CHIFI LOVE Thread-A never ending IEM-Heaphones-DAP-Dongles Sound Value Quest
Jan 20, 2018 at 8:34 PM Post #6,151 of 31,809
The total opposite was the case, when I first tried the KZ HDS3. What do you expect from a $5 earphone? And the mids were spot on - I could not believe it. I had also ordered a pair for a friend who likes neutral tuning. His reference were the Fostex TE-02. He was totally appalled by the KZ HDS3's "fun" bass. B9Scrambler rated the HDS1 higher in his KZ thread. So I got a hold of a blue pair and they are leaner sounding but also more difficult for me to find the proper seal - and they are harder to drive. Therefore, although the HDS1 may be the better earphones, the HDS3 work better for me.

I haven't received EDR2 yet. But so far i heard from a generous number of people, with trusted ears. that they are a hidden gem. "Neutral" is a hard and kinda fool term, but they seem to be more on the neutral side than the heavy V-shaped usual signature. Balanced, confortable listen etc. All of that in a iem that you can find for 3$.
I keep thinking, what a great oportunity kz has, of puttting a so Fine driver in a beloved - and original. Shell like ZS3 ? With a Better cable, It would be awesome. It makes me think that all of that V-shaped wave is a matter of choice, not limitations. If they could do that in a 3$ iem. What they could do in a more pricey iem with dynamic drivers, Double maybe, doesn't matter, in a amazing Shell ?

Don't get me wrong, actually i think that i am more appealed to a "Fun" signature. But we have been talking about from the sameness of kz and ba drivers. I think that is a matter o choice and marketing. Not limitations. Maybe a sound like tin audio T2 for example, could be find much more easier, and cheaper, If a Company like KZ wanted to do It. Its a matter of market. The guys want to give us a good Fun signature. I take It, and like It so much. But Just imagene what we could have for a tiny amount of money.

Just my 2 cents on what we discuss here from time to time.
 
Last edited:
Jan 20, 2018 at 8:51 PM Post #6,152 of 31,809
Here the frequency response curves for the HDS3 and EDR2...which will attract some comments questioning their validity.

In the meantime, I have also been listening to the HDS1 and just pulled out the newly arrived EDR1 (look like the EDR2 but sound a bit leaner in the bass department, very similar to the HDS1).

All of the four earphones mentioned are very competent, great fun and well worth it. They all don't sound a tad worse than the good old Soundmagic E10C at $50 (and Whathifi's eternal favs for many years). Stock up with these gems as long as they are still available (gearbest).

Here the real relevant read - thanks to our own B9Scrambler: https://goo.gl/ZLND33

Here a very competent review of the HDS3: http://headflux.de/knowledge-zenith-kz-hds3/
(I take it your Aleman is ok, if not, install the Google Translate plugin for the Chrome browser: installieren Sie jetzt!)


Review_ KZ EDR2 - AudioBudget-2.jpg
Review_ KZ HDS3 - AudioBudget.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jan 20, 2018 at 8:54 PM Post #6,153 of 31,809
While I agree with Monk+ - they are just 5$ earbud with nothing special about its sound...
Have You actually heard other VE offerings like VE Asura 2 for example (I have it btw) to call them overall subjectively "window-dressing company"?
VE Asura is very good in midrange and vocals department, especially when amped. BUT I can`t use them (or any earbud) because every movement of shells will change sound and getting good fit is almost impossible for me.

Interesting opposing opinion about T2. I suspected that to me they would sound also artificial and coloured in midrange. That is of course subjective speculation because I don`t own them.
But I take Your Stereo speakers vs.planar speakers as good informative point about T2 as I also search rather open/livery/airy presentation of midrange similar to speakers setup than "injected to Your brain & into headstage center" midrange.
This is purely subjective and personal preference, which, imo Otto doesn`t understand or respect well (no insult intended, just seems so based on his comments and bashing about ZS5v1 midrange "lacking").

Well, we are sort of talking about two different things. My comment about speakers has more to do with a coloration in the sound than instrument placement in the soundstage. If you look at the FR graphs for the TinAudio, you will see a bump right in the 500-800Hz range. Tuning A for symphony orchestras is 442-443 these days in North America. So, the bump is right where you don't want it. The effect is a coloration in the mids. An AWW sound. Syereophile calls it "cupped hands", "honky" or horn sound. It is relatively slight, but present. If you listen to a live acoustic instrument and then listen to a recording of it on the iems, you would get the idea. One of the main reasons why many planar / ribbon / electrostatic speakers sound so good in the mids has to do with driver speed in comparison to cone drivers. So, the mids tend to be pretty flat FR wise for good planar / electrostatic / ribbon speakers.

Now, as to your comment about soundstage, I agree with you. More space and air in the sound generally will mirror what you hear in a concert hall with un-miked instruments. At least with my ZS5's and ZS6's, I do not feel that they sound all that recessed. And to me, their sound is closer to real life than the Tin Audio. The strange thing is that Otto listens to a lot of classical music, and I believe he attends live performances as well. However, a lot of what he listens to appears to be chamber music or small ensembles, which can be recorded in a more intimate way. No disrespect intended, but some of his comments make me feel as if he expects the instruments to be 3 feet away. I suppose that should be my preference, as a lot of my listening experience comes from being in the orchestra, but I get to listen live from the audience enough as well. I suppose I should wear my iems backwards so the violins are on the right and cellos and basses on the left... :)

One other afterthought. I have been listening to a pair of ADV S2000's I picked up,which are also more forward sounding, and I actually do not object to them at all. They actually sound very good, but I still need to listen to more classical with them, as I have been using them for more rock and pop. But, they do not have the same hump that the Tin Audio has. Maybe different tips will help with that, but so far, no.
 
Last edited:
Jan 20, 2018 at 9:09 PM Post #6,154 of 31,809
I haven't received EDR2 yet. But so far i heard from a generous number of people, with trusted ears. that they are a hidden gem. "Neutral" is a hard and kinda fool term, but they seem to be more on the neutral side than the heavy V-shaped usual signature. Balanced, confortable listen etc. All of that in a iem that you can find for 3$. I keep thinking, what a great oportunity kz has of puttting a so Fine driver in a beloved - and original. Shell like ZS3 ? With a Better cable. It Would be awesome. It makes me think that all of that V-shaped wave is a matter of choice, not limitations. If they could do that in a 3$ iem. What they could do in a more pricey iem with dynamic drivers, Double maybe, doesn't matter in a amazing Shell ?
Don't get me wrong, actually i think that i am more appealed to a "Fun" signature. But we have been talking about from the sameness of kz and ba drivers. I think that is a matter o choice and marketing. Not limitations. Maybe a sound like tin audio T2 for example, could be find much more easier, and cheaper, If a Company like KZ wanted to do It. Its a matter of market. The guys want to give us a good Fun signature. I take It, and like It so much. But Just imagene what we could have for a tiny amount of money.

Just my 2 cents on what we discuss here from time to time.

Look, dynamic drivers are EXTREMELY cheap when bought in batches from factories. Same goes for every part of the earphone. The price difference between drivers going from bad to solid to very good is a couple of USD. It's what you do with them that matters and this requires time, money, educated people who have legit reasons to demand solid salaries - this brings the price up.
Sometimes what happens is pure luck (probably happened with EDR2) - random driver nicely matches the resonant frequencies of the shell and enough air is fed to the driver - although most of the time just picking a driver and shell ends up in a mess. The problem in what you are asking is demand, very few people want neutral sounding IEMs in the budget segment and boomy bassy mess is more 'impressive'. Another problem is KZ's business policy which is saturated market and not domination of budget segment for audiophiles.
 
Jan 20, 2018 at 9:33 PM Post #6,155 of 31,809
Look, dynamic drivers are EXTREMELY cheap when bought in batches from factories. Same goes for every part of the earphone. The price difference between drivers going from bad to solid to very good is a couple of USD. It's what you do with them that matters and this requires time, money, educated people who have legit reasons to demand solid salaries - this brings the price up.
Sometimes what happens is pure luck (probably happened with EDR2) - random driver nicely matches the resonant frequencies of the shell and enough air is fed to the driver - although most of the time just picking a driver and shell ends up in a mess. The problem in what you are asking is demand, very few people want neutral sounding IEMs in the budget segment and boomy bassy mess is more 'impressive'. Another problem is KZ's business policy which is saturated market and not domination of budget segment for audiophiles.

Your comment enlighten us for a important question, research and delevopment is indeed expensive. But we can't assure what KZ or other chi-fi relies on, precisely. Is it luck ? It's old techniches and trusted designes of major brands ? Hit or miss with prototypes ? - really cheap these days. I also do not think that's easy to do. But if it is to have a hunch, i think that they are capable of. They aren't a small Company. And think of grado. These guys are one of the most respected headphones brand for decades. Doing and developing earphones handmade in a Brooklyn building that looks like a family Business.

But you also saw the most important point for me. The question mostly are lack of demand, and KZ policy of marketing. That is... Impress average listener, Focus on modern Asian music, impress with datcable cables - that one is good. Impress with number of drivers, etc.
 
Jan 20, 2018 at 10:07 PM Post #6,156 of 31,809
I"m assuming that you have heard both soundmagic and HDS3. If so, i know you listened to EDR2 as well. Can you tell me If EDR2 are anywhere close to HDS3 ? They sound similar or are oriented differently ?

HDS3 beats out HDS2, in comfort and sound.

HDS2 had terrible stock tips, uncomfortable fit (due to enormous nozzle), and they really need more sub bass. I added some sub bass back by using KZ Starline tips, but then they hurt the ears due to the way the eartip needs to be stretched out to fit the nozzle.

HDS3 fits better, has better cable, wider soundstage, and better tuning. Although I believe the better sound of the HDS3 is due to being able to get a better seal.

The HDS3 is one of my favorite KZs for their easy to love fun signature, comfortable fit, and source friendly forgiveness.
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2018 at 5:30 AM Post #6,157 of 31,809
Well, we are sort of talking about two different things. My comment about speakers has more to do with a coloration in the sound than instrument placement in the soundstage. If you look at the FR graphs for the TinAudio, you will see a bump right in the 500-800Hz range. Tuning A for symphony orchestras is 442-443 these days in North America. So, the bump is right where you don't want it. The effect is a coloration in the mids. An AWW sound. Syereophile calls it "cupped hands", "honky" or horn sound. It is relatively slight, but present. If you listen to a live acoustic instrument and then listen to a recording of it on the iems, you would get the idea. One of the main reasons why many planar / ribbon / electrostatic speakers sound so good in the mids has to do with driver speed in comparison to cone drivers. So, the mids tend to be pretty flat FR wise for good planar / electrostatic / ribbon speakers.
Oh, misunderstood Your point then but thanks for explaining.
Now, as to your comment about soundstage, I agree with you. More space and air in the sound generally will mirror what you hear in a concert hall with un-miked instruments. At least with my ZS5's and ZS6's, I do not feel that they sound all that recessed. And to me, their sound is closer to real life than the Tin Audio. The strange thing is that Otto listens to a lot of classical music, and I believe he attends live performances as well. However, a lot of what he listens to appears to be chamber music or small ensembles, which can be recorded in a more intimate way. No disrespect intended, but some of his comments make me feel as if he expects the instruments to be 3 feet away.
That`s the thing, personal perspective, perception and preferences about sound.... and my preference is 70% on the side of live performances, 30% on "studio chamber/intimate space" recordings. But most music I listen to has very much audio "live" effects and layering/imaging "tricks" which kind of sound "wrong" with mid-boosted/coloured and foward sounding IEMs.
Check my profile music preferences to get an idea - most of them are greatly mastered recordings from well respected artists, not typical compressed pop-music.
One other afterthought. I have been listening to a pair of ADV S2000's I picked up,which are also more forward sounding, and I actually do not object to them at all. They actually sound very good, but I still need to listen to more classical with them, as I have been using them for more rock and pop. But, they do not have the same hump that the Tin Audio has. Maybe different tips will help with that, but so far, no.
I think at some point I will try these as they seem to be nice alternative signature for some of my music and so far from impressions/reviews more to my personal liking than T2.
 
Jan 21, 2018 at 1:11 PM Post #6,158 of 31,809
I've been thinking about this for a while, especially based on recent comments by members about reviews themselves, the music used, etc.

I think what would benefit the Head-Fi community greatly is a standardized selection of music (say 14-20 songs). This list can be used by ALL reviewers, to review everything from amps to headphones.

Songs from multiple genres, a male vocal, a female vocals, an orchestral, etc.

And NOT just a list of commercial songs like (The Beatles Let It Be, etc). Because some people may have the original while others the remastered, some would have a lossless while others would only have lossy. They would have to be either royalty-free (of which there's plenty of), original songs composed by HF members, or commercial songs that have been granted license to be used only for non-resale/non-broadcast equipment reviews only.

The advantage of this standardized list is that different people can read what a reviewer or member comment says and listen for the same thing (such as "the pluck of the guitar string blah blah" or "the instruments had good separation and I felt like I was a few feet in front of blah").

It is the best way to create a level and apples-to-apples comparison. If myself and @Nymphonomaniac are listening to the same exact version of a song (both flac etc) on the same IEM (with the same tips), the same source (say an iPhone 7 or xduoo X3), and he hears higher treble frequencies than me, then the reason must be due to his hearing (age, etc) or maybe QC variations. But the point is that when scientists are setting up experiments, as many variables are made constant and standard as possible so that the experiment can be as controlled as possible. This is already done, for example, via standardized measurement parameters for testing the frequency response of IEMs and headphone drivers.

This same basic idea has been brought up before, but from the context of when a reviewer lists what songs they used in their review, YOU get a hold of the same songs so you can hear what they heard. But again, the problem with this is that their copy of X may have been ripped from CD to flac, where I am listening to it on Spotify or YouTube (so it's not truly "the same song". Using my royalty-free music idea, and making all of the songs available for download directly from Head-Fi (as a zip file containing all songs in both flac and 320k MP3 for example) guarantees that I can listen to the same exact song a reviewer listened to in his review.

As far as where to find royalty-free music, here's plenty: https://www.google.com/search?q=royalty+free+music

We would just need to agree on a standardized list of songs that are able to showcase different areas of the frequencies, different features of sound (such as sibilance and soundstage), etc.

Ideas? Comments?
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2018 at 1:29 PM Post #6,159 of 31,809
I've been thinking about this for a while, especially based on recent comments by members about reviews themselves, the music used, etc.

I think what would benefit the Head-Fi community greatly is a standardized selection of music (say 14-20 songs). This list can be used by ALL reviewers, to review everything from amps to headphones.

Songs from multiple genres, a male vocal, a female vocals, an orchestral, etc.

And NOT just a list of commercial songs like (The Beatles Let It Be, etc). Because some people may have the original while others the remastered, some would have a lossless while others would only have lossy. They would have to be either royalty-free (of which there's plenty of), original songs composed by HF members, or commercial songs that have been granted license to be used only for non-resale/non-broadcast equipment reviews only.

The advantage of this standardized list is that different people can read what a reviewer or member comment says and listen for the same thing (such as "the pluck of the guitar string blah blah" or "the instruments had good separation and I felt like I was a few feet in front of blah").

It is the best way to create a level and apples-to-apples comparison. If myself and @Nymphonomaniac are listening to the same exact version of a song (both flac etc) on the same IEM (with the same tips), the same source (say an iPhone 7 or xduoo X3), and he hears higher treble frequencies than me, then the reason must be due to his hearing (age, etc) or maybe QC variations. But the point is that when scientists are setting up experiments, as many variables are made constant and standard as possible so that the experiment can be as controlled as possible. This is already done, for example, via standardized measurement parameters for testing the frequency response of IEMs and headphone drivers.

This same basic idea has been brought up before, but from the context of when a reviewer lists what songs they used in their review, YOU get a hold of the same songs so you can hear what they heard. But again, the problem with this is that their copy of X may have been ripped from CD to flac, where I am listening to it on Spotify or YouTube (so it's not truly "the same song". Using my royalty-free music idea, and making all of the songs available for download directly from Head-Fi (as a zip file containing all songs in both flac and 320k MP3 for example) guarantees that I can listen to the same exact song a reviewer listened to in his review.

As far as where to find royalty-free music, here's plenty: https://www.google.com/search?q=royalty+free+music

We would just need to agree on a standardized list of songs that are able to showcase different areas of the frequencies, different features of sound (such as sibilance and soundstage), etc.

Ideas? Comments?

I think that's a superb idea. :thumbsup:
 
Jan 21, 2018 at 1:33 PM Post #6,160 of 31,809
I've been thinking about this for a while, especially based on recent comments by members about reviews themselves, the music used, etc.

I think what would benefit the Head-Fi community greatly is a standardized selection of music (say 14-20 songs). This list can be used by ALL reviewers, to review everything from amps to headphones.

Songs from multiple genres, a male vocal, a female vocals, an orchestral, etc.
I have to say I like this idea. Even if I don't like the genre of a particular song, personally I hate my horse died music :smiling_imp:, but I could still listen to that particular song where the reviewer mentions how the twangy geetar sounds so good using some particular setup.

Said mostly tongue in cheek but honestly even for songs you don't find enjoyable you could still listen for the artifacts that the reviewer points out and see how you hear it and even if you don't have that particular setup you could then listen to your favorite setup and see if you can hear the instrumentation mentioned and how your setup plays the same thing and still be able to get a good idea of what the reviewer was commenting on.
 
Jan 21, 2018 at 1:42 PM Post #6,161 of 31,809
I've been thinking about this for a while, especially based on recent comments by members about reviews themselves, the music used, etc.

I think what would benefit the Head-Fi community greatly is a standardized selection of music (say 14-20 songs). This list can be used by ALL reviewers, to review everything from amps to headphones.

Songs from multiple genres, a male vocal, a female vocals, an orchestral, etc.

And NOT just a list of commercial songs like (The Beatles Let It Be, etc). Because some people may have the original while others the remastered, some would have a lossless while others would only have lossy. They would have to be either royalty-free (of which there's plenty of), original songs composed by HF members, or commercial songs that have been granted license to be used only for non-resale/non-broadcast equipment reviews only.

The advantage of this standardized list is that different people can read what a reviewer or member comment says and listen for the same thing (such as "the pluck of the guitar string blah blah" or "the instruments had good separation and I felt like I was a few feet in front of blah").

It is the best way to create a level and apples-to-apples comparison. If myself and @Nymphonomaniac are listening to the same exact version of a song (both flac etc) on the same IEM (with the same tips), the same source (say an iPhone 7 or xduoo X3), and he hears higher treble frequencies than me, then the reason must be due to his hearing (age, etc) or maybe QC variations. But the point is that when scientists are setting up experiments, as many variables are made constant and standard as possible so that the experiment can be as controlled as possible. This is already done, for example, via standardized measurement parameters for testing the frequency response of IEMs and headphone drivers.

This same basic idea has been brought up before, but from the context of when a reviewer lists what songs they used in their review, YOU get a hold of the same songs so you can hear what they heard. But again, the problem with this is that their copy of X may have been ripped from CD to flac, where I am listening to it on Spotify or YouTube (so it's not truly "the same song". Using my royalty-free music idea, and making all of the songs available for download directly from Head-Fi (as a zip file containing all songs in both flac and 320k MP3 for example) guarantees that I can listen to the same exact song a reviewer listened to in his review.

As far as where to find royalty-free music, here's plenty: https://www.google.com/search?q=royalty+free+music

We would just need to agree on a standardized list of songs that are able to showcase different areas of the frequencies, different features of sound (such as sibilance and soundstage), etc.

Ideas? Comments?

Standardization is always an awesome idea in general, the problem is that there are so many types of music that people listen to, we'd need hundreds of songs from all kinds of genres. Also, forcing a reviewer to listen to a specific song that they dislike over and over again for every review is just not possible. You still have an issue of different sources, fitting for IEMs/earbuds which can drastically change the peaks in higher frequencies and bass, third party tips, cable materials, god forbid someone used an EQ of some sorts.

In the end, you can only standardize objectively measured things and audio reviews are purely subjective. There is an interesting thing that Zeos from Z Reviews does with his sound demos - this introduces a bunch of audio-deteriorating steps along the way but you get an option to compare some headphones in a certain reference plane (although quite imperfect obviously). This just gets even harder for IEMs while I can't ever see this happening for earbuds.

The only thing that is certain is that this whole thing is a massive problem and one that requires a lot of mental exercise of collecting information from different sources and reading between the lines just to get a blurry idea of how something might sound. I suspect it will remain this way for years to come, but, in about 10 years (given the Chi-Fi revolution) we might get today's totl IEM in a 50$ package and then this conversation might become less important.
 
Jan 21, 2018 at 1:44 PM Post #6,162 of 31,809
I've been thinking about this for a while, especially based on recent comments by members about reviews themselves, the music used, etc.

I think what would benefit the Head-Fi community greatly is a standardized selection of music (say 14-20 songs). This list can be used by ALL reviewers, to review everything from amps to headphones.

Songs from multiple genres, a male vocal, a female vocals, an orchestral, etc.
A step towards consistency. I looked briefly into it but most "free" music is designed for video production and in the end not free at all.
 
Jan 21, 2018 at 1:50 PM Post #6,163 of 31,809
I have to say I like this idea. Even if I don't like the genre of a particular song, personally I hate my horse died music :smiling_imp:, but I could still listen to that particular song where the reviewer mentions how the twangy geetar sounds so good using some particular setup.

Said mostly tongue in cheek but honestly even for songs you don't find enjoyable you could still listen for the artifacts that the reviewer points out and see how you hear it and even if you don't have that particular setup you could then listen to your favorite setup and see if you can hear the instrumentation mentioned and how your setup plays the same thing and still be able to get a good idea of what the reviewer was commenting on.

Exactly. It's not about liking the song - it's about everyone listening to the same song.

This was mentioned by @Nymphonomaniac - that many/most reviewers ONLY listen to songs/genres that they like, and that may not truly paint the full picture of the stuff they're reviewing.

The other advantage of this standardized list is that once everyone is using the same songs more and more, we will all become extremely familiar with them - every breath, twang, cymbal crash, and guitar slide.

This is already universally recommended for reviewing in general; and many reviewers use the same songs because they "know" them and "know" how they are supposed to sound. The difference with my idea is that EVERYONE would have access to the same song. It would also make forum comments so much easier for others to follow (even new members who don't know all of the terms). For example, if I said "this IEM has a lot of treble roll off - you can really hear this on HF standardized track #9 at 2:24", in theory ANY of us could go and hear exactly what I'm referring to.
 
Jan 21, 2018 at 1:59 PM Post #6,164 of 31,809
Standardization is always an awesome idea in general, the problem is that there are so many types of music that people listen to, we'd need hundreds of songs from all kinds of genres. Also, forcing a reviewer to listen to a specific song that they dislike over and over again for every review is just not possible. You still have an issue of different sources, fitting for IEMs/earbuds which can drastically change the peaks in higher frequencies and bass, third party tips, cable materials, god forbid someone used an EQ of some sorts.

In the end, you can only standardize objectively measured things and audio reviews are purely subjective. There is an interesting thing that Zeos from Z Reviews does with his sound demos - this introduces a bunch of audio-deteriorating steps along the way but you get an option to compare some headphones in a certain reference plane (although quite imperfect obviously). This just gets even harder for IEMs while I can't ever see this happening for earbuds.

The only thing that is certain is that this whole thing is a massive problem and one that requires a lot of mental exercise of collecting information from different sources and reading between the lines just to get a blurry idea of how something might sound. I suspect it will remain this way for years to come, but, in about 10 years (given the Chi-Fi revolution) we might get today's totl IEM in a 50$ package and then this conversation might become less important.

Well, a lot of us (when testing gear) already listen to frequency sweeps, test tracks, and tons of tracks that are basically just beeps and boops. Do we enjoy listening to them? No, but we do it for the science of it.

I'm not saying "let's force everyone to listen to German death metal or Australian aboriginal didgeridoo music". But I don't think listening to a 30-second track of female vocals (whose express purpose is to test female vocals for reviews) is going to be some kind of torture. Obviously, no one will be forced to use the standardized tracks, and no one is saying the standardized tracks can't be used IN ADDITION TO your normal "my favorite music" test tracks - the point is that the standardized tracks will be available to all.

I mean, there's an industry standard IEM holder for producing frequency graphs for IEMs. But not everyone chooses to use it. It just makes it harder for people to trust the FR graphs when they were produced on the non-standardized equipment (and more reliable when comparing graphs that WERE). Make sense?

Are you proposing that NO standard is better than SOME standard?
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2018 at 2:01 PM Post #6,165 of 31,809
A step towards consistency. I looked briefly into it but most "free" music is designed for video production and in the end not free at all.

Well, I'm sure HF - the world's largest audio and music community - can come up with some original tracks that are truly royalty free.

I see people on the HF forums all the time that make their own music and share it to SoundCloud etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top