 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
95.223.228.197
Here comes the truth, nothing but the truth after more then a decade of marketing deception and self deception.
A must see:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-usb-filters-make-dacs-sound-better-video.20422/
Enjoy.
****************************************************
blog latest: *** The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP ***
Follow Ups:
I find the greatest variable in the sound quality of my gear correlatives rather directly to the amount of tension in my shoulders. This quantity can surely be measured, but, of course, it changes with my response to music. Still I believe in objective science. I will sign up for experiments that do not involve invasive electrodes in my shoulders or brain.
Several years ago I checked into the Asylum regularly. I'm not sure why I dropped out. It is comforting to find you guys are still arguing about the same things, and many of the old local stars are still here.
Since I like good SQ and am too impatient to do a lot of a-b comparisons, I have found a way to chose gear. If you or the guys on other forums agree that a component is bad, it is bad. If you agree that it is good, it is too expensive. If there is argument over the value of a piece, I figure that is where I will get the most bang for my buck, and randomly buy the first of these items that shows up on the used market. Thank you all. I may drop in more frequently.
The magazine reviews can't be trusted. The measurements can't be trusted. The geek tech circle jerking can't be trusted.
Let your ears be the judge and the only way to do this affordably is to buy and sell used. I buy new gear but I've also owned LOTS of used stuff that has come and gone from my system over the years. The benefit? I learn what I like w/o breaking the bank.
Nothing has changed in your absence. Welcome back!
I'm happy with the sound of my system(s) now. I listen most with old HD800 and an old Eximus DP1 with an ultraRendu. The variation in sound quality is much more the quality of the recordings than the difference between this and my other more elaborate system. I listen to a lot of jazz that is not well recorded.
I dont care much about the gear if it doesnt intrude on my listening.
don
I bought the AQ JitterBug because it was relatively cheap and mine came with a 60-day trial coupon for Roon. I tried the JitterBug then tossed it in a drawer. It did absolutely nothing. But I did benefit from the extended Roon trial ;-)
Edits: 02/18/21
I have one single ended DAC that benefits from the use of a USB ground loop filter. Hum/No Hum.
which filter?
DIY USB Y-cable to separate the data lines from the power lines.Power supplied by a USB phone changer, data supplied by the PC.
There is probably a better way to do it.
Edits: 02/17/21 02/17/21
- Some DACs are entirely powered by USB drawing several hundred mA. Providing a separate 'clean' +5VDC may be beneficial.- Some DAC USB receivers are powered by USB drawing significantly less power over USB.
- Some DAC USB receivers require USB power only to enable the DAC drawing a just a few mA.
- Some DACs require no USB power at all. In these DACs the USB receiver is powered by their own internal power supply as was the case with my Ayre QB9-DSD DAC.
As such, some USB DACs may benefit from spitting out the USB +5VDC with a Y-cable while others will see no benefit at all. To test whether the DAC requires +5VDC on USB at all, you can block the +5VDC pin on the USB-A connector on one end of the USB cable as I did.
Edits: 02/18/21 02/18/21
Unfortunately, blocking the +5v doesn't get rid of the ground loop.It also has the side effect of making the DAC not function, especially when the user's manual clearly states it is powered via USB and has no other power input ports or battery packs. On second thought, it does get rid of the hum (and all other sounds). =)
Edits: 02/18/21
"Unfortunately, blocking the +5v doesn't get rid of the ground loop."
I think many people are using isolated 5V supplies, to simulate a host side connection, after cutting the power lines.
But unless the data lines are also isolated, the ground loop with the pc, through the usb cable, hasn't been eliminated by using an isolated 5V supply like that.
Perhaps if Amir wanted to do a video lessons on the type of equipment arrangements more or less likely to increase the strength of unwanted humming signals and other EMI, especially as it pertains to how people want to hook the gear up, even if he didn't have explanations for all his findings, at least there is something to talk about. I can understand the hesitancy to declare positive results without lab grade power for his equipment, etc. but I'm betting he'd probably help shed a little bit of light on the dark art of hooking stuff up correctly, for some people anyway.
I didn't suggest blocking +5v for getting rid of a ground loop. Was only suggesting that not all DACs even require the +5v, and an easy way to test it.I've never owned a DAC that created a ground loop as most modern DACs incorporate galvanic isolation over USB.
Edits: 02/18/21
I see. I am not saying I know what the answer is, but I thought Amirs comment about $0.03 cents worth of components to stop this problem which would presumably be very measurable was pretty funny and it made me laugh...ie detecting the presence or absence of hum signal.
Here comes the truth, nothing but the truth after more then a decade of marketing deception and self deception.
That's what Crown said in 1969 with their IC-150 preamp - arguably the worst sounding POS ever. But it did measure great!
What Amir should be using is his ears. I couldn't care less how much his measurement gear costs!
Do you know of a more comprehensive set of measurements for it? This was the best I saw in a quick search. Maybe you should send yours into Amir.
The measurements look OK. I wonder how that missing IMD graph looks.
someone who has any interest in that POS. Much less communicate with Amir.
I purchased a D150 amp when I was 17 and the dealer demonstrated how poor it sounded by comparing it with an H-K Citation 11. It didn't take long to agree. I bought the Citation. As a dealer, he was required to show the preamp but hated it. His experience was not alone. Here is the story of another dealer who found it dreadful:
The combo was so bad sounding...
Rockwell must be deaf - " It offered an unheard of level transparency due to its ultra-low noise levels. "
Why waste all that time measuring what is clearly horrible?
"Why waste all that time measuring what is clearly horrible?"Try and figure out what is wrong and fix it? Edit: maybe Amirs testing shows something others didn't see.
Edits: 02/17/21
The product died decades ago. ;)
and if a moon-crystal fuse can fix it. ;)
Amen. I sampled a couple of the dacs that he rates so highly and he is wrong.
Or maybe "Do USB filters make printers produce more vibrant colors?" because that's about the best use case for USB, that and hanging hard drives off your computer.JMNSHO regarding USB.
Not sure I'd believe anything Amir says about how anything 'sounds' as he's mostly a measurement guy.
He does have quite a following as he claims various $250 DACs measure better that some multi thousand $$$ DACs, which may well be true depending on what one measures.
Edits: 02/17/21 02/17/21
Look.
He is using a $28000 Audio Precision APx555 for his tests.
If I'm not mistaken there's nothing better out there to run standard
"Audio" tests.
If you follow the ASR forum and some of the reviews you'll find the measurements to be extremely consistent to other peoples measurements using the same APx555 and the same equipment.
Several of the Chinese brands like Gustard start verifying their designs with such an APx555. They simply can't afford to look bad. It's a pretty tough competition out there. It's basically a saturated market. That IMO explains why during recent times, we see those excellent performances on low cost equipment. Amir doesn't "claim" anything when it comes to comparing devices by measurements, he measures the devices and compares the measurements. And if a $250 device measures better then a 3k device, it'd be a hard fact and not a claim to me.
The problems start with adding his "opinions" or "recommendations" and seriously believing he runs a "scientific" approach.
If you're a real "scientist" you simply can't ignore empirical evidence. Meaning. If 10000 and more people did and do experience improvements/changes when using these filters, you can't call them psychos, because the way you approach the subject won't support it.
As a scientist you'd try to find out the "WHY". And that's when it starts to get complicated. And that's why he is not a scientist. He ignores it. Therefore to me he's simply a tecchie who hooks up devices to his measurement gear.
A quick look at the "USB filter Debunking" exercise.
He starts his whole approach with a huge flaw.
He's not looking at the actual filter performance itself. Not at all.
He keeps measuring his DACs. Because he simply has not the capabilities to measure these filters properly. Based on that he simply can't judge
or rate these filters.
What he could do though, he could tell us that if the DAC output won't show any impact (filter in/out), even though the filter would reduce noise by let say 30dB, then this DAC would do a great job suppressing incoming upstream noise. It'd speak for the DAC and not against the filter first of all. Because the filter would probably do a 5* job. Reducing the noise by about e.g. 30dB if that's been promised by the manufacturer.
Anyhow.
It's IMO good to get all these measurements. "WHY" do so many people hear and enjoy a difference need to be explained differently then.
Perhaps some more knowledgeable folks see the flaw.
Yep. Fellow "psychos". Calling us psychos would be the easiest answer to all open questions. It's all imagination and wishful thinking. Perhaps it really is.
Anyhow. I've always been wishing for DACs that do no show any impact
by changing any parameter on the upstream EQ. Meaning. No matter
what transport or interface you're using, we can expect the same result.
If we'd have arrived at that point now, a huge gadget market will have a problem and we'd just buy a 250$ DAC, hook it up to any streamer, and are happy for the rest of our lives.
Enjoy.
PA: Would be nice to see what the manufacturers have to say about it.
Not sure of any of them still sneaks by from time to time.
****************************************************
blog latest: *** The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP ***
They measured the wrong things.
"They" ???
"wrong things" ???
Sorry. I can't follow.
If you talk ASR.
I do not think that Amir measured the wrong things. And I do not think
his measurements are wrong either.
But if you just measure 80% of what's possible and declare it 100%, that's not OK. The question is what are the 20%, is it 20%?
I don't think it's the eye pattern that's saving the day.
****************************************************
blog latest: *** The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP ***
Good post. I agree. When Amir is good, such as with most of his DAC measurements, he is great. Especially as he has trended toward a set of standard tests he runs that can be directly compared to other reviews he's done.
Reading his tests can also be very frustrating in other regards, such as his phono preamp measuring. You may as well throw that data out the window. He believes a 50 ohm resistive short SINAD test paints the broader picture and that means high current noise designs, such as the Cambridge that sits at the top of his winners pile for the rest of time, gets unrealistic scores you could never reproduce in the real world with a real world cartridge and are falsely hailed as being something greater than their real world performance merits.
Not sure I'd believe anything Amir says about how anything 'sounds' as he's mostly a measurement guy.
And that's on a good day. For a bad day, see e.g. his "review" of a Cíunas Audio DAC:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ci%C3%BAnas-dac-usb-dac-review.9788/
IMHO, he verges there on the charlatan. If folk can't see what's wrong (not to say malicious) with the review, I doubt I can help them.
D
He virtually never comments on the sound of electronics though he often comments on speakers and headphones.Like any reviewer, Amir has is own opinion that we can accept or reject. I trust his measurements but not always his interpretation of measurements. If there is a quibble about his measurements it is that he doesn't show a consistent set of measurements but picks & chooses what he reports.
Amir is certainly of the hard-core objectivist school and does believe that measurements tell all. However he isn't the arrogant, condescending, contemptuous sort that so many are at his site -- best not to go there talking about how components sound: you will be rudely blown off.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 02/18/21
I read the review at the link - seems the Ciunas DAC does not measure as well as many other DACS. Amir listened by comparing it to a reference DAc (that measures significantly better) and did not find significant differences. Maybe this means Amir is not a discerning listener or maybe measured performance beyond a certain minimum level doesn't make a difference to sound quality. So, if you bought one and like the sound be happy. If you bought one because the manufacturer promised great objective performance then you might not be happy.
13DoW
shows that the measurements are useless in assessing SQ.
:)
If he measures changes in the eye pattern that relate to transition points, notes overshoots and jagged ramp ups, he would be showing up factors that affect SQ.
Measuring minute changes in distortion and distortion patterns just give numbers that do not reflect SQ - we know this from years of measurements of digital and analogue equipment.
"we know this from years of measurements of digital and analogue equipment"Who is we? If this would be a hard and reliable fact we wouldn't have these discussions over and over again.
Is there any evidence supporting your position?
Any papers, tools, specifications - real world tests or examples?I am not challenging you - this is no attack! I'd seriously like to see where all this written to get it all sorted. And I think that we are on the same page in believing that these standard audio measurements won't get us the full picture.
But. To be able to cope with these wanna-be-scientists, we need to get some meat on the bones.
****************************************************
blog latest: *** The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP ***
Edits: 02/18/21
We are those people who are genuinely interested in high quality audio and who use computers as one means of playing music only. The evidence that the eye pattern affects audio quality is in the literature and often shown in HiFiNews reviews of products. I have heard clearly differences caused by changes in the eye pattern due to power supply, impedance matching and cable changes. The evidence that testing along the lines of ASR does not reflect audio quality is reflected simply by ASR's own inability to tell the difference between a 'poor' measured product as opposed to a 'good' one. The evidence is also supported at least fifty years of published info on audio system measurements that low level harmonic contents are neither here or there by way of audio sensual perception (this is actually part of the science of acoustics). For information, I used to head an advanced environmental acoustics laboratory.
The plots shown in the ASR review of usb regenerators are only valid if the testing and listening systems are set up correctly in terms of its own ground terminations and impedance matching. The power supply to the usb regenrator is also important and if a switching supply is used, the low order harmonics depicted may or may not be there.
Someone needs to test the ASR tests.
It is one thing to look at an eye pattern.
You could as well measure the noise at the DAC input. We've seen that these USB filters do what they are supposed to do.
We havn't clearly seen a correlation of changes on the input vs. changes on the output.
If @DAC-out you find femto seconds jitter level and noise beyond -120dB,
irrelevant THD, what else are we looking for?
* ground loops
* EMC/EMI/RFI
* impedance issues
* power issues
What I am saying, what happens on the digital upstream side is basically irrelevant if no bits are changed or lost.
I can remember we had these eye pattern discussions a long time ago.
A lot has changed on the DAC side.
Designers focus much more on the input nowadays I guess. The new XMOS versions are much better. Asf. Asf.
Bottom line. I do not consider this eye pattern thing a convincing argument.
****************************************************
blog latest: *** The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP ***
Have you, can you, measure the eye pattern before and after?
If not, how can you be 'scientifically' so certain. Science, in terms of human responses, is an observational activity.
The ASR measurements on which ever side do not correlate with human response, as is shown clearly in their own admissions on many products they tested.
Let's test the self proclaimed 'science' testers.
To be able to cope with these wanna-be-scientists, we need to get some meat on the bones
Very true but ASR's review of a Cíunas Audio DAC suggests that the site's owner and supporters are, to put it politely, strangers to rational let alone polite discussion. OK, John Kenny wasn't John Kenny's best friend but, in his defence, he didn't start the "dialogue" and his questions went unanswered.
However, I'd argue that the issue goes deeper than mere boorishness. I'd argue that the "objectivist" school relies, with honourable exceptions, on the assumption that there is a more or less close correlation between what its members can or choose to measure and how people perceive, especially when listening to music. IOW, measuring the performance of a device in an audio chain is, give or take, a reliable proxy for some aspects at least of human perception.
Even a passing knowledge of psychology tells you that it isn't except, perhaps, at the very lowest level. fmak expressed it well: "The ASR measurements on which ever side do not correlate with human response". Exactly. Until that point is grasped, confusion will persist.
The same goes for other basic points such as that eternally citing "expectation bias" (typically without trying to eliminate one's own) is not a valid dismissal of contradictory evidence. It's childish.
Consider e.g. Total Harmonic distortion (THD). It is rare to see an amplifier spec that doesn't cite vanishingly low figures for THD even though most folk nowadays agree that they tell you little about how a given amplifier sounds. It's about as relevant as how square the case is. I'm sure we agree that, if Amir measures the DUT's case to within an Angstrom or two, he's wasting his time.
In refreshing contrast to cod-science 'objectivism', see e.g. a piece by Nelson Pass at: https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/audio-distortion-and-feedback/
or look for the late Cyril Bateman's paper "Cables, Amplifiers and Speaker interactions. part 1". (I never did find part 2.)
what happens on the digital upstream side is basically irrelevant if no bits are changed or lost
If that were true, we'd probably not be having this discussion. IME, server-side noise can and does degrade the performance of downstream devices no matter how much costly fuss one makes over the link between the two. Despite my LAN link outperforming the justly regarded EtherREGEN (I returned mine, disappointed), I can e.g. still obtain sigficant SQ improvements simply by changing the power cables on the server's HDDs to a DIY design "influenced by" a Shunyata product. (If I could afford the real deal, I'd buy it in a trice.)
[Allow me to stress that my home-brew LAN solution costs more than the ER, takes up a lot more space and is cumbersome in use - the ER is a fine product.]
Dave
"in terms of human responses, is an observational activity."
Look I covered that with my "empirical evidence" argument earlier.
I am pretty sure you can measure what we hear. Your "observational activity", would be a trigger to dig into it.
Nobody is interested to do it though. Even for the manufacturers it ends at "don't do more then the others".
****************************************************
blog latest: *** The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP ***
Not true. Listening panels by proper review magazines have gone on for a long time.
*Theoretically* we should be able to correlate subjective impressions of audio electronics with measurements. But we can't do it now. And it's not a topic of research interest because there's not enough market to be gained by knowing the answer.
Amir's measurements are only useful if/when they reveal obvious engineering flaws. In the case of DACs, that's pretty rare. Why rank DACs by SINAD when the SINAD results for almost all devices is below audibility? That's not going to tell you anything about how they sound. It's also not scientific.
and if you like the trick, he's your pony.What I notice is that there are a lot of folks posting links to his reviews who seem to me to be looking for some sort of justification/validation to support their audio equipment choices.
Can't remember ever posting a review of something I had already bought in order to justify my decision.
I have posted reviews of gear I am CONSIDERING purchase of mostly to perhaps be directed to additional information.
Edits: 02/17/21
He attracts a herd.
His herd seems to have grown in the pandemic. I think a lot of people just don't want to put the effort into exploring and listening to what's out there, but that's especially true in COVID times when most of us lean toward ordering something online if we can.
The herd wants a simple way to buy. They want an audio reviewer who will slap a winner label on something so they can just go buy that. That's why they hate the traditional subjective reviewers because everything they write about is a different shade of good and the answer to "which is better" is always "it depends". The herd especially like Amir because he rank orders products by a single number, which makes things nice and easy. It doesn't matter whether the number is meaningless, it's something they can point to and defend their decision.
And to be fair, the herd mentality is not limited to objectivists. Harry Pearson had a herd too.
Amir also attracts the bargain shoppers. I don't mean people who have a small budget. I mean people who value finding a bargain or getting a deal as much or more than the enjoyment of the actual product. Because SINAD correlates with price as poorly as it correlates with sound quality, it's like music to their ears. :)
Anyway, that's my theory on why he's gotten so popular.
I couldn't agree more Dave_K!
If measurements were THE deciding factor, how many of us would be on this website and viewing this forum? It wouldn't be needed. We would be creating spreadsheets infused with dollar amounts and measurement columns and equipment rows. Sorting would be done for the best at the cheapest price - over and out, easy peasy and as Dave_K said it's: "an easy way to buy".
Countless hours of critically listening effort and learning our personal reproduction preferences could be circumvented. Having the best because it measured the best, would quash the need for any of those pesky listening efforts; which would remove purchasing-doubts and contentions. There would be no buyer's remorse, no second guessing and in fact there would no need to even listen. Viewing and savoring our component's measurements would be sufficiently satisfyingly!
Historically, measurements have been published since HiFi became HiFi. They tell us something about a component. But over my decades in this hobby, I could have cared less about measurements when purchasing. And until folks with an on-line presence like Amir began ranking equipment, buying decisions based purely on this spec, or that spec, rarely existed.
For that matter, I have never actually found myself listening to measurements. Measurements don't correlate with the reasons why I've sought the best reproduction to my ears and for my money. Measurement ranking excludes my very reason for seeking out this hobby - my sheer enjoyment of the emotional impact and satisfaction of listening to music!!
Bypassing the question of whether the bench testers and their equipment can be trusted (especially if a fractional minus here, or there, puts a component 3rd. or 5th on a spreadsheet) what measurements capture the playback each of us prefers? When auditioning a component, it would be rare for any two of us to identically prefer the same playback. It would be more unusual than not, for any two of us to value the exact same things sonically.
Attempting to take a purely subject activity and lump it into an objective shoot-out is an antithetical exercise. Measurements can't be trusted to capture all the subtleties many of us have learned to value. Once one gets beyond a certain point, the sounds are equal to, or less than the importance of the you-are-there illusion -- i.e. the instrument(s) is in my room illusion. My goal for years now has been to suspend belief. The better that's done, the better I like it. Until measurements provide a correlation between my perception of soundstage and imagining -- my you-are-there illusion -- I will stick with subjectivity (verses Amir's, or anyone else's measurements), just as I will stick with my reason for being an avowed music listener -- my subjective enjoyment!!
-Mike
So, your method is to buy every DAC on the Market and try them all, and then pick the one that sounds best to you?
I rarely buy anything new that I haven't auditioned. And I've never been a DAC of the month guy. Most DACs that use brick wall digital filters and op-amp output stages sound pretty much alike to me, and not that great. I think it would be silly to waste my time trying one cheap DAC after another, all using the same basic design, hoping one will be a giant slayer. I got on that merry-go-round during the heyday of hi-res disc players, and never found a giant slayer. I don't think they exist in audio except maybe cables.
I do have some preferences. I don't like NOS. I'm not a big fan of very slow roll-off filters either, like Ayre uses. I'm not a fan of the ESS Sabre or TI/Burr-Brown delta-sigma chips. I'm fine with Cirrus, AKM, and Wolfson. I have very fond memories of CD players that used the Burr-Brown PCM 1704 chip, which was the last integrated part on the market using a R-R ladder architecture, not delta-sigma. Unfortunately, they've been out of production for a long time now. I've never tried discrete R-R because I think it's nearly impossible to execute well for technical reasons. For one thing, you can't buy discrete resistors with tight enough tolerances.
I also have audio manufacturer preferences. The best digital component I've ever heard was probably the Berkeley Alpha DAC. And the Meitner stuff was awesome for SACD playback. Both were out of my price range though. Simaudio makes good digital in my price range. Marantz is really nice with lower quality recordings, or when you just want to let the music wash over you, but the top end is a little soft and I miss some transparency when listening to good recordings. Other than Marantz, I haven't heard any digital I liked from Japan, but I haven't tried everything.
If you check my system profile, you'll see that my current digital source is a Linn Akurate DSM. I like Linn sources, but not so much their amplification and speakers. My Akurate sounds very clean and direct, neither forward or laid back, with plenty of detail but no edge or etch to anything. It gives me all the audiophile wants but there isn't any aspect of its presentation that stands out. It's expensive, but reason I paid the high price was to eliminate the need for a preamp. For digital playback, the volume control is part of a 32-bit custom DSP before the DAC. The output stage is discrete, with three selectable output levels for system gain matching. The latter point seems to be critical to making a digital volume control that sounds good. The Akurate also has conventional analog preamp functionality with a separate volume control that I use only occasionally, but wouldn't want to be without.
IMHO, almost all preamps (and their associated cabling) affect the sound more than they should, and the ones that don't are too expensive. I had experimented with taking the preamp out of my system before and using digital volume control, with a couple of different sources, and the transparency and dynamics of my system went WAY up. But when using DVC alone, you're taking all of the amplifier gain out via digital attenuation, and that much digital attenuation seems to introduce etch/glare. I've also tried a minimalist passive pre-amp and that boosted transparency as well, but reduced dynamics.
But anyway, enough about how I choose components. Why would you take recommendations from some guru who doesn't listen to the stuff he tests, and bases his recommendations on a number that doesn't mean anything. I don't see any logic in that approach.
And I only buy a DAC today that has a return Privilege. Then I'll do the listening in my system. If it doesn't sound noticeably better to me, then it goes back to the seller.I certainly would not trust a reviewer in some Audio Rag or Blog on their 'Listening Skills' (i.e. - Bias to Advertising Revenue). And I am not about to try that many DACs.
So, ASR serves a purpose for me. I don't need any of their 'Subjective Listening Opinions'. BTW - I don't agree that it is a 'Meaningless Number'.
Edits: 02/20/21 02/20/21
Even a "bad" DAC by ASR standards has THD+N well below the scientifically accepted (e.g. by JAES) threshold of audibility. More importantly, you're using valve line stages and amplifiers with THD+N far above even the worst DAC. You think you can hear 3rd harmonic at -85 dB from a "bad" DAC when your triodes are producing it at -60 to -70 dB and your loudspeakers maybe -50 dB?
I guess you missed the part where I do the listening to the DAC.The reason to measure SINAD is to detect engineering excellence as a general measure.
Edits: 02/21/21
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
