Jump to content
  • JoeWhip
    JoeWhip

    Sound Liaison - One Mic Recordings

    While I have been an audiophile since the mid 1980’s, I did not make the leap to computer based audio until 2013. It was at that time that I purchased a Mac Book and a hard drive, downloaded Audirvana and began to rip my favorite CDs. I had plenty of experience with Theta Digital and still was using their Pro Basic III DAC and was happy with the sound, but was intrigued by the promise of high resolution audio. Surely, with the higher bit rate and sampling, high res files had to sound better, right? Right? Well at least sometimes but I digress. When I found out that Mike Moffatt was back to making DACs with his new audio company, Schiit, I went ahead and bought Schiit's, as of that time, top tier DAC, the delta sigma Gungnir. As the Gungnir could play files up to 24/192, I began looking around the net for high resolution files to check out whether the promise matched the hype. In searching through various high res download sites I came across a boutique Dutch label, Sound Liaison. It only had a few offerings at the time but one intrigued me, the Carmen Gomes, Inc. A Thousand Shades of Blue. As was also intrigued by the fact that Sound Liaison claimed that the PCM track at 24/96, was identical to the studio master. I listened to the mp3 samples and liked what I heard and downloaded the pack WAV file and loved what I heard. Too many audiophile labels produce great sounding mediocre music. Now, I realize that what people consider good music various with the ear of the listener, but I really enjoyed this release and found the sound to be very compelling. As time marched on, I purchased several more releases that sounded interesting and have never been disappointed. Sound Liaison eventually moved on from 24/96 to DXD at 24/352.8. As I am not able to play those files natively through my Yggdrasil DAC, I have always opted for the 24/192 files. I have never performed a comparison of the 24/192 files with the available 24/96 files derived from the DXD master, but darn, those 24/192 files sound superb. Fairly recently, Sound Liaison began to release new DXD recordings using one microphone. It is these new very compelling one mic recordings which will be the subject of this article. First, a bit of background of Sound Liaison.

     

    Sound Liaison is founded by Frans de Rond and Peter Bjørnild.      

              

    Their goal is to build a bridge (Liaison) between the studio (engineer and musicians) and the people who love to listen to music using high quality audio equipment. Next to standard studio recording sessions they organize special recording sessions with a live audience in Studio 2, situated in the the building of the Dutch Music Centre of Broadcasters (MCO). Frans de Rond, was born in Amsterdam in 1963. His interest in audio technology can be traced back to a childhood enthusiasm for electronics and music. He studied recording technique as well as double bass at the Royal Conservatory in The Hague, the Netherlands. Frans currently lives in Hilversum and works as a sound engineer at Studio 1 and 2, one of the legendary recording studios in the building of the MCO (Muziekcentrum van de Omroep). He is a very active sound engineer with broad field of experience from CD recordings, radio and TV to live concerts. Frans has received several awards for his work with radio plays. His ability to create an almost visual sound field has made him the most popular engineer for radio plays in the Benelux. The ability to make sound visual is also what makes the audio recordings of Frans de Rond so unique. Frans's aim is to capture the spur of the moment as close to the natural, organic sound of the instrument as possible.

     

    Peter Bjornild was also born in 1963 in Copenhagen and started playing bass after attending a concert with Tanja Maria and Niels Henning Ørsted Pedersen. He studied privately with Niels Henning Ørsted Pedersen and at the Royal Danish Conservatory of Music. He moved to the Netherlands in 1985 to continue his studies at the Koninklijk Conservatorium in the Hague. He graduated in 1989 with a performance diploma in Classical and Jazz music. Peter has played and recorded with a wealth of musicians in a broad musical spectrum ranging from; Classical with a.o. the Residentie Orchestra to Big Band with a.o. Thad Jones to small group with a.o. Carmen Gomes, Phillip Harper and John Engels to theatre "Brell, de zoete oorlog'' with Jeroen Willems.

     

    Peter has even played Circus music for one long summer in the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen. As a producer Peter has worked with a.o Carmen Gomes and STS Digital. Peter believes that a recording should be as realistic and beautiful sounding as possible. As if, when closing your eyes, you find yourself in the best seat of the Hall. I was impressed with these credentials when I first read them. I am not surprised that their sessions feature fantastic sounding upright bass sound given that they are both bass players.


    For this article I asked Frans about why he chose to record using the one mic technique and why he chose the Josephson C700S mic in particular. The following was his response:


    For more than 25 years I've been recording using the traditional "multi mic" technique.

     

    I love to record acoustic music and  I'm a big fan of recording the whole band in one room.

     

    Multi track recording has advantages and disadvantages.

     

    The good is that you can make an instrument louder or softer as you please.

     

    The bad, when the recording is done in one room, is phase and that in order to control all the individual sounds you have to mic very close to the instruments. This can have its own charm but it is also a bit unnatural  because most instruments are designed to project their sound, not being listened to up close.

     

    Another problem with the "multi mic" technique is to control the spill between the different mic's. The spill has a great influence on the sound quality and can cause big phase problems. You can try to isolate the instruments to a certain degree but if you go too far it becomes a bunch of separate sounds instead of one organic complete sound.


    I think our ears are much more sensitive to phase errors than we are aware of.


    The obvious solution is to record the whole band from one point.

     

    But until recently I have not experienced a microphone that was up to the task. Drums and piano sounded too distant and the sound stage did not reflect what I heard standing in front of the band.


    1_6_3.jpgThe first thing that impressed me about the Josephson C700S was the natural sound of the mic and the sound off axis. This is what makes the difference between a good microphone and an average microphone.

     

    Secondly the microphone is quite unique. It has three capsules instead of the more common two. I use it in a MS stereo configuration. The M (Mid) is build up out of two capsules, one omni and one figure of eight, together they form a perfect cardioid. The third capsule (Side) is again a figure of eight.


    So now with Josephson C700S, instead of placing microphones at the instruments we now place the instruments around the microphone:)

    It's a complete new way (actually an old way of course) of working. There is a quite learning curve. What we have learned so far;


    The room, studio, has to have a good sound.

     

    The musicians have to be very good and well prepared as it is no longer possible to repair mistakes.

     

    Mixing is no longer possible. We have to create the complete sound stage at the spot by carefully moving each instrument closer or further away as well as left and right in relationship to the microphone.

     

    We have to rely on the musicians to create a musical balance.

     

    Because of the natural and musical balance the need for compression to control levels is no longer necessary, and since everybody is in the same room, the boxed sound which is so common in many modern recordings is absent, and the sound of the room helps 'glue' the sound of the recording.

     

    The benefits of this way of working is that the result is completely free of phase errors and that the sound is very natural with a wide sound stage with a lot of depth.

     

    So far all musicians have been struck by the incredible authenticity of the recordings and that they never heard their instrument sound so real and lively.


    We're recording in 352kHz, aka DXD format, using Merging equipment because of the sound. We have compared 192 kHz to 352kHz (DXD) and especially at the recording stage you hear a clear difference. DXD has a more accurate sound stage and more depth. It sounds more natural...actually closer to analog.

     

    After recording we add a bit of reverb, little EQ and a tiny bit of compression to smooth things out, but we keep everything to a minimum.   

     

    After mastering we add metadata and convert the DXD files to all the other formats.

     

    The recordings take place in the now legendary Studio 2, situated in the the building of the Dutch Music Centre of Broadcasters (MCO).

     

    It is the oldest recording studio in the Netherlands and has hosted a wealth of prominent artists; Django Reinhardt, was here in 1937.

     

    Jazz at the Philharmonic featuring Ella Fitzgerald, Lester Young, Oscar Peterson, Ray Brown and Max Roach was here in 1953.

     

    In the 1960’ the studio hosted Wes Montgomery, Cannonball Adderley, Dexter Gordon and Clark Terry to name a few, and Eric Dolphy recorded his very last session here in 1964.

     

    The studio you might say is full of ghosts from the past.

     

     

    To rephrase an old saying, the proof of the recording is in the listening. I've had the opportunity to listen to a total of 4 of these one mic recordings from Sound Liaison. I will discuss my impressions in the order of release. While I can say without hesitating that all 4 sound superb, it is clear that Frans and Peter have learned and improved their technique with each successive effort.

     

    The first recording was Carmen Gomes, Inc.’s Don’t You Cry. As fine as this recording is, it shows the shortcomings of the one mic technique. The Gomes Gomes, Inc. group features Carmen Gomes on vocals along with Peter Bjørnild on double bass, Bert Kamsteeg on drums and Fokker Tettero on guitar. The tone, timbre and soundstage on this recording are all superb. You are right in the room sitting in front of the band. However, due to the placement of a drum kit right behind Carmen, Bert has to play a more reserved style so not as to drown out the vocals. While the bass player and guitarist can move up closer to the mic for solos, you can’t move a drum kit. This fact robs the session of some dynamics. The recording captures what was played beautifully, it is just that the use of the one mic technique on a vocal recording requires a more reserved drum technique.

     

     

     

     

    The same is not true with the second recording, Feenbrothers Play Brubeck. This recording features Mark van deer Feen on piano, Clemens van der Feen on double bass, Paul van der Feen on saxophone and Matthijs van der Feen on drums. Here, with no vocalist, all four musicians let it fly. Dynamics, tone, timbre and soundstage are all superb. The piano in particular is a highlight for me. This is some of the best recorded piano I have ever heard, capturing to tone of the instrument and the natural decay of the notes. Instrument placement in the sound field is spot on. This is a superb recording all around and is one that I can recommend for all jazz fans. Superb musicianship and just fantastic sound. 

     

     

     

     

    The third release is Juraj Stanik’s I Wonder, which is a solo piano recording. This recording captures the richness of the piano and the natural room reverberation. It sounds just like a piano is sitting in the room in front of you. What more can you really want from a recording?

     

    Jurajv5.jpg

     

     

     

    The fourth and final one mic recording is in my opinion, the best. It is Reinier Voet and Pigelle44’s Ballade pour la nuit. This album is an homage to Django Reinhardt. It features Reinier Voet on lead guitar, Kain van Kooten on violin, Jan Brouwer on rhythm guitar and Jet Stevens on double bass. These guys and this recording just rocks. Pace, rhythm, tone and soundstage are just off the charts. The precise placement of all four of the musicians perfectly matches the photos of the sessions. The balance of all four instruments is darn near perfect. As you can no doubt tell, I am a huge fan of this recording. It is one of the best in terms of recording quality I have ever heard. Of course, and as always, your view of the actual music content may vary quite considerably from mine. Nonetheless, I think we would all agree that this recording sounds sensational. 

     

     

     

     

    It seems quite clear to me that Sound Liaison is on to something with its one mic technique and the Josephson mic in particular. All four have a natural sound, pinpoint instrument placement and a fantastic soundstage. As great as these recordings are, there are limits with the one mic technique. As noted with the Carmen Gomes, Inc. recording, there are trade offs with vocals and drums. The recordings also require smaller combos that can be placed in a circular pattern around the mic. Finally, the musicians really need to be tight and on their games. However, with these limitations in mind, the one mic technique now employed by Sound Liaison can yield spectacular results and are well worth a listen. While the musicians may not be well known and the music is, heaven forbid, jazz, the music and the sound captured on these recording are well worth your time and money. My hat is off to Frans and Peter. Well done!

     

    Visit Sound Liaison for further information.

     

     



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

    I enjoy Chesky recordings also but they traditionally have more of a distant sound. Also, Chesky tends to record in churchs and larger spaces, much different that the large studio environment used in the SL recordings. Different strokes for different folks. I can and do enjoy both techniques. 

    Yes just as you say.  I liked their recordings too.  I've not found the change in recording methodology an improvement to my ears listening over speakers.  You would expect them to sound different just about as they do.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 11:01 PM, JoeWhip said:

     

    Couldn't believe some of the comments here. Some people who go extra miles to get the best possible sound and in the process very unlikely to make profit like the big labels. Probably, they would do better with people who really appreciate music and SQ for what it is without prejudice. It amazes me that no whatsoever appreciation for their effort. There is nothing wrong with the recordings and even if it is then as "audiophiles" make them to sound good. 

     

    Sometimes, when we are too familiarized with one type of the sound we tend to miss out on other equally good recordings.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 hours ago, STC said:

    Couldn't believe some of the comments here. Some people who go extra miles to get the best possible sound and in the process very unlikely to make profit like the big labels. Probably, they would do better with people who really appreciate music and SQ for what it is without prejudice. It amazes me that no whatsoever appreciation for their effort. There is nothing wrong with the recordings and even if it is then as "audiophiles" make them to sound good. 

     

    Sometimes, when we are too familiarized with one type of the sound we tend to miss out on other equally good recordings.

    Two things:

    1- Yes, it is a bit ruthless, but honest I think. Some people will dig a high quality recording and be more open minded - even tolerant of less than stellar musical performance - and that is ok, for them.

    2- I don’t think anyone posting opinions on this thread had any mean intent.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks Joe for taking the time to write such an informative review, highly appreciated. I've been a fan of this label for a long time. Great there is still a few people left in this world who likes good and well played jazz.

    What I really like about these recordings besides the superior S.Q. is as Joe writes; 

    Quote

    Finally, the musicians really need to be tight and on their games.

     

    These musicians plays with all they've got and there is no fixing it in the mix. That energy and realness really jumps out of my speakers.

    So in other words it is the ''imperfection'' that makes these recordings so fantastic.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 hours ago, oso said:

    These musicians plays with all they've got and there is no fixing it in the mix.

     

    Nope. They added reverb, EQ and compression. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Judging by the music forum SL single mic recordings are not going unappreciated.  Which to me suggests they might age well and find a place in the experimental category of Jazz. 

     

    Despite an obvious lack of musicianship. :P

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, STC said:

     

    Nope. They added reverb, EQ and compression. 

    So I’m curious....

     

     I think it is very possible there could be some “judicious “ use of EQ.  I would expect some compression.  Are you reaching when you say “added reverb”?  I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio. Maybe it’s your listening environment issue?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, HIFI said:

     I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio.

     

    Mmmm....that means one can never tell from the recording with actual prior knowledge of the acoustics signature of the recording venue?  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    4 hours ago, HIFI said:

    So I’m curious....

     

    I think it is very possible there could be some “judicious “ use of EQ.  I would expect some compression.  Are you reaching when you say “added reverb”?  I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio. Maybe it’s your listening environment issue?

    In the article, Frans de Rond is quoted thus:

    After recording we add a bit of reverb, little EQ and a tiny bit of compression to smooth things out, but we keep everything to a minimum.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    4 hours ago, HIFI said:

    So I’m curious....

     

     I think it is very possible there could be some “judicious “ use of EQ.  I would expect some compression.  Are you reaching when you say “added reverb”?  I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio. Maybe it’s your listening environment issue?

    Read the article. Quote from Frans de Rond: "After recording we add a bit of reverb, little EQ and a tiny bit of compression to smooth things out, but we keep everything to a minimum."

    Must say I was disappointed to read that as I thought there was no processing whatsoever. SL did issue one or two tracks for free in all resolutions available so comparison could be made. Would be interesting if they did the same for the OneMic recordings with/without processing.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    That’s expectation bias. It also shows DSP or EQ is not bad nor detectable. The recording is just a sound like a real instrument. Do the necessary so that it will sound best in your room. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Maybe that is another reason older Chesky sounds better to me.  They used a pair of figure 8's or a Soundfield set to figure 8's.  Recorded straight in with no processing.  With binaural they have some process to make it sound alright over speakers.  I don't know what it does, but it certainly isn't mic straight to the recording medium. 

     

    I too was disappointed in SL using EQ, reverb and compression.  I'd really like to hear what their $7250 microphone sounds like.  I might could forgive them using EQ, but reverb and compression mean you don't hear where they recorded.  Then again maybe if you could hear both you'd prefer what they did. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    15 minutes ago, esldude said:

    Maybe that is another reason older Chesky sounds better to me.  They used a pair of figure 8's or a Soundfield set to figure 8's.  Recorded straight in with no processing.  With binaural they have some process to make it sound alright over speakers.  I don't know what it does, but it certainly isn't mic straight to the recording medium. 

     

    I too was disappointed in SL using EQ, reverb and compression.  I'd really like to hear what their $7250 microphone sounds like.  I might could forgive them using EQ, but reverb and compression mean you don't hear where they recorded.  Then again maybe if you could hear both you'd prefer what they did. 

     

    What do you expect them to do with a MS mic?

     

    There is nothing wrong with Chesky binaural recordings. It is different so maybe for some they are not used to since IMO we have adopted to perceive stereo sound and decode them to be reality. 

     

    But it if you ever get to retrieve the timing and level difference correctly, you will never want to listen to others. The filter is just some attenuation of the HF to eliminate the pinna effect. I wonder why they are NOT making pinnaless dummy head recording which will make the correction unnecessary. 

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    15 minutes ago, esldude said:

    Maybe that is another reason older Chesky sounds better to me.  They used a pair of figure 8's or a Soundfield set to figure 8's.  Recorded straight in with no processing.  With binaural they have some process to make it sound alright over speakers.  I don't know what it does, but it certainly isn't mic straight to the recording medium. 

    Aren't Chesky using tube gear with all the distortion that brings, or am I confusing them with someone else?

     

    15 minutes ago, esldude said:

    I too was disappointed in SL using EQ, reverb and compression.  I'd really like to hear what their $7250 microphone sounds like.  I might could forgive them using EQ, but reverb and compression mean you don't hear where they recorded.  Then again maybe if you could hear both you'd prefer what they did. 

    Maybe if someone asked nicely, they'd provide an unprocessed sample.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, mansr said:

    Aren't Chesky using tube gear with all the distortion that brings, or am I confusing them with someone else?

     

    Maybe if someone asked nicely, they'd provide an unprocessed sample.

    Chesky did use tube gear at the beginning.  I think it was stuff Timothy de Paravicini  modified for them.  I think they even recorded to high speed reel initially. Then at one time it was some Moscode FET based gear.  They also originally used an AKC C24 tubed stereo condenser microphone.  Later switching to a Calrec Soundfield microphone when they switched to Moscode electronics.  

     

    Yes, maybe SL would provide an unprocessed sample.  That would be rather nice. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, STC said:

     

    What do you expect them to do with a MS mic?

     

    There is nothing wrong with Chesky binaural recordings. It is different so maybe for some they are not used to since IMO we have adopted to perceive stereo sound and decode them to be reality. 

     

    But it if you ever get to retrieve the timing and level difference correctly, you will never want to listen to others. The filter is just some attenuation of the HF to eliminate the pinna effect. I wonder why they are NOT making pinnaless dummy head recording which will make the correction unnecessary. 

     

     

    Do you know what the Soundfield microphones can do?  They aren't an M-S microphone though that is one of the possibilities.  I don't know if Chesky currently is using those.  At one time he was doing M-S 8's plus an omni via the Soundfield to create multi-channel recordings.  I think they are just doing the B&K 4100 binaural recordings currently with the BAACH process.  

     

    You can tell me how great binaural is all you want.  Maybe I've got a way out in the tails HRTF, but they plain don't work well for me.  I believe others who say they do.  I wished they did for me.  They just don't.  I would assume if I used my own in ear mics like Mitchco has done it would work for me.  And probably be awful for most other people.  

     

    If you were referring to the Josephson C700S as a single MS microphone, well that is one use of it. It can also do Ambisonic recording if you process it right.  Or do multi-channel the same way the Soundfield does.  They chose to use MS, and that is fine, I like MS.  But the reverb and compression I like less.  It can be done well and tastefully, and I don't find theirs was tasteless, I just would like to hear it without that.  The EQ if not too extreme bothers me much less.  

     

    SL may also be doing more that is less easy to explain.  The people who make that C700S suggest a good thing to do is combining the low end of the omni pattern with the high end of the birectional or cardioid pattern by EQ'ing them and blending them together.  And to do compression with separate settings on each.  All of that can get complex in a hurry.  Whether it is worthwhile or not probably depends, but in a close up recording it might well be.  Oh, and if someone is wondering, you can after the fact pick your patterns with that microphone.  Including picking more than one pattern and blending them. Which is like being able to go back and change the microphone you used for the recording after it was done. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    9 minutes ago, esldude said:

    If you were referring to the Josephson C700S as a single MS microphone

     

    I was referring to the recording by SL using the mic. 

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I must say I’m a bit surprised at some comments and criticism.

     

    I feel blessed to have a recording label that, at any level, attempts to provide a listening experience close to an original performance. The ALTERNATIVE to this is Far Far more popular in delivered music available today.

     

    i don’t have a sound recording engineering degree but I do think some compression has to be manipulated to deliver a live recorded production to your HiFi system.  I’m not sure if any EG is required for the purpose of delivering a live recorded production to your HiFi. Added reverb....I certainly have heard live performances and delivered live recording performances that have way too much, even overly artificial reverb.

     

    I concede to any critic here that has the PERFECT listening environment.  Otherwise your room is adding/subtracting plenty.  Therefore you can’t hear “just” the original recorded material. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    41 minutes ago, STC said:

     

    I was referring to the recording by SL using the mic. 

     

    Okay.  That mike will put out 3 signals.  If you record them, you can pick any pattern and direction after you are done recording.  It can do Ambisonics though without the Z or vertical portion.  If you combine that with some Harpex software, you can even to some extent emulate near coincident miking.  Though how accurately this works I'm not sure of, but reports are it does a good job.  

     

    http://www.josephson.com/pdf/srs7ug.pdf

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, esldude said:

    That mike will put out 3 signals.  If you record them, you can pick any pattern and direction after you are done recording. 

     

    I am no fan of any particular recording type. As long they are good stereo, they are good enough for me. 

     

    Lately, I am more inclined for spot mic orchestra. In fact, for fidelity and recreation of the acoustics event I find it easier to work with spot mic technique which preserves all the micro details of the direct sound. 

     

    In the early 2000s, I was interested in Ambisonics which I got confused with Ambiophonics but abandoned them when I realized non of my genre will ever be in the former format. I doubt it will ever catch up. 

     

    Edit:- In the case of ms mic, you still have the freedom to arbitrarily assign the width which IMO can never be true representation of the acoustics event. 

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I see a lot of people talking about disappointment about added EQ and reverb. I've spent a fair amount of time in quite a few recording studios - inside where the musicians are, and then listening in the control room after takes. Most studio environments are incredibly dry sounding. Unpleasantly dry, and artificial sounding. We really don't hear pure instruments in any real world setting, it's always instruments in a space. Extremely common to "wet up" the recording with reverb.

     

    A lot of effort when building out recording studios goes into absorbing sound to minimize bleed and crosstalk problems. They engineer away the space so that it's not part of the recording. Very few studios are designed for that little bit of liveliness that makes things sound alive. Rudy Van Gelder's studio in NJ is an exception - he designed the space so that it would be a little bit alive. I've been inside during sessions and it's so much more pleasant sounding than most studios. 

     

    Chesky's albums sound different because he's recording in spaces with their own reverb characteristics. The rooms are as much a part of the recording as the musical instruments.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am very happy that Frans De Rood with his golden ears and years of experience and know how 

    Quote

    add a bit of reverb, little EQ and a tiny bit of compression

     

    That is why all those Sound Liaison  recordings sounds so good.

     

    However, I would find it very interesting if they would release a couple of "pure" tracks for comparing.

    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...