IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LPs that actually do sound better?, Somebody Should Make a List
tonybelding
post Sep 9 2010, 05:08
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 83700



Hi all. . . I'm new here, but I've been pointed towards this site many times in the past to settle questions about audio -- especially about digital compression.

So anyhow. . . I got me a turntable!

What prompted me to get it was a series of records that National Geographic published back in the 70s and which never were released on CD. They were high production quality stuff: gatefold, elaborate liner notes, etc. It was supposed to be a history of American music -- an early example of edu-tainment, you might say. I fondly remembered some of these from when I was little, and I thought it would be cool to collect the LPs (thanks to the modern miracle of eBay) and digitize them, and put them in my iTunes library. QED, right?

I first thought I'd get one of those cheap USB turntables, but then I did a little research and found out they were basically crummy, so of course I wanted a better one. . . and one thing led to another. I ended up with a Technics SL-D2 with a Shure M95ED cartridge, which seems to be working pretty well so far. It's been a long time since I had a turntable, and this is way better than any I had before.

So, I dug out some other old LPs. One that particularly pleases me is Blue Oyster Cult's The Revolution By Night. It sounds way better than the CD. The CD is one of those early releases that were. . . messed up. I don't know exactly what the explanation is, but it seems around 1984-86 there were a fair number of CDs that came out sounding thin, harsh and bright. I suspect it had something to do with the mad rush to convert whole back catalogs ASAP while engineers were still getting used to the new format and equipment.

Adding insult to injury, the CD was a "budget" release with the (excellent IMHO) cover art shrunk to about cassette size and surrounded with a useless border proclaiming what a bargain it was. The sleeve art was jettisoned entirely. Gee thanks, CBS Records! mad.gif

I've tinkered with the CD rip before, applying equalization -- greatly reducing the higher frequencies -- and re-normalizing it, and I was able to make the CD sound a lot better. Even so, apparently I never totally figured it out, because the LP still sounds better to me.

At the end of this long story, I'm left wondering. . . Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release? I mean examples where the CD was messed up in some way, whether it was equalization or over-compression, clipping, whatever, while the LP was OK. Bonus points could be awarded if the LP has great cover art, gatefold art, etc!

We could even make a list of these; it seems like somebody ought to.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light-Fire
post Sep 9 2010, 06:02
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 5-August 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 33645



QUOTE (tonybelding @ Sep 9 2010, 00:08) *
... Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release?


Have you considered remastered CDs?

I kinda like the Legacy remasters from Sony/CBS, etc.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Sep 9 2010, 11:40
Post #3


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 831
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (tonybelding @ Sep 9 2010, 05:08) *
Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release? I mean examples where the CD was messed up in some way, whether it was equalization or over-compression, clipping, whatever, while the LP was OK.

It's not that simple.

The quality of individual pressings of a particular album on LP can be extremely variable. Different masters are cut in different geographical territories, and when titles are reissued; the quality and weight of vinyl used will vary between pressing plants; stampers get old and lose high frequencies; etc, etc.

CDs get reissued multiple times with different masterings; some are good, and some not so good. (And it's not always the most recent issues that sound best, of course).

Example 1. My vinyl copy of 10cc's "Sheet Music" sounds better than my CD copy, but that's probably because I have an original British pressing (on the UK label) on heavyweight vinyl, and the CD version I have is an old Castle Communications version. If you were to go out and buy a vinyl copy of this album, chances are you'd get a reissue that would sound worse than a CD.

Example 2. I bought a copy of Yes's "Going for the One" on CD back in the 1980's and it sounded *so* bad compared to my beaten up vinyl that I returned it. I suspect it was mastered from an LP cutting tape. A few years later, it was remastered for CD and this time sounds OK. If you were to buy a CD of this album today, you almost certainly wouldn't get the dodgy version.

Example 3: Adrian Belew's first two albums "Lone Rhino" and "Twang Bar King". Original Island Records vinyl sounds pretty damn good. If you get the Japanese CDs, they are fine. If you happen to buy the 2-on-1 Gott CD version, you're hosed. (There's a new remaster on BGO that I've never heard).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tonybelding
post Sep 9 2010, 13:35
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 83700



QUOTE (Light-Fire @ Sep 9 2010, 00:02) *
Have you considered remastered CDs?

I kinda like the Legacy remasters from Sony/CBS, etc.


I'll look into that.

I'm aware of a few instances where a remaster saved the day. One that comes to mind is Nektar's Remember the Future. The CD was notoriously poor, until the remaster came out in. . . 2002, I think it was. But you know, the way the remastering fad has gone, I'm avoiding most of them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottogo99
post Sep 9 2010, 13:50
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 13-April 07
Member No.: 42452



Anyone interested in vinyl sound quality, or comparing various pressings of CDs and LPs, should check out the Steve Hoffman Music Forums. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tonybelding
post Sep 9 2010, 16:08
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 83700



QUOTE (cliveb @ Sep 9 2010, 05:40) *
The quality of individual pressings of a particular album on LP can be extremely variable. Different masters are cut in different geographical territories, and when titles are reissued; the quality and weight of vinyl used will vary between pressing plants; stampers get old and lose high frequencies; etc, etc.


I was vaguely aware of that, but hadn't given it much thought. . . I think I remember reading somewhere that Japanese and European pressings tend to be better, on average, than US pressings.


QUOTE
CDs get reissued multiple times with different masterings; some are good, and some not so good. (And it's not always the most recent issues that sound best, of course).


This brings to mind the first six ZZ Top albums. . . Early on there were generic CD releases that seemed to suffer from the thin-harsh-bright effect I described earlier. Then they decided to redo all six albums to take advantage of the CD format -- but mere remastering wasn't enough! They decided to re-mix them, so that became the ZZ Top Six Pack set. (It was actually a three-CD set with two LPs per CD, but they were also released as six stand-alone CDs.) The problem is, the remix really changed the sound in ways that a lot of ZZ Top old timers didn't like. So that was strike two. Recently they came out with new remasters (from the original mix) of Tres Hombres and Fandango. These are the best-sounding CD versions of those two albums, but they're pretty compressed. They aren't totally brick-walled (the way Mescalero was!), but. . . It's still more compression than I really care for.

That's a whole lot of CD releases, and it's arguable that they were all bungled in various ways and to various degrees. Plus, opening the LP gatefold of Tres Hombres and seeing that huge 24X12" Tex-Mex spread is still one of the great experiences in album artwork. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analog scott
post Sep 11 2010, 00:19
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 26-July 09
Member No.: 71796



Such lists are tricky things. As has already been pointed out, there are many cases (most really) in which there are multiple masterings on vinyl and/or CD. Another issue is the hardware. The playback gear can be a substantial factor. It isn't just the source gear either although that is cirtical. The system as a whole, whatever it is, will be colored and some colorations may favor certain masterings. IOW the best mastering on one system may not be the best masteing on all systems. Then you have the problem of preferences not always being universal. Your favorite mastering of a given title may not be the same as mine. I think best masterings is a topic worthy of discussion but a definitive list will always be suspect. As has been noted, one can find extensive discussions on this topic at Stevehoffman.tv. What really does not belong in the discussion is silly attempts to turn any such discussion into an LP v. CD or analog v. digital debate. *If* an LP version of a given title turns out to be superior to any other version to any person's ears then it is the superior version for that person. Period. Trying to argue the limitations of any medium in the face of any given personal pereference is just an obnoxious, passive aggressive attemtp to discredit a person's preference. It's ego based B.S. and completely unconstructive.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 15 2010, 16:46
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 3374
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 11:22) *
Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analog scott
post Sep 15 2010, 17:46
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 26-July 09
Member No.: 71796



QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 15 2010, 16:46) *
QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 11:22) *
Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?


Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so. But it would be limited to LPs and CDs that were mastered exactly the same way in that the exact same signal was fed to the cutting lathe preamp as was the A/D converter....
If you want to start that list I'll give you your first entry.
1. James Boyk, Pictures at an Exhibition on Perfomance Recordings. It was offered as a comparison package. Now that entry does come with an asterix. It was better on my system using my TT rig and preamp and my CDP. Your results may vary.

But the topic of this thread is "LPs that actually do sound better, let's make a list." The difference is substantial and more importantly the goal of the OP in trying to create such a list is obviously quite different than what would be achieved by what you are proposing. IMO your proposal would lead to nothing more than a typical fruitless garden variety circle jerk pissing contest between CD advocates and vinyl advocates and would serve no purpose to those genuinely interested in better sound.

This post has been edited by analog scott: Sep 15 2010, 18:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 15 2010, 18:58
Post #10


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5062
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.


Problem is, to me, the question becomes "which CD releases are so compromised that the vinyl sounds better". That's not a reason to buy a turntable. That's a reason to buy a CD (so you've paid the artist), and then find a decent needle drop to listen to instead. There may be other ways of paying the artist.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 16 2010, 00:48
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 3374
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 12:46) *
QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 15 2010, 16:46) *
QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 11:22) *
Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?


Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so.

Sorry, I guess I was a little out of line.

I suppose one would have to admit that it is possible for some listeners to prefer the LP version of a piece over the otherwise identical CD version if the distortions introduced by the vinyl reproduction chain made for a more pleasing sound.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2tec
post Sep 16 2010, 02:06
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 296
Joined: 29-February 08
From: Alberta
Member No.: 51676



QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 15 2010, 17:48) *
I suppose one would have to admit that it is possible for some listeners to prefer the LP version of a piece over the otherwise identical CD version if the distortions introduced by the vinyl reproduction chain made for a more pleasing sound.

I find that despite the short-comings and the trouble it takes, I still listen to my LPs occasionally. It's almost exclusively music recorded earlier than the eighties for several reasons. One, I still have the LP. Two, it's not available as a CD, FLAC or mp3 or I haven't purchased it yet. Three, I personally feel more like I'm somehow "back there" when I listen to these recordings through my older tube based Quad ESL system. However, I suspect I've just grown particularly accustomed to, and fond of, this particular sound.

I have ripped some vinyl to digital, but I generally prefer to wait for the LP to be issued digitally as I find the quality higher than what I am able to produce.

It would be possible to list not only particular albums but even particular pressings using Discogs.


--------------------
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence~Potter Stewart
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 16 2010, 11:55
Post #13


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5062
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 18:58) *
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.
Found it!

http://www.beatledrops.com/index.html

These clips all seem to be under 30 seconds, so I believe are acceptable under HA TOS.

Cheers,
David.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Sep 16 2010, 15:10
Post #14


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 831
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 17:46) *
QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 15 2010, 16:46) *

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?

Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so.

I thought pdq was talking about albums that are not available on CD at all.

I'll start the ball rolling with a story. My wife had the vinyl of the Original Cast recording of Godspell. She then saw it on CD and bought it, only to be dismayed to find that the CD version was the Original *Los Angeles* cast, while her LP was the *London* cast (David Essex, Jeremy Irons, Julie Covington, et al). The CD had the same cover art as the LP, so I think she was entitled to assume it would be the same recording. We returned it and continue to use the needle-drop I made from her (rather battered) LP. As far as I'm aware, the Original London cast recording of Godspell still isn't available on CD.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Sep 16 2010, 17:13
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 2183
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (cliveb @ Sep 16 2010, 10:10) *
QUOTE (analog scott @ Sep 15 2010, 17:46) *
QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 15 2010, 16:46) *

How about a list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl?

Well if you want to start a new thread called "A list of records that sound better than the CD counterparts simply BECAUSE they are on vinyl" Feel free to do so.

I thought pdq was talking about albums that are not available on CD at all.

I'll start the ball rolling with a story. My wife had the vinyl of the Original Cast recording of Godspell. She then saw it on CD and bought it, only to be dismayed to find that the CD version was the Original *Los Angeles* cast, while her LP was the *London* cast (David Essex, Jeremy Irons, Julie Covington, et al). The CD had the same cover art as the LP, so I think she was entitled to assume it would be the same recording. We returned it and continue to use the needle-drop I made from her (rather battered) LP. As far as I'm aware, the Original London cast recording of Godspell still isn't available on CD.



Same story with the original LP release of 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat'.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Sep 16 2010, 17:18
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 2183
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 13:58) *
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.



To whom?


One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut. They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) . So it's not quite apples to apples (no pun intended).

This post has been edited by krabapple: Sep 16 2010, 17:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 16 2010, 17:34
Post #17


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5062
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (krabapple @ Sep 16 2010, 17:18) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 13:58) *
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.


To whom?
Me wink.gif I suppose I should ABX it - but the faults of vinyl are clearly audible on many of those samples, as well the advantages of a given release - so it's a little different to consider only the advantages in a blind test when the faults un-blind the testing.

QUOTE
One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut. They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) . So it's not quite apples to apples (no pun intended).
smile.gif Of course. I don't believe in voodoo. There are plenty of good real explanations for the differences, which are plainly audible (and IMO+E completely unchanged) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Sep 16 2010, 17:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 16 2010, 18:00
Post #18





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 16 2010, 09:34) *
There are plenty of good real explanations for the differences, which are plainly audible (and IMO+E completely unchanged) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16.

Ok, I'll bite.

What are the audible differences solely attributed to the 44.1/16 digitization of Beatles vinyl?


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 16 2010, 18:21
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 3374
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I thought he was saying that the clearly audible faults in the vinyl are still clearly audible when digitized to 44.1/16?

This post has been edited by db1989: Dec 2 2011, 12:39
Reason for edit: removing unnecessary full quote of above post
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 17 2010, 09:50
Post #20


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5062
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Yes, sorry if that was unclear - I was talking about audible changes between LP and commercial CD that are completely unchanged (IMO) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16. So vinyl vs commercial CD is (to my ears) the same as vinyl-copied-onto-CD vs commercial CD.

I can't hear a different between vinyl vs vinyl-copied-onto-CD.

There are obvious differences in sighted testing if all the equipment is visible in the same room as the listener (you can see the record spinning around and hear the sound of the needle in the groove without amplification) - but there's no change in the sound coming from the speakers that I can detect. I wouldn't say I've tested "properly", but I heard nothing in the tests that I carried out at home to make me want to test "properly".

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by db1989: Dec 2 2011, 12:39
Reason for edit: as above
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Sep 17 2010, 14:23
Post #21


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 831
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 17 2010, 09:50) *
I can't hear a different between vinyl vs vinyl-copied-onto-CD.

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

+1

My needle-drops use a Linn LP12/Lingo/Ittok/Karma, a Naim preamp, and an M-Audio AP2496 soundcard. Perhaps not "esoteric", but certainly "reasonably high-end". Recordings made at 16/44.1 and subsequently played through a pair of ATC SCM100A monitors are sonically indistinguishable from the original LPs.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Sep 17 2010, 14:55
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



Another +1 with the caveat that CD copies can sound better if clicks etc have been removed. My set up is not esoteric either. It's a mix of vintage, modern and homemade (Thorens TD124/Rega RB300/Denon DL304 into a homemade phono stage and a Terratech EWX 24/96 card)

As for LPs that actually sound better - I've not heard CD releases of "Crime Of The Century" (Supertramp), "Bridge Of Sighs" (Robin Trower) or "The Celts" (Enya) and one or two others that sound as good as my vinyl copies. However, as others have said or implied I don't think the vinyl is necessarily superior it's just that the CD masterings differ in some ways and so the end result is different to what I'm used to hearing.

This post has been edited by db1989: Dec 2 2011, 12:39
Reason for edit: removing unnecessary full quote of above post
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ramicio
post Dec 1 2011, 06:09
Post #23





Group: Banned
Posts: 147
Joined: 12-October 10
Member No.: 84568



One newer album I had on vinyl, Panic! At The Disco's "Pretty. Odd." was a completely different mix than the CD version, and I mean some songs used completely different instruments and vocals sounded like they weren't sung the same. I preferred the vinyl mix, and it was a very very good pressing. Then I ditched all my records because I was sick of dust and its noise, and I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole of spending tons of money for minimal returns.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
markanini
post Dec 1 2011, 06:19
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 550
Joined: 22-December 03
From: Malmö, Sweden
Member No.: 10615



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 15 2010, 18:58) *
You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.


Problem is, to me, the question becomes "which CD releases are so compromised that the vinyl sounds better". That's not a reason to buy a turntable. That's a reason to buy a CD (so you've paid the artist), and then find a decent needle drop to listen to instead. There may be other ways of paying the artist.

Cheers,
David.

Beatles remasters sound great but they forgot to include the real stereo mixes for some tracks which were only avalialbe in German pressings. Obviously they want to be in line with the UK releases even though better quality mixes were available. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by markanini: Dec 1 2011, 06:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seeking_Lossless
post Dec 1 2011, 09:36
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-May 09
Member No.: 69698



Lou Reed - Lulu already sounds great on CD. I guess the vinyl take the sound to another level.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th July 2014 - 02:26