DRC, Digital Room Correction- is it the poor relation to Room treatments?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

 

I'm sorry, but you are clearly wrong about the audibility of direct versus reflected (room) sound. Check out Leo Beranek's 'Music, Acoustics, and Architecture', to see that the direct/reflected arrival time gap is a basic measurement of all halls and rooms used for music. Obviously the difference is heard, or it would not be such an important factor in hall sound. Similarly it is important in the home, where the distances are shorter, and the time gaps smaller, but still perceptible to human ears, trained or not. If you don't hear it fine, but that does not mean that others can't?

...

 

The simple fact that the speakers Direct sound is distorted by room correction DSP, while trying to correct the Reflected room response sound, is a fundamental flaw in the technique. While it may provide small to large 'improvements' in many audiophile systems, as attested to in quite a few glowing testimonials here on CA, that does not remove the limitation of the distorted direct sound. It seems as if that effect is smaller then the improvements the correction brings to many systems and ears. That is all well and good, but there are systems and ears that are good enough to expose that fundamental flaw. If one cannot hear the flaw, and perceives improved sound with these DSP hardware/software, that is great ! But that small flaw is always there and can't be overcome with more technical trickery. Only its perceptibility with particular systems and ears is in question.

 

 

Sorry if if I was not clearer and possibly misleading. I am more influenced by the concept of the Haas or Precedence Effect. True, much of that has to do with directional localization of sounds. But, it also deals with the fusion of multiple sounds into a single perceived sound if heard in short enough time delay of each other, including direct and reflected sounds. Short time delays of reflections are more typical of home listening rooms. Longer time delays are true of much of the sound in larger spaces, and these are separable by the ear as reverb or echo.

 

Precedence effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yes, EQ attempts to correct, or pre-distort if you will, the direct sound in order to make the resulting direct plus reflected sound closer to its idealized model, in a way as determined by measurements of the speaker/room. Whether this is an audible flaw or not is for each of us to determine. Pragmatist that I am and flawed though it might be, I find the result a distinct improvement over doing nothing.

[Hailey]

Sorry if if I was not clearer and possibly misleading. I am more influenced by the concept of the Haas or Precedence Effect. True, much of that has to do with directional localization of sounds. But, it also deals with the fusion of multiple sounds into a single perceived sound if heard in short enough time delay of each other, including direct and reflected sounds. Short time delays of reflections are more typical of home listening rooms. Longer time delays are true of much of the sound in larger spaces, and these are separable by the ear as reverb or echo.

 

Precedence effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yes, EQ attempts to correct, or pre-distort if you will, the direct sound in order to make the resulting direct plus reflected sound closer to its idealized model, in a way as determined by measurements of the speaker/room. Whether this is an audible flaw or not is for each of us to determine. Pragmatist that I am and flawed though it might be, I find the result a distinct improvement over doing nothing.

 

Why is anyone a priori opposed to EQ solutions like Dirac? Not just opposed, but violently opposed? Did EQ kill somebody's kid or something?

 

Not intending to be provocative here, I'm just puzzled. I don't understand why anyone has a problem with it.

[Daudio]

Why is anyone a priori opposed to EQ solutions like Dirac? Not just opposed, but violently opposed? Did EQ kill somebody's kid or something?

 

I don't know where you get that impression. It is not my cup of tea, as my audio philosophy is for as much simplicity as possible in my system.

 

Not intending to be provocative here, I'm just puzzled. I don't understand why anyone has a problem with it.

 

Then I suggest that you read (or re-read) post #92 in this thread.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Why is anyone a priori opposed to EQ solutions like Dirac? Not just opposed, but violently opposed? Did EQ kill somebody's kid or something?

 

Not intending to be provocative here, I'm just puzzled. I don't understand why anyone has a problem with it.

 

First, I think we all agree that room acoustics is a very complex thing. F. Alton Everest's texts, among others, confirm that. Any acoustical solution must also be highly customized to the dimensional layout (nicely rectangular or not), surface materials, furnishings, etc. and to a specific room, speaker and listener layout. That, and the acoustics inevitably vary by quite a bit around the room. These are some of the reasons why any attempted solution might give different results in different spaces. And, even at best, a certain amount of trial and error is involved to "get it right. Depending on how knowledgeably and accurately treatments and/or EQ have been done, the final listening result may or may not be close to optimum in a given situation.

Couple that with the difficulties of installing/de installing treatments, and the problem increases. It is nigh impossible for a hobbyist to go about a proper A-B listening comparison of the alternatives. Unreliable acoustic memory comes into play if one wants to listen to the sonic result of the acoustically treated room vs. EQing the untreated starting point. It is just not like simply borrowing a DAC, say, from a dealer to be able to A-B or do in depth listening in your own system against the one you already own. (Although, part of the increasing popularity of DSP EQ is based on the relative ease of installation and off/on switching to test whether it makes a worthwhile improvement or not.)

Consequently, there likely will never be a definitive way to pronounce one approach universally better than the other. I have seen guys who sell treatments attempt to show the superiority of their treatments over EQ via acoustic measurements, if you trust those, of course. But, the unbiased objectivity of those attempts is highly questionable, sometimes quite obviously.

So, as often in audio, we are left with the opinions of others: audio gurus, dealers, marketers, user testimonials, friends. It is always a very imperfect way to try to understand the truth. Mental blocks, biases, mind sets, blind spots, misunderstandings and misapplication of theory, etc. also all come into play, as we lack perfect information about the alternatives and how they actually sound relative to each other under identical circumstances.

Shocking as it may seem in audio, that's right, audio, of all things, it all boils down to the question of belief. Treatments are best. No, EQ is best. No, my system sounds great as it is, and I don't need no better bloomin' room acoustics. Take your pick. Choose your belief. Dangerous as it is to the furtherance of greater knowledge, however, we get stubbornly hung up on beliefs. We close our minds as a defense against the uncertainty of the imperfect information we have. I am going to suggest my own belief: I am willing to keep an open mind and go with anything that can demonstrate in ceteris paribus that it improves the sound to my ears relative to what I have now.

Years ago, I suggested to Ethan Winer of RealTraps that he build a special demo of mirror image listening rooms at his Conn. facility to demonstrate his claims of the superiority of his acoustic treatments over (a.) no treatment and (b.) DSP EQ. He said no, and that he had once tried something like that. Read into that what you will. It suggested to me that his beliefs in his own products' abilities to make a slam dunk improvement were less than enthusiastic, not worth the investment. OTOH, I can say that I (and friends of mine) have heard compelling, slam dunk sonic improvements in numerous rooms from DSP EQ. But, my mind is still open. Somebody just has to find a way to prove to my ears that acoustic treatments are better still. Talk is cheap. I want to hear it with my own ears.

[Guidof]

 

Yes, EQ attempts to correct, or pre-distort if you will, the direct sound in order to make the resulting direct plus reflected sound closer to its idealized model, in a way as determined by measurements of the speaker/room. Whether this is an audible flaw or not is for each of us to determine. Pragmatist that I am and flawed though it might be, I find the result a distinct improvement over doing nothing.

 

This is my experience as well. But I found that a combination of DSP and room treatment works best to achieve good sound in my small listening room.

[dallasjustice]

I've read numerous criticisms about DSP. Some of them are totally incoherent. However, there is one criticism that can be applicable and deserves to be addressed.

 

I previously linked to a paper from John Mulcahy. In that paper, he discusses the issue of reflected sound which can produce what's known as an SBIR. Others call it a "null." The SBIR deserves to be discussed because it's easily identifiable as non-minimum phase. Any SBIR can be identified in a few different ways using software like REW. The telltale sign for most SBIRs can be found in the SPL/Phase plot in REW. Below is an unsmoothed and zoomed-in REW screenshot from my system BEFORE I treated what's called a "floor bounce" which is an SBIR caused by the floor.

 

The top plot is unsmoothed amplitude response and the bottom is the unsmoothed phase response. You can usually spot an SBIR when there's a full 180 degree phase reversal at a frequency which shows a huge dip in amplitude. That's what we can see at around 250hz.

 

The criticism of DSP that holds some water goes like this:

If the reflected energy causes an out of phase wave to "null" the direct sound from the speaker, how can DSP stop the boundary from reflecting the out of phase energy? If one were to reverse the phase from the direct sound, then the reflected sound would still be out of phase. Basically, this criticism is correct.

 

This is where room treatments and DSP intersect with one another. If I put down a thick absorber over the boundary causing the interference, what might happen to the reflected sound? My experience is that the reflected sound will still be there, but it will be a MUCH lower amplitude. If the boundary is treated well, most of the time a 180 phase reversal can be reduced to a much lower phase angle. This is where John Mulcahy's paper should be read more carefully. He is saying that the boundary interference CAN BE mitigated using appropriate DSP IF the reflected sound is much less than the direct sound. This has been my experience as well.

 

So the astute DSP user now knows the limitations on using DSP. With this knowledge, the astute user WILL NOT attempt to "correct" nulls accompanied by full-on 180 degree phase reversals; this is impossible. However, the smart guys will investigate the boundary which caused the "null" and attempt to treat the boundary, if possible. This can't always be done. Sometimes the frequency is too low to treat. Sometimes room aesthetics prohibit using huge absorbers. Sometimes there's no more $$ for high end room treatments, like RPG Modex Plate. However, DSP and room treatments are best used together and can produce exponentially greater results when wisely employed in a properly treated room.

 

Michael.

[flak]

Hi Michael,

 

I can add to your valuable post that DSP processing is going one very important step further... by taking advantage of multiple sources (when available) some limitations in bass correction can be overcome, I'll dedicate a post to Dirac Unison

 

Flavio

[dallasjustice]

No question the new DSP products coming out will be the most significant advances in music playback. I understand how multiple sources can be used to deal with non-minimum phase problems.

 

Many folks using surround systems place speakers in the so called ITU setup. I've always questioned this method. It seems like it could make SBIRs like floor bounce (or other SBIRs in common between speakers and boundary) much worse than they would be with just two speakers if they are all at the same distance and height from listening position. Of course, not all setups have a floor bounce. I'm just using that as an example. Wouldn't it be better for DIRAC UNISON users to make sure their speaker setup is a little more non-uniform than the ITU setups many like?

Hi Michael,

 

I can add to your valuable post that DSP processing is going one very important step further... by taking advantage of multiple sources (when available) some limitations in bass correction can be overcome, I'll dedicate a post to Dirac Unison

 

Flavio

[Fitzcaraldo215]

No question the new DSP products coming out will be the most significant advances in music playback. I understand how multiple sources can be used to deal with non-minimum phase problems.

 

Many folks using surround systems place speakers in the so called ITU setup. I've always questioned this method. It seems like it could make SBIRs like floor bounce (or other SBIRs in common between speakers and boundary) much worse than they would be with just two speakers if they are all at the same distance and height from listening position. Of course, not all setups have a floor bounce. I'm just using that as an example. Wouldn't it be better for DIRAC UNISON users to make sure their speaker setup is a little more non-uniform than the ITU setups many like?

 

Michael - a big + 1 on your earlier post about SBIR.

 

The question of whether to do the ITU placement or not is a matter of your objectives. Personally, I would rather try to accurately reproduce the monitoring, mixing, mastering used in the engineering of the recording, which is ITU in most all cases with the Mch classical music recordings I favor. That strikes me as much more important than possibly hypotheticaly improving room acoustics because of "problems" with ITU. And, BTW, I am not seeing any evidence of SBIR in my room, fortunately.

[Kal Rubinson]

Wouldn't it be better for DIRAC UNISON users to make sure their speaker setup is a little more non-uniform than the ITU setups many like?

They did just that at their CES demo. Of course, their reason was that they wanted to show how effective it was even when ITU was impossible (as, indeed, it was in their room).

[KnockKnock]

just my 50 cent:

 

Some of us don't have access to a special treated room for the HiFi system, nor can we put the speakers where they sound the best. Our living room is also our office, dining room and TV room, and it's only 5,2x4,8 meters.

So there is only one place for the speakers to be placed, and that's NOT perfect.

In this case the Dirac system does a fantastic job, without it its just horrible to listen to music

[Fitzcaraldo215]

...

 

Many folks using surround systems place speakers in the so called ITU setup. I've always questioned this method. It seems like it could make SBIRs like floor bounce (or other SBIRs in common between speakers and boundary) much worse than they would be with just two speakers if they are all at the same distance and height from listening position.

 

...

 

Just to be clear about ITU, there are two basic ways to achieve it. The "perfect" way according to the spec is with identical, full range, equidistant monopole speakers. I doubt most Mch systems are set up that way, though some are, but relatively few I venture.

 

The second way is to use simple DSP distance correction with unequal distances plus bass management to a sub or subs. Distance correction is an automatic feature of Dirac and most DSP EQ. Non-identical speakers can also be used with care, especially with calibrated DSP EQ voicing the speakers near identically as a byproduct of the room correction, all employing the same target curve. This approach is much more common and is supported by even many cheap Mch AVR's.

 

The key thing in both cases is to maintain the ITU specified angular positioning, identical to what the recording was engineered for. That is what I do using the second way, above. Coincidentally, I also have raised the smaller center and surround speakers above the floor considerably for practical reasons having nothing to do with SBIR. I have gone further in violating the ITU spec by using dipolar electrostatic hybrids all around, though all from the same manufacturer, Martin Logan.

 

Still, my approach sounds pretty good to me in comparison to extreme, pure ITU setups I have heard. Also, I am not really clear on why even pure ITU would be significantly more prone to SBIR than stereo, given the differing signal content by channel in Mch playback. Even so, to me the sonic advantages in recreated realism offered by Mch far outweigh that possibility vs. stereo with the discretely recorded Mch classical music I listen to.

[dallasjustice]

The easiest way to think about what I am saying is to consider the axiomatic advice to never place a dynamic speaker the same distance from a sidewall as the floor. In such a setup, if the seated position has a null from the sidewall, there will a 2nd null from the floor at the same frequency. A compound null, if you will. From this setup, it's clear a stereo setup can have the same problem setup. MCH setups have more speakers, so the potential for a compound null is a little greater. However, I understand that MCH recordings would rarely have low frequencies coming out of rear channels at the same time as front channels.

 

My question to Flavio really isn't related to normal MCH recordings. My question deals with Unison. In the case of DIRAC UNISON, my understanding is that SBIRs can be eliminated using multiple speaker positions in the room. However, if those other positions also suffer from a compound SBIR as I described, maybe UNISON wouldn't be as effective. I don't really know. That's why I asked the question to Flavio.

Michael.

 

Just to be clear about ITU, there are two basic ways to achieve it. The "perfect" way according to the spec is with identical, full range, equidistant monopole speakers. I doubt most Mch systems are set up that way, though some are, but relatively few I venture.

 

The second way is to use simple DSP distance correction with unequal distances plus bass management to a sub or subs. Distance correction is an automatic feature of Dirac and most DSP EQ. Non-identical speakers can also be used with care, especially with calibrated DSP EQ voicing the speakers near identically as a byproduct of the room correction, all employing the same target curve. This approach is much more common and is supported by even many cheap Mch AVR's.

 

The key thing in both cases is to maintain the ITU specified angular positioning, identical to what the recording was engineered for. That is what I do using the second way, above. Coincidentally, I also have raised the smaller center and surround speakers above the floor considerably for practical reasons having nothing to do with SBIR. I have gone further in violating the ITU spec by using dipolar electrostatic hybrids all around, though all from the same manufacturer, Martin Logan.

 

Still, my approach sounds pretty good to me in comparison to extreme, pure ITU setups I have heard. Also, I am not really clear on why even pure ITU would be significantly more prone to SBIR than stereo, given the differing signal content by channel in Mch playback. Even so, to me the sonic advantages in recreated realism offered by Mch far outweigh that possibility vs. stereo with the discretely recorded Mch classical music I listen to.

[89reksal]

This is a link to an article written a few years ago by Bernt Ronningsbakk, the creator of Audiolense:

 

Sound correction in the frequency and time domain

 

I've pasted the last two paragraphs of the article, which are directly relevant to this thread:

 

"Acoustic treatment and DSP is a very potent combination. Acoustic treatment can negotiate all issues except the deepest bass very well. You can basically choose the decay pattern in the room by design. DSP can complement and perhaps even do the heavy lifting in the lowest octaves time domain wise where the size of effective diffusers and absorbers takes on enormous proportions.

 

When the time domain is cleaned by room conditioning the frequency domain becomes much smoother too. The roller-coaster frequency response is reduced to a bumpy road. Some of the bumps will be due to a speaker that was a bit bumpy out of the factory, and others will be remaining acoustic problems. DSP can then be used to almost completely eliminate the frequency bumps, and to tighten up the time domain behavior further, taking the system up to a level of sound quality that is unattainable without both acoustic conditioning and DSP. The combination of acoustic treatment and DSP is a very potent one."

[Fitzcaraldo215]

This is a link to an article written a few years ago by Bernt Ronningsbakk, the creator of Audiolense:

 

Sound correction in the frequency and time domain

 

I've pasted the last two paragraphs of the article, which are directly relevant to this thread:

 

"Acoustic treatment and DSP is a very potent combination. Acoustic treatment can negotiate all issues except the deepest bass very well. You can basically choose the decay pattern in the room by design. DSP can complement and perhaps even do the heavy lifting in the lowest octaves time domain wise where the size of effective diffusers and absorbers takes on enormous proportions.

 

When the time domain is cleaned by room conditioning the frequency domain becomes much smoother too. The roller-coaster frequency response is reduced to a bumpy road. Some of the bumps will be due to a speaker that was a bit bumpy out of the factory, and others will be remaining acoustic problems. DSP can then be used to almost completely eliminate the frequency bumps, and to tighten up the time domain behavior further, taking the system up to a level of sound quality that is unattainable without both acoustic conditioning and DSP. The combination of acoustic treatment and DSP is a very potent one."

 

 

I think think that is good advice as a path toward more perfect sound. I have said before that is exactly what I would do in my fantasy room. As a practical matter, though, I cannot do much in the way of treatment in my current room. Also, if you look at the measured curves for off the shelf bass traps, like ASC or anyone else, even their biggest and most expensive ones, they all drop rapidly in effectiveness below 100hz or so. So, comprehensive bass treatment, which is where the big room modal issues are, is not a walk in the park, and it ain't cheap either.

 

So, meanwhile, just living with EQ alone is what I have to do. It might not be perfection, but it provides a really dramatic improvement that is easily deployed and auditioned.

[dallasjustice]

Also, if you look at the measured curves for off the shelf bass traps, like ASC or anyone else, even their biggest and most expensive ones, they all drop rapidly in effectiveness below 100hz or so. So, comprehensive bass treatment, which is where the big room modal issues are, is not a walk in the park, and it ain't cheap either.

 

Very true! I can and do use both treatments and DSP. My experience with room treatments is that they do very little below 100hz. There are only a small handful of products with proven efficacy in the 35hz-100hz range. There's no off-the-shelf product which can be effective 35hz and below. The best proven bass traps below 100hz I've encountered is the RPG Modex Plate, which is a VPR technology working off pressure, not velocity.

[bdiament]

Folks, I always say you should use what works for you.

With that said, let us be clear that there is no need to spread misinformation regarding Tube Traps.

Perhaps this is due to a lack of experience, combined with a lack of understand of how they are implemented. (Just my opinion of course but baseless conjecture devoid of actual experience isn't very valuable.)

 

Smaller diameter traps will be effective down to 90 Hz or 100 Hz. These are used in places where the second harmonics of a room's resonant modes are prominent, such as at the 1/4 points along room boundaries. The second harmonics are not going to be lower than these frequencies and more often than not they will be appreciably higher, sometimes up to 300 Hz. (Why would anyone need or want a lower cutoff - and larger diameter at a higher price - than the frequency range that needs to be addressed?)

 

The larger diameter traps are effective down to either 40 Hz or 55 Hz, depending on the diameter. These are the traps that will be placed in corners and at the 1/2 points along a room's boundaries. These are the traps to address fundamentals and the first harmonics.

 

If your room has modes that are lower in frequency than this, you are most fortunate to have an extraordinarily large space. In such cases, I would suggest the owner of a castle can afford to have larger diameter traps made. ;-}

 

Again, use EQ or DSP if you like but please try to be accurate about other methods.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[dallasjustice]

If your room has modes that are lower in frequency than this, you are most fortunate to have an extraordinarily large space.

 

Barry,

 

You are only looking at whole and harmonics. You are not thinking about 1/2 and 1/4 length modes. Anyone could check for themselves on Bob Golds' website.

 

Half-length and quarter length modes are there as well and can easily exist at very low frequencies in standard listening rooms. These 1/2 and 1/4 modes vary depending on the room shape and construction. One doesn't need a castle to have modes at very low frequencies.

 

For example, my room is 24' long. The 2,0,0 axial is 47hz. The half length 1,0,0 axial is 23.5hz. It's easy to hear the half length mode without DSP. My system sounds much better when I deal with it using DSP and/or good subwoofery. There's no room treatment on earth that can touch this frequency.

 

Michael.

[bdiament]

...There's no room treatment on earth that can touch this frequency...

 

Hi Michael,

 

You omitted the sentence that followed the one you quoted where I mentioned larger traps.

 

I understand you like your DSP and I think that is wonderful. Having heard and worked with a number of DSP systems, I can understand why some would find them attractive, particularly when they do not have other options. I've also heard and worked with a number of rooms that use other approaches in order to avoid DSP alteration of the speaker response.

 

However, your statement is not supported by facts... though it might *seem* that way if you are looking at only a narrow selection of what is possible with room treatments. If you wanted treatments to address those particular frequencies, they can be had.

 

No need to repeat myself further on this subject. Anyone who might be interested can review the older posts in this thread or see my blog entry related to this subject.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[dallasjustice]

Hi Michael,

 

You omitted the sentence that followed the one you quoted where I mentioned larger traps.

 

Can you identify a "large" off-the-shelf bass trap which is proven effective at absorbing 23hz? Which brand? How large? Where's the data?

 

Michael.

[bdiament]

Can you identify a "large" off-the-shelf bass trap which is proven effective at absorbing 23hz? Which brand? How large? Where's the data?

 

Michael.

 

Hi Michael,

 

I made no mention of anything "off the shelf" as that has nothing to do with the statement you made. What I said is they can be had.

 

If you are interested, I suggest you contact Art Noxon or any of the folks at ASC. I'm sure they could help. Further, if you were so inclined, you could build traps too. (I've done this for a number of rooms and they work marvelously.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[dallasjustice]

The only thing I know is is to build a false wall. That's what a pro acoustician would do if the customer was resistant to using DSP.

 

Since you couldn't identify any room treatment which is proven effective at these frequencies, I'll assume you agree there is none.

 

Hi Michael,

 

I made no mention of anything "off the shelf" as that has nothing to do with the statement you made. What I said is they can be had.

 

If you are interested, I suggest you contact Art Noxon or any of the folks at ASC. I'm sure they could help. Further, if you were so inclined, you could build traps too. (I've done this for a number of rooms and they work marvelously.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

The only thing I know is is to build a false wall. That's what a pro acoustician would do if the customer was resistant to using DSP.

 

Since you couldn't identify any room treatment which is proven effective at these frequencies, I'll assume you agree there is none.

 

Hi Michael,

 

You know what they say about when you assume. ;-}

It sure seems like you are reading something other than the words that I've written.

 

Let me be clear: I do not agree with your contentions. I've already given you one source to check. Check it and others if you are interested.

 

Best regards,

Over and out,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Not trying to disparage treatments, and I think ASC is a good company. Here is their flyer on Tube Traps.

 

http://www.tubetrap.com/bass_traps_docs/tubetrap-flyer.pdf

 

We can all interpret the measurements on it as we see fit.

[bdiament]

Hi Fitzcaraldo215,

 

You can look at the graphs and believe they tell you all you need to know.

Or you can decide a representation should not be confused with an experience.

That is certainly a personal decision.

 

Have you ever been in a room that has been fully and properly treated with something like ASC's wonderful Tube Traps?

I would highly recommend trying it some time.

 

Just my opinion of course but I believe looking at graphs and believing one can derive an understand of experiencing something is like looking at photos of a beautiful woman and believing you've made love. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

http://www.soundkeeperrecorings.com

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio