Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    Embracing Immersive Audio

     

     

        

        Audio: Listen to this article.

     

     

    Ten thousand hours it isn’t, but the time I’ve spent listening to immersive audio over the past couple of years is well over two thousand hours. In addition, I’ve been constantly researching it, getting educated about it, and talking to people creating it. I’ve also spent more money on music in the last couple of years, than in the previous ten years combined. All of this has given me a solid foundation from which I enjoy helping music lovers discover the possibilities of immersive audio.

     

    Based on my first-hand experience, immersive audio is the future. More specifically, Dolby Atmos is the immersive format of the future for music. I hope other formats remain and cater to those of us who love them, as a single music format would stifle innovation, remove consumer choice, and unnecessarily upset many people. For example, Morten Lindberg’s discrete immersive releases in twelve-channel DXD are astounding. They should always be the high-quality bar for which those who care about quality aim. The same goes for straight-up stereo. People have loved it since the late 1950s, and they should be able to continue to love it long into the future.

     

    MQA, on the other hand, publicly stated its goal of replacing all music formats with a single deliverable. I don’t believe that is good for anyone other than MQA. Now that it’s clear MQA won’t replace the different formats and Tidal has begun offering pure PCM FLAC, I hope MQA sticks around. It’s very evident that some people love it. They should be able to enjoy it as they see fit. Live and let listen.

     

    Back to Dolby Atmos and immersive audio, but first, a short detour further back to the 1950s. When the music and audio industries introduced stereo in the late 1950s, the reaction was as human as one can imagine. Some loved it, some hated it, and some shouted about a conspiracy to sell more equipment and the same albums over again. Today, I don’t know many people who would voluntarily go back to mono.

     

    Now that immersive audio is finally here, every marketing agency uses the term immersive for everything under the sun, and immersive music has its share of people who love it and people who hate it. Who could’ve seen this coming? Looking back in time is the surest way to predict the future, so anyone could’ve predicted we’d be in this position. In a way, it’s comforting because we have a good idea of how it will play out and how best to educate everyone so they can make well informed-decisions rather than emotional reactions.

     

    My embrace of immersive audio and Dolby Atmos in all its forms is rooted in education and experience. Others embracing Dolby Atmos are also wisely looking to the future, as audiophiles should be. “Tomorrow I will probably take my F-150 Ford Lightning to the new surf shack where I am working with Niko, my ‘Volume Dealers,’ partner, on making all my old albums in Dolby Atmos / Apple Spatial so the next generation can hear them…”  Said Neil Young earlier this year. According to Giles Martin, one of his primary goals for the Atmos mix of The Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds was to get younger generations to listen to the album. The Beach Boys “aren’t listened to enough,” and Pet Sounds “has now been lost on a generation.” Said Martin.

     

    I have first-hand experience with the results of Dolby Atmos streaming on a younger generation. My eleven-year-old daughter, far from an audiophile, wants to hear two things when listening to music: Taylor’s Versions and Dolby Atmos versions. Fortunately, Taylor’s Versions are all in Dolby Atmos, so all is right in the world when these albums are playing.

     

    When a new album of interest is released on Apple Music, my daughter asks if she can hear the Atmos version in my listening room. She NEVER asks to listen to a stereo album in my listening room, and, in fact, she only comes up to my space for Atmos and the second bathroom in our 1940s house. When one of her friends slept over, she HAD to bring her upstairs to stream Atmos from Apple Music. They both requested multiple songs, showing excitement when there was an Atmos version and disappointment when stereo sound only emanated from the front two channels.

     

    My daughter has also claimed to hear Atmos in our car, which definitely doesn’t support it, by saying, “Dad, I hear some different stuff in this speaker back here. It must be Atmos.” I delivered the disappointing truth to her, but inside, I reveled in the fact that she noticed details and quality in the music, something about which many mainstream pundits suggest nobody cares.

     

    While I had to break the non-Atmos news to my daughter in the car, for now anyway, I would never tell her, any other music lover, or fellow audiophile that the highest resolution currently available for Atmos streaming is terrible and should cease to exist. In the same way that I remember my first alcoholic beverage and the foolish mistakes made during the ensuing hours, I initially thought Atmos streaming was horrendous because it wasn’t “lossless.” I’d spent less than ten hours listening to it and concluded, from the mountaintop of The Next Track podcast, that Atmos was the worst.

     

    I have a much more educated and experienced view of Atmos in both TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus forms today. As long as I have been an audiophile (I swear I was born into this in 1975), my goal has always been to reproduce what’s delivered in the best way possible. I’ve sought out the best copies of albums and did my best to play them through my systems as accurately as possible. Sure, I’ve got caught up in criticizing producers, engineers, artists, and dynamically crushed albums, but the bottom line is, as consumers, that’s what we’ve been given, and as audiophiles, we aim to make it as good as we can.

     

    Not listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ album Californication because it’s compressed beyond belief isn’t an option. I could stand on the sidelines and wish for the remastered high-resolution Californication unicorn to appear on streaming services. However, that’s a masochistic fool’s errand that would rob me and many others of pure musical enjoyment. The same goes for Dolby Atmos streaming. Most Atmos releases today are available via Dolby Digital Plus only from streaming services. Not listening to some of the best music in the world (The Beatles, Pearl Jam, etc…) in a completely new way that breathes life and new experiences into classic works of art, isn’t an option. There’s no other way to experience what Atmos delivers. Period.

     

    What is an option, and has been THE option for audiophiles since the beginning of time, is accepting what the mass market selects and perfecting it. Shaking our fists, yelling at clouds, telling kids to get off our lawns, and hoping for something better is another way to go about it, but I’ll go with the much more enjoyable audiophile style of music reproduction. We can’t perfect what’s upstream, but we can perfect playback in our homes, offices, cars, and headphones. Using this approach has delivered countless hours of musical enjoyment to people worldwide.

     

    Circling back to history, without going too far back, one can see the evolution of high-resolution stereo as the path for high-resolution immersive audio. Innovation, competition, and earnings will likely ensure a repeat of this evolutionary process. When high resolution stereo music was released, “nobody” knew how to play it, and it was available from a couple of small labels such as AIX Records and 2L. Simultaneously, many of us were streaming music from Mog because its 320 kbps MP3 bit rate was higher than Spotify. Plus, we could even offline 320 kbps MP3s on our mobiles. Wow, what a time to be alive.

     

    During the ensuing years, many of us audiophiles continually asked for CD-quality streaming and dreamt of high-resolution streaming. It wasn’t long before we received everything we asked and dreamt about. Remember when detractors said Apple would never release CD-quality stereo music because “nobody cares about it,” let alone high resolution? (Apple offers both now). The nobody cares about “XYZ” argument is always popular when companies push “ABC.” What CEO in her right mind will say she’s releasing a second-class product even though everyone wants the first-class product? Innovation, competition, and earnings drive movement and, hopefully, progress.

     

    High-resolution immersive streaming has already been demonstrated; high-resolution immersive downloads are already available from some of the same places that pioneered high-resolution stereo downloads. In addition, Blu-ray Discs with TrueHD Atmos mixes are now being separated from expensive boxed sets and sold individually (Dark Side of the Moon), along with those such as the Super Deluxe Edition Surround Series of individual Blu-ray Discs.

     

    Embrace and perfect what is now and what is the known future while striving for something better. However, before moving an inch in any direction, get experienced. Don’t take what I say as the gospel. Do the homework, talk to people, and most importantly, spend a lot of time listening to Dolby Atmos on a system comparable to one’s two-channel system or the same two-channel system one already has. Yes, a single Dolby Atmos album from Apple Music can be decoded and played on systems from two-channels through sixteen-channels, using a Mac. I don’t have a low-fi processor in my system and neither should anyone else. A Mac straight to a high end DAC works very well. Those trying it for the first time should have the volume knob at the ready because the added dynamic range of most Atmos albums usually requires a bump in volume.

     

    TrueHD Atmos is the best, but we shouldn’t fall into the claptrap that there’s a purity test for the music we enjoy. That’s a losing proposition and a slippery slope that would have us sitting on our hands rather than browsing for great music that was recorded with less than stellar skills, dynamically compressed, or, god forbid, stamped into a piece of PVC so we can drag a needle over it to produce sound. Uniting behind great music, perfecting what we, as music-loving audiophiles, are offered from record labels, and enjoying the hell out of this wonderful hobby is what it’s all about for me. I hope many of you feel the same.

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    14 hours ago, ARQuint said:

    I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats. An example from my TAS article on this subject that's upcoming. Listen, if you can, to the immersive mix for "Rocket Man" from both Apple TV+ and the 2004 Universal Honky Chateau SACD, especially to the way the iconic synthesizer solo during the second verse is handled. The earlier version is far more effective 


    Are you suggesting that you know more or are more skilled at identifying the “right” mix than the professionals who do this all day every day for a living? It just seems like such a high horse to be on to suggest that the Atmos engineers, many of whom mixed multichannel, aren’t making as good of choices. As good to who, you? 
     

    I had an Atmos mixing engineer over to my place this summer. I asked him questions about his mixes as we listened. His answers detailed so many things that go into mixing decisions. It was very illuminating. For someone to suggest that his, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats,” is the epitome of Minister of Information, high horse, entitled thinking of the old guard. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    21 minutes ago, STC said:


    Unplug the front speakers while playing multichannel music and compare with only the front speakers playing while the surround muted/unplug. You can also try the same with  a movie. 

     

    While it true, some latest remastered album and specialized ATMOS music have discrete sound coming from various speakers, real music that we are familiar with are always a frontal channel experience, be it in a concert hall or jazz band in a club.

     

    That doesn’t mean you don’t need the surround speakers. If you discount the discrete sound, the real function of the surrounding speaker ( it can be ATMOS or Aura3D) is to provide envelopment via reverbs delivery from the surrounding speakers. That what transforms an ordinary stereo listening to a concert hall experience. 

    For most classical and jazz recordings this is true. Morten’s recording are obviously very different, but he isn’t the norm. 
     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    For most classical and jazz recordings this is true. Morten’s recording are obviously very different, but he isn’t the norm. 
     

     


    Yes, there can always be an exception.  Taking his Grammy winner for surround album, it is a kingly privilege to be surrounded by musicians. 
     

    IMG_1801.thumb.jpeg.14dd1578833567416f70e8a1e01b7759.jpegIMG_1802.thumb.jpeg.36d772166134f0e806e070a6b8c332f5.jpeg

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

     

    Minister of Information", "high horse","entitled" and ""old guard" in a single sentence. I think he's mad again.

     

    I'll point out the obvious. Both mixes of "Rocket Man" were made by professionals and yet they sound very different. I feel the one on the SACD is more holographic and involving. I know several mastering engineers well and they workhard to satisfy a paying customer and may tailor a mix accordingly. As one, a good friend who used to work for Bob Ludwig, put it: "When the client says jump, you say 'how high?'"

     

    It's very strange that you find it presumptuous of me to have opinions regarding sound quality—that's kind of central to the job description for an audio or music reviewer. I listen and write about what I hear and readers can agree or disagree. Over time, they'll come to understand how I hear things and can use a review of mine, positive or negative, to understand if they're going to like a recording or piece of gear. You do realize that your own reviews also represent informed opinion, right?

     


    There’s likely nothing I can say to close this gap between how we think. 
     

    I would say something along the lines of, I prefer one mix over the other and here’s why. 
     

    You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”

     

    Do you see how your statement can be taken a little differently? Plus, do you see how ridiculous it is to suggest an entire format suffers from choices that aren’t as good? 
     

    I’ve used the terms old guard and ministers of information for over a decade. You guys all write with the same style and choice of words in that old paradigm of a box. People obviously enjoy it, but combined with misinformation, it’s borderline Presidential. 
     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:


    There’s likely nothing I can say to close this gap between how we think. 
     

    I would say something along the lines of, I prefer one mix over the other and here’s why. 
     

    You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”

     

    Do you see how your statement can be taken a little differently? Plus, do you see how ridiculous it is to suggest an entire format suffers from choices that aren’t as good? 
     

    I’ve used the terms old guard and ministers of information for over a decade. You guys all write with the same style and choice of words in that old paradigm of a box. People obviously enjoy it, but combined with misinformation, it’s borderline Presidential. 
     

     

     

     

    The "I would say..." vs. "You say..." versions of my statement regarding the quality of Atmos DD+'s spatiality aren't that

    different and I certainly don't feel my version rises to the level of "misinformation." It's an opinion, and I think anyone reading the sentence in context would know that. My feature (slotted for the April 2024 issue when nobody will remember this discussion; the immediate feedback aspect of AS is enviable) gives other examples. And understand that I feel that the lossiness of DD+ is the most damaging aspect of the format. To my ears, it can change the character of voices.

     

    You call me out for making broad generalizations.

    << do you see how ridiculous it is to suggest an entire format suffers from choices that aren’t as good?>>

     

    How about this one?

    <<You guys all write with the same style and choice of words in that old paradigm of a box.>>

    Really? You can't tell Valin from Gader, Cordesman from Kalbach, Seydor from Taffel? If that's the case, I'll paraphrase Chris Connaker, and conclude "then I can't help you."

     

    We're getting to the bickering stage now, Chris, and I don't want to end up with my own Elba-like thread like a certain conjurer of note. So I'll bow out for real now and look forward to catching up with you at a show.

     

    Andy

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”


    Technically, it is debatable. ATMOS is object based where individual sound is often recorded in mono and then mixed to create the spatial sound. So it is like panning a recording to place the instrument left or right in stereo. Can you really tell the difference? Does it matter? 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    22 minutes ago, STC said:


    Technically, it is debatable. ATMOS is object based where individual sound is often recorded in mono and then mixed to create the spatial sound. So it is like panning a recording to place the instrument left or right in stereo. Can you really tell the difference? Does it matter? 


    There is also so much misinformation out there. Some engineers mix with objects in the place of bed / speaker channels while other don’t use objects and many use a mix of the two. 
     

    Yet, the old guard is firing up the misinformation machine and attempting to speak from a position of authority. When called out on it, they look around and say, “who, me?” 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    39 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

    Really? You can't tell Valin from Gader, Cordesman from Kalbach, Seydor from Taffel?


    I have no clue what any of them write, but I could identify them as the old guard by their style. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”

    C'mon.   He said "I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats."   (Emphasis added.)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    20 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

    C'mon.   He said "I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats."   (Emphasis added.)

    That matters not. He is judging art, and without any knowledge of the goals of those who created it. It's very possible that the mixing engineers think the Atmos version is much better at accompllishing what they wanted. 

     

    "Quite often" means what? he listened to three albums and two of those he didn't like? 

     

    The whole statement is ridicilous. Whatever happend to reproducing what the labels delivered in as high quality as possible? Now we are supposed to make judgements on formats based on zero knowledge? 

     

    The old guard did its best to drive people away when digital first came out, and it'll continue to do so with immersive formats. I wasn't around when it happened the first time, I've only been told by manufacturers and dealers how many customers the old guard drove away by telling them what they liked was no good. This time, I'm calling out ridiculousness when I see it. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

    We're getting to the bickering stage now, Chris, and I don't want to end up with my own Elba-like thread like a certain conjurer of note. So I'll bow out for real now and look forward to catching up with you at a show.

     

    I'd love to catch up at the next show. We likely have much more in common than people reading our online discussion believe. Yes, we have disagreements, but that's OK. 

     

    I'd also love to know what you're using to transport and decode Atmos, and for time & frequency room correction.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

     

    I'd love to catch up at the next show. We likely have much more in common than people reading our online discussion believe. Yes, we have disagreements, but that's OK. 

     

    I'd also love to know what you're using to transport and decode Atmos, and for time & frequency room correction.

     

    This is system for Atmos playback

    Sony X1100ES Universal Player - disc transport

    Apple TV 4K - Atmos streaming

    Anthem AVM70 - Atmos decoding

    Anthem AVM70 - DSP room correction

    Amplification

      TIDAL Ferios x 2 (Front R and L)

      Pass XA 60.8 x 3 (Center and surrounds)

      Pass Aleph 0s (height channels)

    Loudspeakers

      Magico M2 (Front R and L)

      Magico S3Mk2 (Center)

      Magico S1Mk2 x 2 (Surrounds)

      Magico A1 x 2 (Height)

      Magico SSub

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

     

    This is system for Atmos playback

    Sony X1100ES Universal Player - disc transport

    Apple TV 4K - Atmos streaming

    Anthem AVM70 - Atmos decoding

    Anthem AVM70 - DSP room correction

    Amplification

      TIDAL Ferios x 2 (Front R and L)

      Pass XA 60.8 x 3 (Center and surrounds)

      Pass Aleph 0s (height channels)

    Loudspeakers

      Magico M2 (Front R and L)

      Magico S3Mk2 (Center)

      Magico S1Mk2 x 2 (Surrounds)

      Magico A1 x 2 (Height)

      Magico SSub


    Off-topic

     

    Do you mind reporting your view of the ATMOS playback without the DSP room correction. You have to calibrate the  ATMOS setup system without the DSP and see if it makes a difference. IMHO, any form of correction with 3D Audio affects the phase and compromises the 3D presentation and since ATMOS relies on reconstruction the spatial sound by playing with level and phase based on the setup I am wondering if the room correction affects the SQ. 
     

    If possible two binaural recordings of the playback would be ideal. Just remember you have to calibrate again without the DSP. 
     

    Thank you.
     

    ST

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, STC said:


    Off-topic

     

    Do you mind reporting your view of the ATMOS playback without the DSP room correction. You have to calibrate the  ATMOS setup system without the DSP and see if it makes a difference. IMHO, any form of correction with 3D Audio affects the phase and compromises the 3D presentation and since ATMOS relies on reconstruction the spatial sound by playing with level and phase based on the setup I am wondering if the room correction affects the SQ. 
     

    If possible two binaural recordings of the playback would be ideal. Just remember you have to calibrate again without the DSP. 
     

    Thank you.
     

    ST

     

    Interesting. Edgar Choueiri (BACCH-SP) is one of several experts I know who have reservations about how room correction is typically accomplished, with readings averaged from several microphone positions. He's developed his own RC algorithm utilizing measurements from the same in-ear microphones that provide the information necessary to generate an XTC filter for a specific listener - a binaural perspective.

     

    Could you PM me so we can discuss further how I could help you?

     

    AQ

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    46 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

     

    Interesting. Edgar Choueiri (BACCH-SP) is one of several experts I know who have reservations about how room correction is typically accomplished, with readings averaged from several microphone positions. He's developed his own RC algorithm utilizing measurements from the same in-ear microphones that provide the information necessary to generate an XTC filter for a specific listener - a binaural perspective.

     

    Could you PM me so we can discuss further how I could help you?

     

    AQ


    I only take a measurement from the listening position(using Audiolense), as I can only sit in one place at a time and prefer to be in the center. Then I send the measurement to @mitchco who creates the 65,000 tap FIR filter for convolution. The results are magnificent. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

    He's developed his own RC algorithm utilizing measurements from the same in-ear microphones that provide the information necessary to generate an XTC filter for a specific listener - a binaural perspective.


    I am not sure if RC is related to XTC. I was following Choueiri’s use of impulse response to do the XTC during his days at Ambiophonics institute. His approach is slightly different compared to RACE. 
     

    I gave up on RC long ago even during Stereophiles days. My approach is room treatment.

     

    I am going to PM you now about the other matter. 
     

    Thanks again. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    23 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Whatever happend to reproducing what the labels delivered in as high quality as possible?

    To avoid bickering over those other issues, I will just contend that this is still our common goal and that it applies to whatever the producers release to the public.  But you and Andy were discussing the differences among various formats/mixes of the same original content and, while we strive to reproduce each of them optimally, it is fair game to discuss which ones sound better and why.   

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    22 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

    it is fair game to discuss which ones sound better and why.

    100%. 

     

    It's just a disservice when the old guard turns into armchair engineers and questions those creating the mix and their artistic decisions, without a clue as to what they were trying to accomplish. The guys making the recordings can't stop laughing at comments like, "I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats." 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    It's just a disservice when the old guard turns into armchair engineers and questions those creating the mix and their artistic decisions, without a clue as to what they were trying to accomplish.

    Who does know?  Who cares?  They are judged by the results.  There has always been and always will be differences in talent and accomplishment among the engineers and studios and in what they can and choose to release.

     

    46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    The guys making the recordings can't stop laughing at comments like, "I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats." 

    I doubt they are paying much attention to us but that's OK because we are writing to tell our readers what is being offered to them. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

    Who does know?  Who cares?  They are judged by the results.  There has always been and always will be differences in talent and accomplishment among the engineers and studios and in what they can and choose to release.

     

    I doubt they are paying much attention to us but that's OK because we are writing to tell our readers what is being offered to them. 

     

    In a way I'm happy you guys are the way you are, because I like being different. 

     

    If you don't know why a decision was made, why on Earth would you suggest is wasn't good one? Who does that serve other than yourself in the short run. It's the Minister of Information thinking. Plus, if you have no idea why, how can you attribute any differences to talent or accomplishments? It makes no sense. 

     

    They are paying attention. I send them snippets and talk to them. I'm sure the guy who mixes albums that have collectively sold 100 million copies has no clue what he's doing, if the old guard says so 🙄

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Jud said:

     

     

    If I can presume to paraphrase what Chris is saying (tell me if I'm wrong): Saying "I prefer A to B, and here's why" is great, it's what interesting discussions come from. Saying "I prefer A to B because the guy who did B made worse decisions," without having talked to the guy who did B to learn what decisions he made and why, is to presume knowledge you don't have.

     

    The other thing that comes to my mind is the human fondness for familiar patterns. Perhaps your concept of correct immersive audio was formed when you did a lot of listening to a previous technology. And therefore it's possible listening to immersive audio done with the next technology isn't going to feel right to you until you have a lot of experience with it. You may think it's because of a lossy format, but can you know that for certain?

    100% this Jud. Thank you for saying what I tried to say. I only used a million words to your 151. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...