Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song

    <img src="http://www.computeraudiophile.com/files/dell-530.jpg" style="padding: 1pt 10pt 7pt 0pt;" align="left">It all started with a little post via the Computer Audiophile Twitter page. "<i>Working on arguably the best computer based audio solution available. It is so inexpensive you won't believe it!</i>" Since that original hint was dropped I've received countless emails and posts through the CA forum asking about this system. I've delayed publishing an article about this very inexpensive system because I wanted to be absolutely certain it could perform with the best systems available. Right now I am absolutely certain this system is capable of matching or exceeding the sound quality from any system I've ever heard, hard disk or compact disc based. The time has come to reveal the music server that's capable of reference quality sound for less than $1,040.[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

     

     

     

    <b>Setting Expectations</b>

     

    Based on emails and conversations with readers I've concluded that the expectations of readers are all over the board. Some are expecting a complete system from power cable to listening chair yet others have zero expectations and don't get what the fuss is all about. Fortunately the vast majority of readers are somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. The system I am about to describe is nothing new to many people and there are no secrets here. Why am I so enthusiastic about this whole thing? Because the vast majority of readers don't know where to start with when it comes to integrating a music server in to their high-end system. Many audiophiles are already hesitant enough about getting into the music server game. When they see the price tag of a Mac Pro with 10 GB of RAM and eight CPU cores these people cry foul because computer based audio is supposed to be so much cheaper than traditional high-end components. Another factor in my enthusiasm is the world economy. It's terrible right now and people are looking for the best value they can find. Value is a relative concept, but I think we can all agree this system is a tremendous value. Possibly the most exciting part of this project is that a true reference quality source is now within the grasp of "everyday" audiophiles.

     

     

     

     

    <b>The Beginning</b>

     

    I've known about the possibility of obtaining fabulous sound from a Windows XP based music server for a long time. Many people have been doing this for several years. Until now I was not convinced this was a viable path. The XP operating system is on life support and using a legacy driver and firmware for the Lynx hardware goes against my grain. Sure the legacy driver and firmware may sound better but what happens when an upgrade is required because of some incompatibility with the operating system or a music playback application? What happens when Windows XP cannot be found through any legal channels? What about the bit perfect playback issues and bypassing the KMixer? What about blowing tweeters? My list of reasons for not supporting this platform go on and on. The fact that Mac OS X & iTunes is bit perfect right out of th box does not help Windows XP one bit. With all these strikes against a Windows based system it was hard to keep an open mind. I even ran XP on my MacBook Pro and Mac Pro machines in an effort to get the best sound quality out of Windows just like some colleagues had been doing for quite some time. It wasn't until a friend of mine in Northern California recently went through some very thorough listening tests, with some of the most resolving components available today, that I started to take XP seriously. This friend of mine listened to Windows and Mac based systems and concluded his Windows XP music server was the most resolving. Not only did this friend test each system, he had several very respected mastering engineers and component designers listen to each system. In fact one person who listened to these systems was a member of the band who actually played some of the music! So, I decided to put together an XP based music server that is readily available for purchase and is incredibly cheap by high-end audio standards. Before I could tell the world about such a great system I had to be absolutely sure that I agreed with my friend's findings.

     

     

     

    <b>The System</b>

     

    Dell Inspiron 530 $279

    Lynx AES16 card $700

    Lynx HD26 cable $60

    MediaMonkey $0

    Total $1,039

     

     

     

     

    <b>The Details</b>

     

    <b>Dell Inspiron 530</b> - This Dell 530 is a very inexpensive system from a very reputable manufacturer. To get this low price you must order it with Windows Vista and use a copy of Windows XP that you already own. Otherwise Dell will charge $150 extra to pre-install Windows XP. This is one way to keep the price down. Another way is to use an existing computer you already have. If I were building a music server from scratch I would never have thought to use the components in this Dell 530. I've never been a fan of the Celeron processor and building a system around this chipset made me cringe in the past. Fortunately I took the chance and it paid off big time. The Dell 530 is a little larger than the 530s model because it can hold a full height PCI & PCIe card. The 530s is smaller and more attractive, but the half height PCI slot was a showstopper for me. Spec-wise this computer has nothing going for it. Slow memory, 320 GB hard drive, and a 10/100 Gb network card shouldn't impress anyone. The 530 is a noisier than my Mac Pro. This is likely the biggest drawback to the system. In my listening room the 530 sits in a breathable cabinet so the noise is dampened very well. It's certainly not a space shuttle gaming machine in terms of noise, but I know many audiophiles have dead silent listening rooms and may take offense to the noise from this Dell. I chose Windows XP as the operating system because, I hate to say this, it's proven to work as a reference music server operating system pretty well. A dedicated music server can operate well with XP and most Windows XP problems have been documented on the Internet numerous times. I installed Service Pack 3 and Internet Explorer 7, but stopped there. I didn't install any of the extras and removed several pieces of software that are automatically installed as part of Windows. You wouldn't install a telephone line on your CD transport, so I uninstalled Outlook Express and many items of similar uselessness. I also tweaked the operating system as far as I deemed necessary. I did all the usual things like empty the startup folders, browsing through MSConfig removing unneeded programs, and setting Windows up for best performance not the best graphical experience. I also painstakingly went through every service and determined whether or not it should start automatically, manually, or be disabled entirely. After configuring the Dell 530 BIOS and Windows XP operating system the computer now boots in about thirty seconds. That's pretty good for a Windows machine.

     

    Here is a link to the Dell page for the Inspiron 530. The base configuration is all you need! <a href="http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DDCWDA1&s=dhs">Dell Inspiron 530</a>

     

     

     

    <b>Lynx Studio AES16 PCI card & Breakout Cable</b> - As long as my colleagues have been using Windows XP on their music servers they have been talking up the benefits of the Lynx AES16 card with legacy firmware and legacy drivers. This is another one of those things I had to <s>see</s> hear to believe. I can't think of another situation where I would select the PCI version of a component when a PCI Express version is available. Longevity, more speed, "better" engineering etc... usually favor the PCI Express version of a card. Not in this case. It has gone around pro audio circles for a little while now that the PCI version of the Lynx AES16 card "better." Since I already have the PCI Express AES16e version and the word on the street favored the PCI AES16 version I selected the PCI version. Not only is the PCI version of the Lynx card "better" than the PCIe version, the legacy firmware and legacy drivers are better. As I said earlier, I was hesitant and skeptical about this card and configuration. Keeping on my theme of readily available components and computers I selected the standard Lynx breakout cable (CBL-AES1604 Eight-channel HD26 to XLR AES I/O Cable for AES16). I do prefer my custom HD26 to XLR AES cable as it removes the unneeded "antennae" from the equation but decided against its inclusion as part of this system because it's not readily available yet. The firmware version I used with the AES16 card is Rev 22. I had to run an easy program that automatically downgraded the firmware from the current version to Rev 22. The driver I installed is the LynxTWO Version 1.30 Build 057g. I certainly have not listened to all the available versions of firmware and drivers for this card, but I trust highly respected friends and those with much more experience using this card. If I do find a better version I will be the first to let the CA readers know.

     

    Links to <a href="http://www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=13">AES16</a> card and <a href="https://www.lynxstudio.com/product_purchase.asp">Lynx Cable</a>

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    <b>MediaMonkey</b> - MediaMonkey is my playback application of choice on Windows XP. Some people have identified sound quality "issues" with MediaMonkey, but I have yet to find a better sounding consumer friendly application. The MediaMonkey interface is pretty good, but has its pitfalls. I will say its much more usable than Foobar2000, but there are some newer Foobar2000 skins that many readers find very impressive. I installed the in_wave.dll add-on for AIFF support in MediaMonkey. The Output Plugin I use is wave_out.dll. This plugin allows simple selection of the Lynx AES card and an option to disable the MediaMonkey volume control. Configuration is pretty simple, but certainly not as easy as iTunes on a Mac in my opinion. My favorite part of MediaMonkey is the auto-sample rate recognition. This allows the listener to click between 16/44.1, 24/88.2, 24/176.4, and 24/192 files without changing anything or closing the application. Something Mac users are not accustomed to. It is really pleasant to switch between all these sample rates and still get bit perfect output every time. I did try several other playback applications including Winamp and JRiver Media Center but these applications struggled with the Reference Recordings HRx 24/176.4 WAV files. When one application can't playback the best recordings I've ever heard and another has trouble at all it's an easy decision to make. MediaMonkey wins hands down. I am aware of many fans of the other applications and many of them don't like the current selection of higher resolution music. For now there is nothing pushing them to another application. There are also pro audio based applications like WaveLab and Samplitude that some people prefer over any consumer based application. These apps may offer wonderful sound, but have no library management. The system I put together for this article is an all around reference quality system with library management and readily available components.

     

    Link to <a href="http://www.mediamonkey.com">MediaMonkey</a>

     

     

     

    <b>Conclusions</b>

     

    In anticipation of the first reader question I will attempt to proactively provide an answer. Am I switching from Mac to Windows XP? Not entirely. The user interface of iTunes and OS X, the simplicity and stability of the Apple platform, and to be honest the sound quality is fabulous. Not to mention my Mac systems may save me from blowing my tweeters. The same cannot be said for some MediaMonkey and Windows systems. Lately I've been all about my Dell Windows XP PC, Lynx AES16 card and MediaMonkey. I think the system has greater resolution than my current Mac music servers using OS X and iTunes. There is a certain "rightness" to the sound of this Dell based system. Drum attacks sound sharp and not rolled into, while the extension on the high notes is stupendous and incredibly resolving. But, the Mac does have a sound that's very pleasing and isn't fatiguing one bit. I think for many readers the choice between Mac or Windows in terms of sound quality will be based on personal preference. Some people like tubes while others like solid state. Some like electrostatics while others prefer horns. Now we can add an another one to the mix, some like OS X while others like Windows XP. Both the Mac OS X and Windows XP based systems are reference quality in my opinion. I would put either of these systems up against a physical transport / CD player any day of the week. Plus, the cost of this system is less than $1,040! Readers can use the DAC of their choice as long as it has an AES input. As you can probably guess I used my Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC for most of my listening sessions with the Dell based system. Combind the Alpha DAC and this system are right around $6,000. This combination can bypass a preamp and directly drive your amplifier(s). Many readers should be adding up the dolar savings in their heads right now. No preamp, no extra set of cables etc...

     

    As I said earlier, this system comprised of a Dell 530, Lynx AES16, Windows XP, and MediaMonkey is nothing new and is no secret formula. I personally know readers currently using very similar systems. What has me so excited is the cheap cost and high availability of the components I've put together in this article. Every single Computer Audiophile reader can now have a audiophile reference quality music server, that's as good or better than as anything else, for less than $1,040.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Hi Chris,<br />

    Those files should work. MC supports WAV playback at whatever the DAC can do. If the files don't play, it may be hardware.<br />

    <br />

    I just found a thread on this here:<br />

    http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=47256.0<br />

    <br />

    Alex B said this:<br />

    "According to the information on the referencerecordings' site the so called HRx files are in the 24-bit/176.4 kHz wave format.<br />

    <br />

    "I just tested a couple of 24-bit/176.4 kHz/2-channel wave files. MC didn't have any problems with them. My sound card can handle up to 96 kHz so the Windows kernel mixer "helpfully" resampled the output to 96 kHz. Naturally I couldn't use the ASIO output mode, which bypasses the kernel mixer, because the sample rate is not supported by my HW."<br />

    <br />

    We will investigate further. Thanks for your time.<br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just trying to tie in the AIFF bit on MediaMonkey from here and the boards, were you able to get the same metadata while using MediaMonkey?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "MediaMonkey<br />

    Just trying to tie in the AIFF bit on MediaMonkey from here and the boards, were you able to get the same metadata while using MediaMonkey?"<br />

    <br />

    Media Monkey does not recognize AIFF metadata tags, and does not plan to do so in the forseeable future. Use WAV with Media Monkey. It will read those tags.<br />

    <br />

    Dave.<br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Dave - Maybe I'm losing it this afternoon so please correct me :~)<br />

    <br />

    Since WAV doesn't support tags and AIFF does support tags but not in MediaMonkey, wouldn't AIFF support the same data as WAV in MediaMonkey? Worded a different way, if neither support tags in MediaMonkey wouldn't AIFF be just as good as WAV?<br />

    <br />

    Help me if I'm lost it today!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    WAV totally supports tags. In fact there are more PC applications supporting WAV id3 tags than there are AIFF (iTunes being the only one). <br />

    <br />

    Both WAV and AIFF have been extended by a number of developers including Apple (itunes AIFF), Microsoft (WMP11 ripped wav), Mediamonkey (WAV files), Dbpoweramp (both AIFF & WAV)<br />

    <br />

    Here is a link describing the WAV format:<br />

    http://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/422/projects/WaveFormat/<br />

    <br />

    The relevant text is under the notes header:<br />

    Quote<br />

    "There may be additional subchunks in a Wave data stream. If so, each will have a char[4] SubChunkID, and unsigned long SubChunkSize, and SubChunkSize amount of data."<br />

    <br />

    Essentially what's been done in all these implementations is a new RIFF subchunk has been added with the header ID3, along with an additional padding character to meet the char[4] spec. The subchunk then conforms to the ID3V2 specification. The equivalent documentation for AIFF is lacking, but it is believed to be roughly identical to WAV.<br />

    <br />

    Some useful threads on the subject:<br />

    http://www.anytag.de/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t8328.html<br />

    http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131130<br />

    http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t43021.html<br />

    http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?p=81230&highlight=wave+list+id3v2#post81230 <br />

    <br />

    Some may argue that this isn't a 'standard', but the tagged files work across multiple applications, so it's close enough to a 'standard' for me.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi ldolse - Wow, what can I say. Thanks for all the information. I agree with you about that it's close enough to be a standard. I'm guessing album art is still missing from AIFF.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, I'd just been opening some bugs on some open source projects to support wav and aiff tags, so it was really just a matter of copying and pasting info I'd already put together. Hopefully we can get even more widespread support.<br />

    <br />

    I thought AIFF supported album art? I just moved and renamed an HDTracks AIFF file, and the album art seemed to move along with it...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Turns out OS X (the operating system) actually support tagged WAV as well as AIFF. Right click on either a tagged WAV or AIFF and select 'Get Info', and you'll see the album details in the 'More info' section of the file properties. <br />

    <br />

    Strange that OS X can see the WAV tags and iTunes can't.... Should be a simple fix for Apple to fully support wav on itunes then.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Guys,<br />

    <br />

    The problem with WAV files and tags is that it is not embedded in the file. Therefore if you don't save off the tag info and you loose your drive then it is merely a bunch of wav files with no info.<br />

    <br />

    The nice thing about AIFF is you can send them to someone you can have only the AIFF files on a drive and then you have everything. Because AIFF has the tag info embedded inside the file.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks<br />

    Gordon

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I beg to differ:<br />

    <br />

    http://rapidshare.com/files/202448133/Sample.wav<br />

    <br />

    Load that into Mediamonkey, Dbpoweramp, Tag&Rename, or right click and use 'Get Info' in OS X, and you'll see tags. That file is tagged with both LIST and ID3v2, so in some cases some programs may be using the info under the LIST subchunk, but the tags definitely move with the file.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris:<br />

    <br />

    I've been talking with Steve Nugent at Empirical, and we have a question: Will a Mac Mini (or any Mac) support 24/192 output through the built in optical port or even USB?<br />

    If so, my solution for a server would be a Mini with either of Steve's interfaces to my MBL DAC... otherwise I probably need to go with a box that supports a Lynx card....<br />

    <br />

    Thanks,<br />

    Bob Liss

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Bob - This is a weird one. The Macs will not support 24/192 via optical when running OS X Leopard, but when running Vista on the Macs they do support 24/192. USB would require drivers and I'm 99% sure 24/192 would work.<br />

    <br />

    I still prefer the Lynx.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris,<br />

    <br />

    Not so with USB... well almost not true. OSX 10.5.x supports Class 2 Audio which means it supports up to 32 channels at 24/192 or really anything even 32/384 stereo if the device supported it. So if the device supports Class 2.0 Audio like the EMU 0404 USB then yes it will support 192 with out drivers.<br />

    <br />

    That is not true of Vista or XP, there it would require a driver.<br />

    <br />

    I am not sure what the deal is with the 24/192 optical on OSX but I will tell you it's not a very good version of Toslink. Toslink really should not be used over 24/96 it really does not have the bandwidth required for 192.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks<br />

    Gordon

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Guys,<br />

    <br />

    So what if Toshiba says it can do 192.... when have you ever seen that it can do it correctly?<br />

    <br />

    So much of the argument has been jitter with SPDIF. Remember there are more aspect to SPDIF than that. I look at three aspects of SPDIF when I build a receiver or transmitter.<br />

    1) DATA integrity. When an SPDIF unit receives a framing or data integrity error it merely repeats the last valid frame.<br />

    2) MCLK generation... the big deal is that with SPDIF you have a FRAME (equates to Word Clock). That has to be PLL multiplied by 256 to create a valid master clock. This is no easy task and can be radically different depending on chip type, surrounding circuit, what ever.<br />

    3) Jitter<br />

    <br />

    With Toslink actually 2 and 3 are not the problem as much as #1. The faster it get's the higher these numbers become.<br />

    <br />

    Sorry I thought the EMU was a Class 2 audio device. It seems it set all the endpoints to vendor specific thereby requiring drivers.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks<br />

    Gordon

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You stated:<br />

    <br />

    "Toslink does not have the bandwidth required for 192"<br />

    <br />

    Not surprising coming from a guy who sells USB products, but it's not true. <br />

    <br />

    Somehow you know there's going to be data integrity errors.<br />

    <br />

    Have you ever tried any of the new higher bandwidth TX/RX modules?<br />

    <br />

    I'll bet you haven't.<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Kana,<br />

    <br />

    Yes I have... I have the Prism dScope III with Toslink, AES and BNC/RCA. One of the only instruments available to test SPDIF with jitter results, eye pattern and waveform integrity to 24/192.<br />

    <br />

    <cite>24/192 stereo needs a bandwidth of 9.216MHZ.</cite><br />

    <br />

    If the bit rate is 12.288MHz and the encoding requires a bandwith of 16x then how did you come up with 9.216Mhz???<br />

    <br />

    Thanks<br />

    Gordon

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    After reading your article, I did some running around looking at older hardware and ended up with an IBM Thinkcentre refurb from a local store. Although a bit lean on extras, it does have a P4 3 GHz chip. There are also s 3 card slots, and room for at least one more hard drive. It came loaded with a new install of XP Pro. I had 2 GB of correct RAM sitting on my desk had been collecting dust for years. That was the first improvement.<br />

    <br />

    After some more reading, I settled on a SIIG Soundwave audio card for my first test. The card and software installed very cleanly, and it is now connected to my main stereo through my MSB DAC. For step one of my test, I did not want to lay out lots of money for an audio card only to find out that this format was not to my liking.<br />

    <br />

    I ripped a few CD's with Windows Media Audio Losless compression, and am playing them with WMP for the moment.<br />

    <br />

    The sound is quite listenable, parobbly a bit better than my dedicated CD player, an Onkyo Integra DPC 8.5 that also plays into the MSB DAC.<br />

    <br />

    Once the 1TB drive shows up, I will have spent some $320 and about two hours putting my server together. Now, I have to figure out where to fit it into my home theater.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks for planting the idea!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to pose this question. I am new to the site and considering using my PC as a source for a Benchmark DAC as well as other sources (DVD player and cable box). This thread and others on this site seem to strongly infer that a configuration using Lynx Studio AES16 PCI card connected to the DAC is substantially superior to a USB connection to the DAC (presumably without the Lynx Studio AES16 PCI card). Is that a correct conclusion? If that is correct, for those that follow this course is there any reason to be concerned about DAC USB capability?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Bill - Welcome to Computer Audiophile. There is no standing rule that any interface (USB, AES, FireWire, S/PDIF) is always better than another. In my opinion the Lynx card with AES output is wonderful because it is bit perfect and can output up to 24/192 where as USB is for the most part limited to 24/96 today. So far I've preferred the Lynx card to almost every other interface i can think of right now. This could mean nothing in your system however because everyone is different. There are some awesome USB interfaces available right now and some people suggest the sound quality cannot be topped. Either way you can get great sound.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Chris,<br />

    <br />

    This server sounds appealing, but your statement below got my attention. Would you explain what this means? I am using a Mac mini but want to explore other options.<br />

    <br />

    "Not to mention my Mac systems may save me from blowing my tweeters. The same cannot be said for some MediaMonkey and Windows systems". <br />

    <br />

    Thanks,<br />

    <br />

    Bob

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chris (and other members)<br />

    <br />

    Thank you for the article regarding the music server for a song. I am new to the idea of a music server. First, thought was to go with USB port out of the computer. However, I understand that you will get better sound quality with a digital sound card. Your suggested music server used a Lynx studio sound card. The Lynx sound card is a little be more than what I want to spend to try out a music server. In doing additional investigations I found an M-Audio 192 sound card. I understand this card has a digital coxial out and also analog out. I was also advised this card had a built in DAC. What do you thinjk of the M-Audio 192? Does unit have a good DAC that comes on the card or do you still need an add on DAC? Any other suggestions regardng a digital sound card in the M-Audio 192 price range? Also, what is your recommendation on a reasonable priced tube DAC?<br />

    <br />

    Thanks for trying to help be learn more about building a music server.<br />

    <br />

    CBMAN

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have been living with my server for a few months now. I've added a new audio card, and learned a couple of things. I am now using an Auzen X-Plosion 7.1 card. I chose it for a couple of reasons, first the op-amps can be upgraded in the future if I wish. Second, it offered both optical and coaxial outputs. I have been very happy with this card using the optical output.<br />

    <br />

    My player is now Media Monkey Gold. It actually works rather well, and with my system, sounds quite nice. I have also ripped all my CDs to FLAC files in my computer. Working on my collection, and making playlists with Media Monkey is dead easy.<br />

    <br />

    To answer your question about the M-Audio card, they have a very good reputation. However, I chose to get the audio signal out of the computer as quickly as possible. The level of electromagnetic noise inside most computers is quite high. As for an external DAC, you can pick up a used MSB for a couple of hundred bucks. Although not the newest technology anymore, they remain an exceptional value. As for a tube DAC, I am not planning to go that way for now. <br />

    <br />

    So, with the system somewhat finalized, I am now enjoying my music collection as I never have before. It is truly liberating not to have to fiddle with discs when I want to listen. I simply boot the computer, and go! The sound is quite musical, detailed, and involving. That I am hearing new levels of detail in music I have been listening to for decades is perhaps the most telling feature of this system.<br />

    <br />

    There is also a nice new outboard USB DAC from High Resolution Technologies, their Music Streamer. It has been getting a lot of press lately. I ended up purchasing one to play around with when I visit my friend's house.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...