, no resonance. None. What You see is a group delay that comes with bandwith limiting.
Interesting aspect. Just to make this comprehensible for my ignorant view - how do I have to understand the above?
- CSDs don´t show resonances at all
- in this specific case the CSD doesn´t show a resonance but a GD
- all resonances must be seen as GD
- ?? else.

I would appreciate if you could make this clearer.

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 08:21 PM   #5497
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudolf

Interesting aspect. Just to make this comprehensible for my ignorant view - how do I have to understand the above?
- CSDs don´t show resonances at all
- in this specific case the CSD doesn´t show a resonance but a GD
- all resonances must be seen as GD
- ?? else.

I would appreciate if you could make this clearer.

Rudolf

You'd better not to ask for lots of "explanations" from a troll - you'd better ask for hard work!



Quote:
Originally posted by xpert


Sorry, there is NO resonance. Take it as said, no resonance. None.
....
Calculus and nothing else: No resonance. Not bad. No concerns. No perceptibility. No degradation of zound.


And your proof by own measurement, Mr Xpert?


Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 09:10 PM   #5498
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally posted by ScottG



My recent analysis *only* concerned your results. Basically, it is what it is - look at it for what's shown or don't look at it at all. (..of course you could say the same about any measurement and data "view".)

IMO all that I discussed would in one way or another be audible to a critical listener in a good system. Are the resonances worth complaining about? To some, yes. Would most of it be a big deal? No.

What would likely be most objectionable would almost certainly be the on-axis waveguide + driver resonance (that 1-2 kHz range, particularly as extends to 3+ kHz on axis). Even if it is 30 degrees off of the listening axis, I still think the on-axis portion would be audible.

Again, the net result isn't bad - but it isn't particularly good (and certainly not "stellar").

BTW, Zaph had the DE10 with ME10 waveguide posted here:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/tidbits/

As far as a comparison is concerned, I'd agree that without CSD at different axis's that it is difficult to make a comparison *except* for the on-axis response. However, note the freq. response plots off-axis and how they don't have a great deal of ripple - which likely means that their CSD probably has fewer problems.

There are good reasons to take CSD with a grain of salt.

First its a highly processed result in order to make obvious what's hidden (well, for the most of us ) and not necessarily telling "the whole truth and nothing else than the truth".
And also not telling about limits where calculation is valid or not.

Second any graph has its limits where we have to decide between "truth" and what we can grasp at most. If you look at the trace below it should become clear what I mean – we are lost in "true" details here:

Click the image to open in full size.

Third, if you imagine the time span of sub 1msec decay - and translate this into how many cycles that my be for the frequencies of interest you easily see that it doesn't make sense to crank resolution (and conclusions) too far – no?




Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 09:41 PM   #5499
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by xpert


With this You emphazise that You have concerns. But we don't know where they come from. If I don't bring those effects to my perception, what is the reason? Bad system, non critical listening?



Sorry, there is NO resonance. Take it as said, no resonance. None. What You see is a group delay that comes with bandwith limiting. In this case obviously it is a highpass. Group delay is unavoidable with any common bandwith limiting, may be a horn (mechanics) or crossover (electrics). Calculus and nothing else: No resonance. Not bad. No concerns. No perceptibility. No degradation of zound.

Your misconception is quite common with Cumm. Spectr. Decay. You should leave that CSD reading behind.

so long
I'm not entirely sure what you are requesting here. (..and I realize that English as a second language isn't exactly easy.)

I do think I understand what you are referring to with group delay (or at least partially). Presumably you mean that phase rotation from filtration (mechanical or electrical) is inducing time decay problems. Even if I were to accept the laughable argument that neither the compression driver nor the waveguide exhibits any resonant behavior; I have *never* seen simply phase-induced time decay that *looks* like what Michael presented. Also, despite what others may report - I do think that phase-induced time delay can be audible (or "perceptible").

So no, I think you are incorrect on this point. I do think it would be nice though if we had phase and impedance shown as well.. but you work with what you are given.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th May 2009, 09:57 PM   #5500
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by mige0



There are good reasons to take CSD with a grain of salt.


Michael

I don't discount this.. but at the end you have to make a decision (with respect to any measurement):

Do I use it or not?

..and if you do, after a while you will probably start to get a "feel" for the level of accuracy of those results and perhaps even some idea of what those results do subjectively (to the sound).
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2