Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 164 of 164

Thread: Amplifier upgrade

  1. #151
    Senior Member bigshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,863
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kontrapunctus View Post
    My PrimaLuna tube amp does not impart any coloration that I can detect.
    Then it's a good one. Tube amps are perfectly capable of sounding just as clean and accurate as solid state amps. It's just that most high end audio companies use tubes to create a "house sound" based on specific types of distortion and coloration that they claim sounds "nicer" than clean and accurate. But "real" sound is always clean and accurate.
    CD Sound Is All You Need: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
    AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM

  2. #152
    Senior Member Muse Wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eva Yojimbo View Post
    Floyd Toole's book contains many references to such studies, as does Sean Olive's blog. AES is the pre-eminent peer-reviewed journal on audio in the country, if not the world. I'd start there.
    I just had a look at Sean Olive's blog. Whilst interesting there is not one single population based study that answers the question: Can ss amp X sound different than ss amp Y if they have equivalent measurements?

    As stated earlier in this thread, I experienced a difference between two solid state amps. Someone stated that such differences definitely do not exist as amps measured the same. I questioned this assumption (hypothesis) as there were no properly validated studies to make such a statement. Mind you I did not state that such a difference is indisputable.

    One does not need to be an engineer to critically appraise a study. I work in the medical field and appraise studies involved in diagnostic and therapeutics. Many equipments used are highly complex from an engineering point of view. However this is irrelevant as the outcome is related to human aspects such as mortality, disease control or adverse events. In this case the outcome is a human perception, the sense of hearing, a highly complex function that is not fully understood and is highly variable within the population.

    This is especially evident when studying the neurophysiological processes occurring in the cochlea and the hearing pathways through the brain. For example tinnitus is not clearly explained by neuroscientists as yet. The receptors within the cochlea involved in tinnitus are still a mystery. Some point to NMDA receptors that are sensitive to S-ketamine as being involved and there are trials at present that try to stimulate these receptors in the early phase of tinnitus.

    Furthermore the filtering mechanisms of the brain involved in processing information are still poorly understood, including the prevalent variations within the population.

    To answer the question appropriately, a study needs to be designed that is randomised. By randomisation into groups known and unknown variables are accounted for. Selection bias needs to be avoided and randomisation helps with this.

    The study needs to be powered enough to avoid type II errors - if numbers are too small a difference that is there may not be found. This means that the smaller the differences, the larger the number of individuals needed to take part in the study.

    Some differences are so obvious that such a study is not needed, such as differences between headphones or loudspeakers. These differences are taken at face value. However differences between amps, as I personally have experienced, may not be as obvious.

    Once the study is powered enough, participants are randomised into groups, then blinding is needed. Triple blinding is ideal, when the person being tested, the person recording the results and the final analyser are blind to the amp involved.

    Once the method is sound, then statistical analysis of the results is needed to achieve a statistically significant result. This means that the chance of a type I error, stating there is a difference when there is not, is 1 in 20.

    Even with a statistically significant result, one can't say that the hypothesis is externally valid without doing a precision analysis. This means that the result is generalised to the whole population and a confidence interval analysis is arrived at.

    Furthermore after the initial study, a crossover trial with one's own music over a period of time may be conducted in order to be more pragmatic and closer to the real situation.

    To conduct studies funding is needed, something audio companies are not keen to invest in. At present there are only hypothetical assumptions and evidence based on anecdotal reports.
    Last edited by Muse Wanderer; Feb-06-2016 at 21:35.

  3. #153
    Senior Member Eva Yojimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse Wanderer View Post
    I just had a look at Sean Olive's blog. Whilst interesting there is not one single population based study that answers the question: Can ss amp X sound different than ss amp Y if they have equivalent measurements?
    Ahh, you were just wanting an answer to that specific question. I was talking about audio in general. Here's a good, if more informal, test related to audio amps: http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/ Now, if amps had their own sound, you'd think that at least 1 in thousands of people would've been able to distinguish between them under those testing conditions. As they say in the FAQ, despite the test being informal, many audio pros have taken (and discussed) the test, and it's been widely discussed online. So there's no doubt that it exists and that nobody has passed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse Wanderer View Post
    As stated earlier in this thread, I experienced a difference between two solid state amps. Someone stated that such differences definitely do not exist as amps measured the same. I questioned this assumption (hypothesis) as there were no properly validated studies to make such a statement. Mind you I did not state that such a difference is indisputable.
    If you're familiar with medical studies then you should be aware of the placebo effect, which happens in audio as well. In Toole's book there is a section that notes how differently people rate speakers when they can see them as opposed to when their blind. Your very knowledge that you were hearing a new amp would lead to an expectation of hearing something different. It's also possible you DID hear something different if you were playing the music louder than normally. Human ears naturally interpret "louder" as "better," that's one thing that's lead to the "Loudness Wars" in pop music and remastering. So level matching is important when evaluating audio. The last possibility is that difference you heard was some relationship between the amp and your gear, something to do with gain, impedance matching, etc. I don't claim to know whether these things could play a role in perceived sound quality, but even Richard Clark, the "amp challenge" guy, doesn't claim that they don't make a difference. The point of that test was to show that amps operated within their linear range don't have a sound. It's possible that some people operate amps outside that range, and then differences may emerge.

    I don't know if any tests as stringent as you're describing have been done. Toole's book and Olive's blog are mostly about psychoacoustics rather than amps, but I suspect that if you browsed AES you might find articles on this subject. My guess would be that most engineering professionals understand the science behind audio and human hearing enough that they don't even bother to test such things, similar to why scientists in any field don't get in a hurry to address claims made by the religious. I doubt if audiophile musings are taken seriously enough in engineering circles to even bother testing things that seem obvious to people that understand how audio works (though I'm not saying all engineers are immune to believing silly things; see this article on the subject of 24-bit/192kHz audio and why it's useless, even though some "pros" believe in it: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html )

  4. #154
    Senior Member Muse Wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eva Yojimbo View Post
    Ahh, you were just wanting an answer to that specific question. I was talking about audio in general. Here's a good, if more informal, test related to audio amps: http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/ Now, if amps had their own sound, you'd think that at least 1 in thousands of people would've been able to distinguish between them under those testing conditions. As they say in the FAQ, despite the test being informal, many audio pros have taken (and discussed) the test, and it's been widely discussed online. So there's no doubt that it exists and that nobody has passed it.

    If you're familiar with medical studies then you should be aware of the placebo effect, which happens in audio as well. In Toole's book there is a section that notes how differently people rate speakers when they can see them as opposed to when their blind. Your very knowledge that you were hearing a new amp would lead to an expectation of hearing something different. It's also possible you DID hear something different if you were playing the music louder than normally. Human ears naturally interpret "louder" as "better," that's one thing that's lead to the "Loudness Wars" in pop music and remastering. So level matching is important when evaluating audio. The last possibility is that difference you heard was some relationship between the amp and your gear, something to do with gain, impedance matching, etc. I don't claim to know whether these things could play a role in perceived sound quality, but even Richard Clark, the "amp challenge" guy, doesn't claim that they don't make a difference. The point of that test was to show that amps operated within their linear range don't have a sound. It's possible that some people operate amps outside that range, and then differences may emerge.

    I don't know if any tests as stringent as you're describing have been done. Toole's book and Olive's blog are mostly about psychoacoustics rather than amps, but I suspect that if you browsed AES you might find articles on this subject. My guess would be that most engineering professionals understand the science behind audio and human hearing enough that they don't even bother to test such things, similar to why scientists in any field don't get in a hurry to address claims made by the religious. I doubt if audiophile musings are taken seriously enough in engineering circles to even bother testing things that seem obvious to people that understand how audio works (though I'm not saying all engineers are immune to believing silly things; see this article on the subject of 24-bit/192kHz audio and why it's useless, even though some "pros" believe in it: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html )
    My relatively new cheaper amp has 60W per channel power whilst the older more expensive one has 200W per channel. I level matched the sound with an SPL meter when I compared the two as the older one is definitely more powerful and richer. I still preferred the new one as it is more neutral and resolving. I can hear the small reverberations of each note from a cello, it is mesmerising. However I think many would choose the old one on first hearing just because of how rich and full it sounds.

    Richard Clark's testing, whilst interesting, does not reliably answer the question. There are too many confounding factors, biases and the design of the study is geared towards failure. The population that attends audio seminars does not represent the general population. The ABX testing is conducted in an environment that is stressful and would affect the perception of the subtleties different amps may emanate. Music may not be chosen by listeners. Amplifiers do not represent current solid state amplifiers. The transducers may have not been resolving enough, especially in the 90s, to produce the differences between amps. The number allegedly involved are not documented, taken over a long period of time, each with different settings. The results cannot be statistically analysed due to heterogeneity. The individual conducting these tests was overtly biased especially when his own money was at stake. This would invalidate any scientific study due to funding bias and conflict of interest of the highest degree.

    The studies I would like to read are stringent because small differences can only be detected if the method is valid. I am also aware of placebo effect of course. However it does go both ways, whereby a real effect is not felt or heard, even though it is there, by some individuals. Powering the study by using a power calculation, along with randomisation of the groups and triple blinding the individuals would avoid these errors.
    Last edited by Muse Wanderer; Feb-07-2016 at 00:24.

  5. #155
    Senior Member Eva Yojimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse Wanderer View Post
    I level matched the sound with an SPL meter when I compared the two as the older one is definitely more powerful and richer.
    SPL meter may not have been enough. The levels must be matched within .1db, and many SPL meters are not accurate unless properly calibrated. As far as being "more powerful," I might mention that it's rare that amps are driven to their full capability. In fact, depending on speakers and listening distance, it's not uncommon for the majority of listening to take place at less than 1-watt. Did you do blind switching?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse Wanderer View Post
    Richard Clark's testing, whilst interesting, does not reliably answer the question. There are too many confounding factors, biases and the design of the study is geared towards failure. The population that attends audio seminars does not represent the general population. The ABX testing is conducted in an environment that is stressful and would affect the perception of the subtleties different amps may emanate. Music may not be chosen by listeners. Amplifiers do not represent current solid state amplifiers. The transducers may have not been resolving enough, especially in the 90s, to produce the differences between amps. The number allegedly involved are not documented, taken over a long period of time, each with different settings. The results cannot be statistically analysed due to heterogeneity. The individual conducting these tests was overtly biased especially when his own money was at stake. This would invalidate any scientific study due to funding bias and conflict of interest of the highest degree.
    It may not definitively answer the question, but I find it's compelling evidence and shifts the burden of proof onto those claiming that there's a difference. In fact, I'd say the basic science of human hearing and amplifier design would already mean the burden of proof is on those claiming a difference: there's no theoretical reason why amps that measure the same would sound different. As for your complaints some are erroneous: Nobody said it was only those attending audio seminars that took the test; I have no idea what basis you have for saying "ABX testing environment was stressful" when the participants had control of the switch and could listen at their leisure; music could be chosen by listener, as well as everything else (this is stated explicitly under testing procedure); The amps would represent "current solid-state amps" from whenever someone took the test, as it's been ongoing for many years, and still probably is, yet regardless of this, what makes you think contemporary solid-state amps are different than, say, solid-state amps from 2006? And I'd ask the same thing about "transducers not being resolving enough." You seem to think that there's been some radical evolution within the past several years as it relates to transducers and amps, though I don't know what it is.

    Of course, the test was informal, and while that might "invalidate it" under your strict rules, I think it's irrational to completely dismiss it as strong evidence. Clark put up his own money in part to provoke people to take the challenge to begin with. Like I said, there's not much impetus for people who understand the basics of audio to spend time doing these kinds of tests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse Wanderer View Post
    The studies I would like to read are stringent because small differences can only be detected if the method is valid. I am also aware of placebo effect of course. However it does go both ways, whereby a real effect is not felt or heard, even though it is there, by some individuals. Powering the study by using a power calculation, along with randomisation of the groups and triple blinding the individuals would avoid these errors.
    All I can suggest is to browse AES, though membership is probably required to read the studies. I'm quite content with the basic science of human hearing and audio measurements.

  6. #156
    Senior Member Muse Wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eva Yojimbo View Post

    Of course, the test was informal, and while that might "invalidate it" under your strict rules, I think it's irrational to completely dismiss it as strong evidence. Clark put up his own money in part to provoke people to take the challenge to begin with. Like I said, there's not much impetus for people who understand the basics of audio to spend time doing these kinds of tests.

    All I can suggest is to browse AES, though membership is probably required to read the studies. I'm quite content with the basic science of human hearing and audio measurements.
    The test you pointed it does not stand a chance of being accepted as scientific. Yes my standards may be high, because I study in the field of medicine but I bring those standards as an argument to make a point that it is very difficult to know the truth about a subject.

    In a similar fashion, my testing methodology on my own amps can't prove anything. I was the only participant and proper calibration and blinding would still lead to no answer of the basic question.

    Unlike you, I am not content with the basic science of human hearing. There are too many unknowns especially when the functions of the cochlea and the eight cranial nerve connections to the geniculate nuclei with their braches onto the temporal lobes of the brain. It is way too complex to simply disregard.

    A properly designed study that fully caters for all these variables would be needed. Until then one cannot prove anything.

  7. #157
    Senior Member Eva Yojimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse Wanderer View Post
    There are too many unknowns especially when the functions of the cochlea and the eight cranial nerve connections to the geniculate nuclei with their braches onto the temporal lobes of the brain. It is way too complex to simply disregard.
    What do you think this has to do with the limits of hearing in terms of frequency response and loudness detection? Because that's really what we're talking about in terms of audio, combined with how amps measure in those areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse Wanderer View Post
    A properly designed study that fully caters for all these variables would be needed. Until then one cannot prove anything.
    As an evolutionary biologist friend of mine says, proof is for maths, science is for evidence. I think you can have strong evidence without the strict testing you require. The initial science of human hearing and amplifier measurements are evidence in themselves that there's no known reason that we should hear differences; the Clark test is further evidence. Is it possible there's something that the science on hearing/measurements and that test missed? Sure, but on what basis are you thinking there is other than personal experience, which can just as easily be accounted for by placebo or inaccurate calibration?

  8. #158
    Senior Member Muse Wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eva Yojimbo View Post
    What do you think this has to do with the limits of hearing in terms of frequency response and loudness detection? Because that's really what we're talking about in terms of audio, combined with how amps measure in those areas.

    As an evolutionary biologist friend of mine says, proof is for maths, science is for evidence. I think you can have strong evidence without the strict testing you require. The initial science of human hearing and amplifier measurements are evidence in themselves that there's no known reason that we should hear differences; the Clark test is further evidence. Is it possible there's something that the science on hearing/measurements and that test missed? Sure, but on what basis are you thinking there is other than personal experience, which can just as easily be accounted for by placebo or inaccurate calibration?
    The main problem with respect to relying on measurements is that these are just surrogate outcomes. It is like relying on lowering of blood pressure measurement with a blood pressure drug, when the real outcome is reduction in cardiac events, stroke or death.

    Surrogate outcome are fine but can't be relied upon completely.

    You mention frequency response and loudness detection. Is the sense of hearing completely described by these parameters? There is the time domain, the imaging, soundstage, resolution and timbre character.

    'Science is for evidence', that is a statement I truly agree on. Evidence based science, and in this case, since it involves human physiology, human science is based on a hierarchy of evidence.

    The best studies are systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Next in line are large methodologically sound randomised controlled trials (or diagnostic trials) followed by cohort prospective studies. Lesser evidence includes retrospective case-control trials, case series, case reports and the least denominator animal and tissue studies.

    This hierarchy is important as biochemical models / animal experiments or in this case engineering measurements are at the bottom of the hierarchy. They are fine to construct a hypothesis but can't be used as evidence to contruct a theory.

    Since we are talking about human hearing, a population based study is needed. The best that has been found is a test taken by 'numerous' individuals, unrepresentative of the population, that has not been thoroughly documented, performed by an individual who was evidently biased and had marked conflict of interest over a number of years. This individual has not even written his findings in a scientific paper. At moment it is mere speculative test with no formal published findings or statistical analysis of the results.

    I am hereby stating that these presumed scientific facts are merely speculative.

    The same argument can be applied to someone who states a cable that costs as much as a car is worth buying. Absolutely ridiculous as is most of the hifi industry's extortionate costs.

    My setup doesn't cost much and I am happy with it. It emulates my control, in this case the real thing, the live concert venue, I always strived to achieve.

    I recently went to a concert of the Goldberg variations for string trio - double bass, viola and violin. I bought the CD of the concert recorded in the same venue. I could listen to the recording in my setup and was satisfied with the reproduction via my DAC , amp, speakers and headphones. The HD800S was slightly coloured as the midrange was slightly depressed compared to the speakers. The HD800S on the other hand, with their impressive resolving character, could extract the miniscule details including the breaths of the performers with ease.

    Now having someone throw statements that changing amplifier did not make a difference with the same speakers and DAC can be disregarded in my opinion as much as someone saying that buying an amplifier costing five digits numbers or magic cables, rocks and what not, will make a difference.

    This is purely my opinion and I can't state this as fact based on scientific evidence. Over these past few years I can enjoy the music much better than it sounded on low quality equipment I used to use in the past. Every step was in the right direction.

    In similar fashion, one cannot state as fact that we know everything about the sense of hearing and we don't need population based methodologically sound studies to state that all equally measuring amps have no sound signature. That is unacceptable from a scientific standpoint and I know it because I am trained in appraising evidence. In fact, I am at present working on a systematic review in the realm of toxicology.

    The OP of this thread simply asked about an amplifier upgrade, and, poor chap, he was immediately pounced upon by posters stating that he does not need one and amps that sound 'transparent', whatever 'transparent' means, all sound equal. I couldn't agree with their statements put forward as an undisputed fact and have provided a counter-argument based on evidence-based evaluation.

    Everyone has a right for their opinion, everyone is biased and noone has ever listened to everything in life.

    I bet we will continue beating a long dead horse with our circular arguments.

    We might as well relax and enjoy the classical music we all love within our own HIFI systems.
    Last edited by Muse Wanderer; Feb-07-2016 at 23:25.

  9. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    4,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'm not sure a new amp was the answer after all. I just bought and installed this $8400 Stage 3 Kraken Reference power cable--wow! The staging is more 3-D and the mid-range is more liquid.


  10. #160
    Senior Member bigshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,863
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I installed one of those and now I see dead people!
    CD Sound Is All You Need: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
    AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM

  11. #161
    Senior Member Larkenfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Sedona
    Posts
    3,845
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barnaby View Post
    I have all my music in digital format on a Mac mini/external hard drive and, until now have used a Naim Supernait with Hi-cap2 into a pair of Neat Mystique speakers.

    After many years of using Naim gear, and feeling vaguely dissatisfied with its reproduction of orchestral pieces, I have decided to jump ship. While I have enjoyed the way this brand handles rock/electric/jazz music, I do feel that it gives an unnatural presentation of classical stringed instruments which results in a very forward, steely tone.

    I am looking for an alternative which will give me a less forward presentation, an open soundstage with natural sounding tone and sweeter treble.

    Currently, I am tempted by the new Hegel 160 and wonder if anyone has any experience of this amplifier. Alternatively, does anyone have any recommendations which I could follow up?

    Thanks for your help

    Barnaby
    This is a three-year-old thread but perhaps worth commenting on anyway... The above are a few of the reasons why some listeners have switched from their expensive, 'clean and transparent,' solid-state amps for tube or hybrid/tube amps, though I'm sure someone will suggest a few dozen artificial hoops that one can jump through to simulate the effects of tube equipment without giving up the convenience of their s-s equipment... More open soundstage, more natural sound, a less steely tone with a sweeter treble register are some of the virtues of quality tube equipment. But it's very much a different world, because tubes can sound very much alive and magical, and there's a learning curve. Analog equipment, starting with a very good hybrid/tube headphone amp, is where a great many listeners have experienced and experimented with the virtues of tubes, especially noticeable if one has their library on a computer hard drive and can easily hook up such an amp.
    Last edited by Larkenfield; Sep-27-2018 at 01:58.
    "That's all Folks!"

  12. Likes Joe B liked this post
  13. #162
    Senior Member Joe B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Astral Plane 7-B
    Posts
    3,696
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larkenfield View Post
    This is a three-year-old thread but perhaps worth commenting on anyway... The above are a few of the reasons why some listeners have switched from their expensive, 'clean and transparent,' solid-state amps for tube or hybrid/tube amps, though I'm sure someone will suggest a few dozen artificial hoops that one can jump through to simulate the effects of tube equipment without give up the convenience of their s-s equipment... More open soundstage, more natural sound, a less steely tone with a sweeter treble register are some of the virtues of quality tube equipment. But it's very much a different world, because tubes can sound very much alive and magical, and there's a learning curve. Analog equipment, starting with a very good hybrid/tube headphone amp is where a great many listeners have experienced the virtures of tubes.
    OH NO! I can see what's coming next:

    I love music. I want music. I need music.

  14. #163
    Senior Member bigshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,863
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    How about this limbless creature?

    snakeoil.jpg
    CD Sound Is All You Need: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
    AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM

  15. #164
    Senior Member Larkenfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Sedona
    Posts
    3,845
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    ...............
    Last edited by Larkenfield; Mar-15-2019 at 11:34.
    "That's all Folks!"

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011

Similar Threads

  1. Amplifier + Speakers
    By bassClef in forum Hi-Fi
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: Jan-12-2013, 02:56
  2. A remarkable little amplifier.
    By Mark Harwood in forum Hi-Fi
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov-17-2009, 00:12
  3. Help with Amplifier/Hi Fi system please
    By Jaime77 in forum Hi-Fi
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Sep-20-2009, 12:59
  4. Software Upgrade
    By Frederik Magle in forum Announcements
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Dec-31-2008, 08:58

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •