Jump to content
IGNORED

Why does vinyl still exist?


jeffca

Recommended Posts

.. of emotion and data being so carefully (and not-so-carefully) crafted here in this thread by everyone, I got a huge laugh today when I noticed that Chris is running an ad in the margins of CA that is from J&R Music World that blurts: "Vinyl Still Exists!". Just.... Hilarious.

 

I've been staying out of this a' here mess on purpose. I reckon it be time to out it now though.

 

Everyone has been talking about 'their' preferences here (as well as sharing some data). My vote? I am somewhere between liking and loving the sound of vinyl. I think that I preferred mag tape to it, back in the day. But I owned more vinyl because it was hard to keep a tape machine going for as many hours as I used my records for. I ran through 3 pretty good reel to reel machines.

 

CD's got off to a rocky start. No. Not rocky. CRAPPY. Crappy lasted for years & I kept buying LP's until I couldn't find them any more. Then I stopped buying music. For a long time. I didn't stop listening though; I had vinyl and tape and live music. - One ought to look to that for a reason why so many folks still love vinyl and think it superior to CD's, because I had plenty of company. They took the (recorded) music away! The engineers, both design, sound and manufacturing engineers, did a horrible job of bringing in digital before it was ready. They did a horrible job for a very long time. I'm pissed about that to this day. Nowadays they have learned how to make a decent CD, though I don't believe they set the Red Book standard high enough. The playback (and recording) equipment is much better today as well. So I'll buy them (CD's) again. I don't really like it though. Too many bad memories.

 

I want MORE. CD isn't enough (typically American, eh? ;-) - it just isn't 'there' for me. I still consider CD's a compressed format. The truly compressed formats suck for anything other than offering a sketch or charcoal or pastel of what the music could be and no offense intended Ashley, but I don't give a hang about what you have to say about that. I can hear it (the loss and the compression). I shouldn't be able to hear it after the abuse that my rock & roll ears have been through, but I can. It may take some time to recognize it, but the fatigue of listening to that 'crap' will eventually get to me. 24 bit raw audio files is where things need to be. Pure 24 bit downloaded audio to my HD. OK, I'll take it off of a DVD-R and put it on my HD if needs and cost make it have to be that way. I won't be totally happy until that comes to pass.

 

But that ain't what I'm here to say. .... I'm here to say that this hasn't really been about vinyl and tape versus CD or MP3 or whatever. This has been about *** Analogue versus Digital *** and I have this to say about that without fear of anyone being able to truthfully and accurately contradict it: On it's best day, Digital will NEVER sound exactly the same as the analogue which it is feebly attempting to copy. It might do a better job of recording a representation of it than the best of the analogue methods though.

 

This is the magic and beauty of the nature of the object of our passion: sound. Beautiful sound (horrendous sound, for that matter...) There will never be anything that can do it quite as well as nature does. - all of you go see some live music soon, OK?

 

That is my answer to your question 'Nature Boy'.

 

The preaching lamp is now unlit. Can I get an AMEN?

 

Link to comment

Mark

I'm afraid that like so many vinyl fanatics you are ignoring the facts, which are in this thread and many others, and of which the most important are that studio master tapes have to be altered by compression, some LF tweaking and lots of top end emphasis to play on a record. Therefore vinyl does not sound like the master tape. However a CD is indistinguishable from it regardless of whether it was analogue or digital. This is because Digital copies are always identical as anyone with a computer should know.

 

Early CDs, and I have some very early ones from Nimbus Records recorded straight via Sony PCM701F to Betamax VCRs, sound astonishingly okay as do the Steely Dan albums that were made with very early open reel digital tape recorders.

 

The UK Classical Music magazine Gramophone used Sony Esprit preamps and monoblocks that I was lucky enough to hear at the time. Through them CD was dramatically better than vinyl and it explained the magazine's immediate and wholesale acceptance of the medium. However, and this is part of my reason for not rating the high end, there were enormous numbers of companies producing power pre and power amplifiers that couldn't cope with the out of band artefacts from early DACS and they sounded absolutely disgusting. CD was not to blame, but the hi end was years behind the best Sony stuff at the time.

 

I never had a bad CD player, so never understood what the ruckus was about until we (AVI) discovered that a DAC we'd introduced and that used the Philips TDA1541 Crown S1, behaved very differently with different amplifiers. It sounded superb with ours but into a couple competitors, much worse than vinyl! I used to make this comparison at dealer seminars with great effect.

 

Instead of sorting the problem two companies in particular, who may not have had in-house engineers, very effectively went on the warpath against CD and I'm sure something similar happened in the US.

 

The problems were, A. that DAC's radiated RF and if the amp they were connected to had HF distortion problems, the result was appalling and B. that records were compressed to stop the needle jumping out of the groove, which meant you didn't need a very powerful amplifier to play them. Because CD had such a massive dynamic range, engineers used more of it than most hi fi amplifiers had, so strident voices that an earlier poster identified appeared along with lots of other harshness from clipping, latching up, plus often small bursts of oscillation as they recovered. Some members of the Hi Fi Industry had been caught with their pants down, but weren't about to admit it, or worse still didn't understand what was happening.

 

Recording Studios had long realised the need for lots of amplifier power to re-create the dynamic range of real life, but in Britain many hi fi enthusiasts have yet to be convinced. You often see postings on Forums about not being able to get involved in music or not being connected emotionally, when all they've done is try an amp with enough headroom to avoid clipping. Any reviewer could have tested this one with a cheap Scope!

 

The Industry has also raged against the lifeline that has sustained them for the last few years, namely the poor old MP3. Very silly in my view because anything that gets more music into the hands of more people has to be good for business. After all it's the job of a hi fi company to make anything a customer chooses to play sound better and as good as it can, not to dictate what format he must use for best results. I find it hard not to think Otis when I hear "audiophile tracks".

 

I'm very sorry if I've beaten this one to death, but I'm venting more than 30 years of pent up frustration with subjectivism here.

 

Ash

PS. This post is a digital copy that made it intact!

 

 

Link to comment

 

Ash,

 

Sorry to say this again, but, you're are quick to point out CD's advantages over vinyl, then happy to promote MP3 for business reasons. Great, get music out there - but unfortunately people now readily accept poor quality sound as the norm. Plenty of people are happy with 64/128kps MP3's which are truley awful. As Chris says though, we should see high resolution downloads become more widely available over time.

 

Also, I always thought that original master tapes were edited for CD. Infact, I'm sure they are. The music is taken from the tape is compressed to buggery is it not.? Some music sounds great, this is by no means all music, but much is difficult to listen to and sounds harsh. I guess this differs depending on who is mastering the music.

 

It depends how much you wish to get into this, but there are many pro's that would argue that you're still stopping short of great sound from your very own system. I don't wish to get into a Mac vs PC thing here but for audio playback there are many pointing towards the PC being superior now. For example, iTunes, which I know you use as your playback software, places a comparitively heavy load on your computer when there is probably no need to. I know a Mac is different to a PC but having had both a Mac with iTunes, a PC with iTunes, I can now say with some certainly that playback software loading music into ram sounds better than the other players. You're minimising hard disk access, the physcal movement of the head on the hard disk is removed. There are techy reasons as to why this would improve audio.

 

I know Mac's are widely used in the pro industry, but so are PC's. A trip to any audio outlet now -will quickly reveal PC based systems of studio quality selling very well indeed, probably aided by the fact there is more software available. The Carillon range are well thought of.

 

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that, for someone pointing out how superior CD is to vinyl, I'm confused by your huge support for MP3. And, in a quest for perfect audio playback, you can go further that the digital out from your Mac, which, given all your backing for the techy facts - well - it surprises me that you're happy to settle for any less.

 

 

Matt.

 

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

Beemb - there would be no point in having a master tape if it wasn't what its name suggest. Various processes are applied to it for it to end up as one, but it then becomes a reference for what is sold until a record company decides it's needs you to buy the same material again and re-masters it.

 

My point is that Master Tapes could not be used for records because they are incapable of playing them, so a disc mastering engineer would compress and change the balance so that they would be. This irked Pros, especially when the audiophile community announced that vinyl was the best medium. Towards the end, cassettes were probably, better as I think others have pointed out. As I said previously I'd heard Master Tapes in Abbey Rd and CTS and listened to the comments of professionals and their view of vinyl arguments. These two were the largest in Europe.

 

16 Bit digital material, because it is a copy of the master tape, is very much better than vinyl, FM or DAB (MP2 in the UK) and higher bitrate MP3s, or the technically better AACs, can be indistinguishable from the original 16 Bit master, so are also much better. There are 10,000 online radio stations online, some using as much as 256 K, so the purpose of my message is to encourage people to try them and discover new music. If you like it enough, you can always buy the CD.

 

 

 

Link to comment

"Also, I always thought that original master tapes were edited for CD. Infact, I'm sure they are. The music is taken from the tape is compressed to buggery is it not.? Some music sounds great, this is by no means all music, but much is difficult to listen to and sounds harsh. I guess this differs depending on who is mastering the music."

 

With all due respect, Matt, I think you're confusing the mix with the master. The final mix of a recording goes through a mastering process to tweak it for format and playback. It always has and this has nothing to do with analog vs. digital. That's where the "compressed to buggery" is happening, and the only thing digital-specific about it is that these days studios use digital compression to make everything louder in the noisy environment iPods are played in instead of, instead of using analog compression to make everything louder in the noisy environment transistor and car radios were played in.

 

But in either case it is the final master that is over-compressed. Modern pop music often has the life and dynamic range compressed out of it, no doubt. But it is because record company executives and mastering engineers think that sells records and mp3s, not because of any limitations of digital formats.

 

I'm all for higher-resolution formats and bit rates and I think, ironically, it will be the downloaded file that will finally deliver it. Where SACDs and DVD-As failed to catch on, hi-rez downloads will simply sneak in and become cheap and ubiquitous, because the bandwidth is there, the storage space is cheap and there will be no reason for it not to.

 

Tim

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment

Tim

 

As I understand it, the process varies depending on the wishes of the record company. Some take the master tape (digital file) submitted to them and send it on to a respected Mastering engineer to "tweak it" and other studios are considered good enough for their material to be used as it is. The process of mastering is a hang over from the days of vinyl.

 

Ash

 

 

Link to comment

Tim and all for that matter, I think it is important to understand that because we don't like the sound of some recordings, it doesn't mean that they are not what the musicians and producers intended. They may have loved it.

 

As I explained in a previous posting, Sony DAT recorders sound better than £10K 1/2" two track mastering machines when they appeared, but many engineers stuck with analogue tape recorders because it gave them a sound that they liked and wanted.

 

T Bone Burnett is a very well respected producer and he makes some of his music available as 24 Bit DVDA or WAVs that you can import straight to your computer. Sounds good so far, but the John Mellencamp Album he's done recently sounds like an early seventies recording because a load of old studio gear has been used to do it. I don't like it, but he felt proud enough of it to make it available as a 24 Bit master.

 

Companies like Gimmell are different because they are recording to 24 Bit for the sole intention of getting as close as possible to the original performance and the music in question is Classical. However rock and even jazz is different and almost anything goes to get the sound the producers and musicians want. Here producers treat every bit of their system as a musical instrument helping to create their sound. This includes Mikes, consoles, outboard effects you name it.

 

Ash

 

Link to comment

I don't know what numbers sound like, I just know what my ears like. I was one of the first to jump on the digital bandwagon when there were only 100 or so CD's available around the Dallas Ft. worth area. I have been doing CD's ever since. But two years ago I bought a Turntable and began buying used records. Folks thought I was nuts. But after they come and listen most will tell you that it just sounds more detailed. The numbers may not be there, but the sound is. That said I am still pursueing digital because eventually the bugs will be worked out. Just like the breakfast cereal sound is gone from vinyl. I do not require that you agree with me, just don't put your own preferences on me either. Remember, each of us is unique, just like everyone else!

 

I need not suffer in silence while I can still moan, whimper and complain.

Link to comment

I agree with markr. I am not that articulate but I do try to make my point, it just might take a bit longer than some. When I listen to live music I like I have an emotional response. This is why I listen to it in the first place. I need that. I try to achieve the same thing in the home. I am aware of the limitations of analog or specifically LPs. But for 40 years or so they have proven to be capable of eliciting that emotional response that is so important. Not every record as some are poorly produced but often enough that I keep coming back for more.

I listen to music because I need it. In my home I try to get as good sound as I can within my somewhat limited budget. I must select equipment carefully and try to get the best I can for the buck. In my early days I read the magazines in the audio press that promoted gear based on how it measured. I could never seem to improve my system. Everything I tried by the recommended manufactuers seemed to be a step backward or no improvement. When I discovered other rags that rated gear by listening to it I found that there was much merit there. I auditioned gear that when I tried it made that important emotional connection easier to attain. Not all amplifiers sounded the same!

Anyway, no matter how acurate some gear claims to be, if it doesn't provide that emotional connection to the music I won't buy it. It's my dough and I don't have the time or money to waste as I approach my 6th decade and retirement. If I have to choose between fantastic measured performance and gear that measures not as good but provides that connection I get listening to live music or a reasonable facsimile thereof, I will choose the latter EVERY single time. What this tells me is that there is something in music that has not been quantified or that the engineering types haven't figured out which measurements or combinations of measured performance are important yet with any certainty. I hope they do and all this tiresome endless campaigning by objectivists will cease. Why it is so important to them to discredit others escapes me.

Regarding digital, I have lately found some merit in it and bought some new gear. Again I'm hopeful as it is finally giving me some of the satisfaction that I have been getting from analog for many years. The convenience of my music on a big hard drive is something I only discovered lately after buying an iPod (160 G classic) that I found on sale. I was always curious but wanted as much capacity as I could get so I could put uncompressed music on it and have lots of variety but they were kind of pricey. At the sale price I finally made a purchase. This lead me to install iTunes and rip my CDs to my computer. I then learned about USB devices and bought a cheap MIDI device and connected my stereo to my computer. Whoa! This was great. The sound quality wasn't totally great but I was getting addicted to the convenience factor. Wandering into one of my favourite high end dealers who let me hear the Bryston BDA-1 was fortuitous. I bought it and hooked it up and now I was getting MUCH happier with things. I also wanted to be able to try higher res formats which got me to google some things and I found CA. The fact that the word audiophile was in much larger letters attracted me because I knew that sound quality would be imortant. This site has given me much advice through the forums and I appreciate it. I don't understand a lot of what is talked about here but I'm trying to learn the basics so I can get the best from my computer set up. I like to see other opinions and POVs but when someone tells me that analog sucks and they have proof and that they can coveniently discredit listening as any kind of argument to the contrary despite the FACT that analog as far as I can tell does one thing better (reaching me emotionally which is what music is totally about) and has done so for decades then

I get the heck out of the discussion as it is a no win situation. My last word.

 

tomE[br]Bryston BDP-1, Bryston BDA-1, Oppo BDP-95, Rogue Audio Sphinx, Montor Audio Silver RX8s. [br]Analog: LP12, Alphason HR100S, Benz Micro LO04 and Rogue audio Triton phono pre

Link to comment

1) Believing the numbers, when they are supported by what you hear, does not make you an objectivist. I don't know a single person on the digital side of this tired argument who got there through reading charts. The charts only support what the ears perceive.

 

2) It is not important for so-called "objectivists" (not this one, anyway) to discredit so-called subjectivists. We are simply making our points on our side of a discussion. If those numbers make the so-called "subjectivists" feel discredited, I'm sorry. They are welcome to make any lucid point they can, but if all they have is what their ears tell them in spite of the facts, they have little. My ears tell me something else, and I would be perfectly happy to leave it at that but some seem to be compelled to push it beyond that and declare that analog is superior, without a case. Out comes the data. And my ears. We "objectivists" don't care to be told we can't hear any more than you do. And so it continues...

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment

Very well said tomE!!

 

At the end of the day it is the "sound" that counts, and I fear that sometimes we become a little too involved in the technical side, and what "should" sound better, that this influences us to believe that is does sound better. Music (sound) is much like anything else that appeals to our senses. I cannot see any appeal in most forms of modern art, whilst others can - I'd much rather look at a well taken photograph. I do not like the taste of some foods that, again, others may like. And the same is true of sounds that we hear...... if that sound is technically less accurate, but more enjoyable to that individual, who cares!?!

 

 

 

iTunes / Media Monkey, PC, Presonus Firebox --> Mackie HR624 mkII Active Monitors, M&K VX7 mkII

Link to comment

 

But if we must discuss numbers - an MP3 is nothing on a CD. 128kps vs CD ... sorry, but indistinguishable it's not ... moving up to 320 + though, I have to say, it's getting close.

 

Ash, could you post the details of some of those radio stations. I'd be interested in having a good listen.

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

I don't think any of the pro-vinyl guys are saying you can't hear as much as them - just that they think vinyl sounds better.

 

Like I've said before, I'm not really in either camp, (the only one I'm not in is the MP3 club !) , but I can see why some people prefer the vinyl sound, despite all the facts that are being produced. I looks to me sometimes like the digital guys just can't accept that some people don't like the sound of digital, and so have to throw all the numbers around to try and make a point.

 

I briefly read a couple of the attached articles from various people on this thread, and whilst my technical knowledge is quite limited, it appears that digital has as many negative "facts" behind it as it does positive. Strange that those aren't mentioned by those fighting digital's corner.................

 

iTunes / Media Monkey, PC, Presonus Firebox --> Mackie HR624 mkII Active Monitors, M&K VX7 mkII

Link to comment

 

Ash,

 

Ignore my request re radio stations. Shoutcast.com has links to many hundreds it seems.

 

Avro Light Classical so far my favourite in terms of quality. And some very good classical tracks too actually.

 

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

Ashley,

 

re:

"Mark

I'm afraid that like so many vinyl fanatics you are ignoring the facts *snip*"

 

How do you get that I'm a vinyl fanatic out of my post here? Is it because I didn't immediately throw my albums away or sell them when the first CD came off of the press? I'm not ignoring any facts either - I know the numbers and facts, and furthermore don't deny them. If you will re-read carefully, I don't anywhere state that vinyl or magtape were the 'best ever'. I just like analogue (vinyl, magtape) . Please re-read the post - I'm sure that I stated something along the lines of "give me 24 bit digital or give me death" in there somewhere. It (digital audio) is realistically the only thing left.

 

I'm also not a subjectivist. I'm more of a relativist or an evolutionist, even a realist ... but those don't really accurately describe me either. I'm an analogue being living in an analogue world. I would appreciate it if you didn't label me just as I don't label you. It makes me feel bad. While it will be convenient for you to label me, it will not be accurate in the final measure. - the proof of that is in my post.

 

It used to be that all art that represented this analogue world was done using analogue techniques and media. You could even say that it was (still is, really) an art to represent that art. Sure the science was there then and it is now. It was more of an art and less of a science then though IMO, and by your witness to us of the hoops that engineers had to leap through to create great LP's, your statements are proof that it was (I know that you don't think of any LP's as "great" and that is ....OK). I like art. True, there are fewer and more clearly defined hoops to leap through now. Or at least they are different ones for the most part. That is fine! - evolution - I am totally on the bandwagon. Just as I wanted to be on it at the advent of CD. That wasn't possible due to poor execution of the digital introduction. I'm really sorry that happened, but it did. It is over now for the most part. Does that mean that I have to surrender my LP's? I haven't finished digitizing them..... come to think of it, I probably won't have enough time left on this earth to finish digitizing them. Oh well, better get another stylus for the Grado just to be sure.

 

My intended purpose in the post was to try to show the middle ground of this debate (I know that that isn't conventional in debate, but I DON'T CARE because I wasn't debating. Still not...) while allowing for the evolution of the recorded representation of the thing that this is really all about - sound. If it sounds good, then it is good shall be the whole of the law.

 

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough for you Ashley.

 

For you firmly entrenched on the LP side of the debate: come to the new digital light or at least peep over the edge of the trench. Sure it will take some time and effort to get all on the same page, but it will happen through your support. It is great when 24 bits are churning. Better than LP or tape! The artists are behind it because there is no reason not to (though I admit that some don't 'get it' yet).

 

'Psychoacoustically' yours, markr -

 

PS. This post is a digital copy that made it intact as well ! - but it has nowhere near the complexity or nuance of analogue OR digital audio because it is just words on digital 'paper'. Reasonably cogent words, but just words nevertheless. MUSIC is where it's at!

 

 

Link to comment

Mark

I'm extremely sorry f I caused offence, it was not intended and never is. I'm all too aware of the damage that personal attacks to on Forums do and how some cannot resist them.

 

Ash

 

PS. The only difference between this post and a digitised LP will be the number of noughts and ones. Neither amount will present a computer with any problems at all.

 

Link to comment

... I'll accept it, but there really is no need for apology. That is quite decent of you though! Let's just keep on the logical course shall we? I read somewhere that two people can become closer if one tells the other how they are made to feel by the other. No offense taken. We really are on mostly the same page.

 

By the way - coincidentally enough, I too still have audio that was recorded to betamax (hi fi) back in the 80's. It still sounds pretty good too.... Beta's have been dead in the US since ~1990 though. How about over there in the old country?

 

I hope this thread is done - the horse appears not to be moving. We should.... Move on, that is.

 

markr-

 

PS - Now if only the digi filters don't muck it up.....

 

Link to comment

Mark

I should have explained better. Sony sold an A to D and D to A unit, the PCM701F, that was to be used in conjunction with a Betamax video recorder for making and playing back digital recordings and Nimbus were amongst the first to use one for their special recordings. They used their own variation on the Calrec Soundfield Microphone to make Ambisonic CDs. These could be played in stereo and were minimalist mike, straight to tape and only edited. Most of the industry had trouble with digital because their amplifiers couldn't cope with the out of band hash produced by these convertors and Apogee (of the DACs) introduced a digital filter to improve this. Many bought it and upgraded, but Nimbus didn't. Therefore an early Nimbus recording is a good indicator of how bad early digital was. It wasn't bad at all, but there were lots of amps out there with problems that Sony and Philips didn't have.

 

By the latter part of the eighties Sony had introduced the CDP555ES CD player that comprised of a TDA1541 Crown S1 DAC and their own digital filter. From then on CD was superb for all who bought it and a few others. Sadly in Britain only Gramophone Magazine realised that Sony was the best while other reviewers raved about a home grown product that radiated so badly that it stopped FM tuners in the vicinity from working.

 

One other point on a now dead thread is this Forum software. Recently someone else said he didn't like it and although I agreed I didn't say anything, but now I've had a few emails from people who don't like it either and won't use the forum because of it. They'd prefer something more like all others.

Ash

 

Link to comment

I understand on the beta - that definitely isn't what I was talking about. Sony was in their heyday during the 80's for sure, but my experience with them was mostly for video products at that point - though I did have a good Sony reel-to-reel audio deck during that time. I'm afraid that I was too exhausted from trying to get CD's to work satisfactorily for myself to have tried anyone elses equipment at that point. I wasn't hearing what I wanted to hear digitally in the Hi-Fi shops or in my friends choices of equipment at that time. Then I think I had a total of two CD experiences in the 90's that opened my eyes to the possibilities. For my money, that is pretty weak - if you want to sell something, you have to get out there.... I know now that it was a huge mix of factors that caused it, because I knew that CD's were 'good on paper'. I was an electronics technician with interest in audio. I just couldn't get the "ears-on" proof of it anywhere, and it didn't seem that important to me any more at that point. I was exhausted with the whole thing.

 

On the CA forum software - I know that Chris stated he is looking around for a suitable replacement. Having watched what he does for a while now, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a lot further along the road to a 'fix' than you might think.

You know though, I really haven't run into any forums on the web since html, etc. came about that have impressed me that much. They all are a PITA in one way or another. Give me the old BBS systems for communication any day. It is pretty hard to put up pretty pictures and adds on those though....

 

-markr

 

Link to comment

Ashley,

On a slightly different note, as someone who clearly has massive experience of the audio industry and a high level of technical knowledge, what are your thoughts on good old compact cassette?? And things such as high end decks from Nakamichi, Sony Super Metal Master cassettes, Dolby B,C,S etc ??

Martin

 

iTunes / Media Monkey, PC, Presonus Firebox --> Mackie HR624 mkII Active Monitors, M&K VX7 mkII

Link to comment

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...