boojum Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Gurus, geniuses, supergeeks, wizards, sound freaks and the rest of you, I am thinking about getting a new mic or mics to use with my sweet li'l RH1. What is out there in the all-round category for stereo recording? Let's say in the $300-$500 range. Needs to be easily portable but not stealth. I have mics for that. Any experience in this will help me a lot. I will not be buying these right away, but in the not too distant future.Thanks, all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan P Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Do you want single point or two separate mics? Two mics are porable but setup is harder. Gurus, geniuses, supergeeks, wizards, sound freaks and the rest of you, I am thinking about getting a new mic or mics to use with my sweet li'l RH1. What is out there in the all-round category for stereo recording? Let's say in the $300-$500 range. Needs to be easily portable but not stealth. I have mics for that. Any experience in this will help me a lot. I will not be buying these right away, but in the not too distant future.Thanks, all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojum Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 I have read single-point gives greater ambience. Two mics are OK, too. I can go either way. As I already have a single-point, I suppose a great pair of Neumanns would be good, but way out of my price range. I think the cheapest pair is ~$900. I suppose once I have the correct angle on two mics it is just placement as it is with single-point. Have I missed something enormous?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan P Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 I haven't heard that about single points, mostly I've heard that single points are less versatile (can't go from a spaced pair to a Jecklin disk setup etc.), but there is one thing to consider, and that is if you are going with duals, your need for a phantom power supply goes up, as most small condenser single point mics require it.I have read single-point gives greater ambience. Two mics are OK, too. I can go either way. As I already have a single-point, I suppose a great pair of Neumanns would be good, but way out of my price range. I think the cheapest pair is ~$900. I suppose once I have the correct angle on two mics it is just placement as it is with single-point. Have I missed something enormous?? If you're not against spending a little extra, I've heard that these here:http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mi...e27e/index.htmlare great little mics to use in a stereo pair. The 3032 is a omni, the 3031 is cardioid, it just depends on what types of stereo recording setups you're looking to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojum Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Thanks! The AT3031 (cardioid) comes in at US$300 and up for the pair. Not bad. Let me see what I can find for folks who are using them and their experience. Have you used them or are you familiar with them?? Edited February 10, 2007 by boojum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A440 Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Single points give less ambience. Mics you can separate like your ears give you a much richer stereo illusion because of the subtle differences between what they pick up--differences that are decoded by your ears. Single point mics sound closer to mono. Audio-technicas have an excellent reputation. My best mics at the moment are probably Sound Professionals CMC-8's with Audio-Technica omni capsules--I say probably because I got them on Ebay and there's no identification on them, but they do have removable capsules. They are very low noise and have a fuller tone than others I use. http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-CMC-8 The mics in the other link, AT 3031 and AT 3032, are each mono mics, so you would have to buy two and find the right connector to make them a stereo pair. They're also five inches long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Isn't the deal with binaural type setups that they produce a stereo image that more closely resembles what you would hear if you were at the site of the recording A440? That's what I've always understood. It used to be said that you really only get the full effect of binaurals if you listen through headphones but more people use them with speaker setups now. Binaurals can be great if you have a good setup. The only hassle with them is getting a good mount that won't be hard to deal with especially if you're doing stealth recording.I think I get good stereo imaging with the single point stereo mics that I own. The Sony ECM-MS907 does an excellent job with imaging IMO. That's probably due to the M/S design they employ (same design as the ECM-MS957). But my XY style Nady mic seems to do ok in the imaging department too. Both of these mics are much cheaper than the $300-$500 listed price though. You can certainly get better mics than either of the two I own.Rode NT3's and NT5's are good mic setups for separates in the range you list boojum. At least a lot of people say they are. I haven't owned a set of either myself. Edited February 10, 2007 by King Ghidora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojum Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Single points give less ambience. Mics you can separate like your ears give you a much richer stereo illusion because of the subtle differences between what they pick up--differences that are decoded by your ears. Single point mics sound closer to mono. Audio-technicas have an excellent reputation. My best mics at the moment are probably Sound Professionals CMC-8's with Audio-Technica omni capsules--I say probably because I got them on Ebay and there's no identification on them, but they do have removable capsules. They are very low noise and have a fuller tone than others I use. http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-CMC-8 The mics in the other link, AT 3031 and AT 3032, are each mono mics, so you would have to buy two and find the right connector to make them a stereo pair. They're also five inches long.You're putting me on, right? They look like drop earings! OK, just joking. They would be way cool with the RH1 as they are so small. I like small as it packs so much easier. The kit at SP is the whole smash short of the power supply. I would guess getting the one for highest sound pressuire would be good as it would work just fine with low sound pressure, too. Have you used these long? Do you have a sample you think shows them to their best. I would think a string quartet, small jazz group with a vocalist would be good for the smaller end of the scale. Leonard Skynard would do for the loud end, I guess. Help me out here. ;o)Whatever else you can help with for advice would be great. Thanks. Isn't the deal with binaural type setups that they produce a stereo image that more closely resembles what you would hear if you were at the site of the recording A440? That's what I've always understood. It used to be said that you really only get the full effect of binaurals if you listen through headphones but more people use them with speaker setups now. Binaurals can be great if you have a good setup. The only hassle with them is getting a good mount that won't be hard to deal with especially if you're doing stealth recording.I think I get good stereo imaging with the single point stereo mics that I own. The Sony ECM-MS907 does an excellent job with imaging IMO. That's probably due to the M/S design they employ (same design as the ECM-MS957). But my XY style Nady mic seems to do ok in the imaging department too. Both of these mics are much cheaper than the $300-$500 listed price though. You can certainly get better mics than either of the two I own.Rode NT3's and NT5's are good mic setups for separates in the range you list boojum. At least a lot of people say they are. I haven't owned a set of either myself.Thanks, I will do a search and see what is written about them. Edited February 10, 2007 by boojum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A440 Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Isn't the deal with binaural type setups that they produce a stereo image that more closely resembles what you would hear if you were at the site of the recording A440?That's pretty much the definition of ambience....As I understand it, in-ear mics separated by your head are best reproduced by headphones, straight stereo recording (which is what I do--omni mics clipped to my shirt collar) is OK with speakers. I do most of my listening with headphones anyway. Even the M/S design gives you some distance between the mics, which is optimized by having two different pickups at the single point. So that must help the stereo imaging, and the M/S also gives you the option of having true mono if you need it. Still, Boojum had the idea that single points give more ambience, and I don't think that's right. Like King Ghidora, I have also read some very enthusiastic things about Rode mics. Boojum, if you really want to get geeky a good place to start is here:http://www.dpamicrophones.com/and click the Microphone University tab. A good source for high-end mics and tech information is http://www.oade.com , though it'll drive you crazy trying to find a price on the website. This stuff is out of my price range, so I can't offer any personal testimonials. Also, check out this guy, who records ambient sounds using minidisc:http://www.quietamerican.org/links_diy-mics.htmlHe's very enthusiastic about these mics: http://www.sonicstudios.com/ . So I assume the Sonic Studios guy is better at mic design than he is at webpage design. As the quiet american points out, the best thing to do is consider how you expect to be using the mics most often. I'm always slipping mics into concerts where they are not, ah, welcome, so for me even the CMC-8's are often too big. I do most of my recording with the eraser-sized BMC-2. My recordings with them are in my album in the Gallery--including some live jazz, hard rock and a church choir. At Bonnaroo or other jam-band events you can see the tapers with their shock-mounted pairs of $1000 Schoeps mics in the perfect X-Y configuration, or whatever, but I really think that's overkill. It's a live show. People are going to be talking and yelling, the PA from the stage is just as likely to be a mono mix as to be stereo, and you're just not getting recording-studio sound. A stereo pair and a battery module are all I ever expect to need. I'll have that Lynyrd Skynyrd recording for you just as soon as I can resurrect Ronnie Van Zant. Edited February 10, 2007 by A440 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojum Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 A440 -Thanks for all the info. I just sent a note to Aaron at quietamerican. I sent him a binaural recording four or so years back and may start doing binaural again.I will be checking the links you posted. I would have attached an MP3 to the e-mail I sent you but could not figure out how to. LibArts major; what do you expect?? ;o)I will post it here so you will know who I am taping tomorrow. And so will the other folks here.Cheers 1_Robbin__Banks.mp3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan P Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 We use the 3031s at church for choirs and such that aren't in the designated choir area with the suspended mics. I love their sound. We actually had a little mishap today because the kids that were doing the song stood in the wrong place (The adult in charge told me where they would be, then they stood somewhere else , of course, the mics were turned up too loud to try and pick them up, and they fed back, and of course, it isn't their fault, the sound crew always gets the blame grrr...) anyway, they are a great size and really sound good, if you don't mind the size or hassle of dual mics. A440 -Thanks for all the info. I just sent a note to Aaron at quietamerican. I sent him a binaural recording four or so years back and may start doing binaural again.I will be checking the links you posted. I would have attached an MP3 to the e-mail I sent you but could not figure out how to. LibArts major; what do you expect?? ;o)I will post it here so you will know who I am taping tomorrow. And so will the other folks here.Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 That's pretty much the definition of ambience....That's pretty much how it's used today in reference to sound but the true definition has to do with creating a mood instead of recreating sound as it's heard. I don't want to be splitting hairs or anything but a few years back people thought binaural recordings really didn't work well when played through a set of speakers. That was the point I was trying to make. Most people today either don't know about that aspect of binaural recording or they ignore it or they think it isn't true now. So I'm not so sure that binaurals always produce a better sound field when the resulting recording is played through speakers. I just don't know why the conventional wisdom changed in the past decade or so. Binaural recording has been around for a long time. I am basically listing what the conventional wisdom was when it first became popular.This issue has just sort of evolved over the years and it's become accepted that binaural recordings do produce a better sound field in all situations. I've really never heard it explained why this became the conventional wisdom when it wasn't considered true a few years ago. I really don't have enough experience with binaurals to be able to say one way or another. I just know that some single point mics produce excellent imaging and I think that it gets said that they don't too often. I do have experience with various single point stereo mics. They do produce what I would think is the traditional stereo sound field that has been the norm since the beginnings of stereo (yes I remember those days ). Binaurals do produce a better soundfield if the playback is done with headphones or at least that has always been the conventional wisdom with them. Whether they produce a better sound field through speakers is something I'd like to test for myself some day. I just don't believe that anyone looking for the traditional stereo field sound that they are used to hearing on CD's etc. is going to be disappointed with the imaging they get from modern single point stereo mics. I think some of them work very well in that regard. All of my single point stereo mics do a decent job and some of them do an excellent job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 IMHO, binaural is still not the best setup for playback over speakers... but in the idea of you can always edit what is there, but you can't ever add afterwards what isn't there in the first place, I have seen lots of (much more experienced than me) record binaural, as it does give the best stereo separation in a highly portable setup, keep one unedited master and from that one create (1) a very slightly edited headphone version and (2) a speaker version by manipulating the stereo image slightly (mostly a bit of 'crossfeeding' or what's it called...just 'reducing' the separation slightly)there might be better ways to get the speaker/stereo presentation in the first place, but this is an easy way to get both (which isn't possible with a single mic stereo setup as that will always sound 'flat in front of you' over headphones)bottom line, know your public... if they (and you) will never listen over headphones, no probs, go for any setup... but if you want to have a 'headphone edit' as well, go binaural first, edit later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 You have to differ between in- and near-ear binaural recording, of which the latter (IMO) is a good compromise between good reproduction over headphones as well as loudspeakers without much post-editing. In-ear recording admittedly requires specific playback equipment (in-ear-phones and/or equalization) for an accurate/pleasant reproduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boojum Posted February 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) You have to differ between in- and near-ear binaural recording, of which the latter (IMO) is a good compromise between good reproduction over headphones as well as loudspeakers without much post-editing. In-ear recording admittedly requires specific playback equipment (in-ear-phones and/or equalization) for an accurate/pleasant reproduction.I have no doubt that it is possible to record binaural (?) which will play OK over speakers. But what is the point? You wind up with bad binaural and bad stereo. If I want binaural in addition to stereo I will just drag along the MZ-N1 and my in-ear mics (Soundman) and get binaural tracks. A more pratical solution is to get a styrofoam head and wig for it and use that to record with. I may want to fill what is empty or empty what is full in the course of a recording session. Thanks for all the feedback and help so far. I really appreciate it. The board devoted to live recording and which boasts about how helpful it is to beginners has yet to answer any question I have posted there. Go MD'ers! Edited February 11, 2007 by boojum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A440 Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 King Ghidora, I think we agree more than we disagree, and greenmachine just explained why:You have to differ between in- and near-ear binaural recording... In-ear recording admittedly requires specific playback equipment...Binaural as defined by pros and audiophiles--mics in the ears of a dummy head--and binaural as used by microphone merchants, as a synonym for omnidirectional, are two different things. I've grown used to recording with a separated pair of omni mics, which isn't true binaural and is more flexible. One-point mics vary greatly by design, and you've obviously used different and better ones than I have, with much better results. All I know is that when I switched from a small, low-priced one-point stereo mic to a separated pair based on the same capsules, my recordings suddenly changed from near-mono to three-dimensional. Bigger one-points must have space or circuitry to provide more separation. Sometime I'll have to give them another chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 I don't think we're very far apart at all A440. I didn't know that there was a different setup that is similar to the original version of binaural but not quite the same. Like I said before I haven't heard why the conventional wisdom changed. I assume this is the reason (because they use a slightly different version of the separated mics setup - using omni mics). I knew there was something I was missing. As for the mics I have been using I have samples online from both of them which might give you an idea of how they create imaging. I record a bluegrass band with a single mic which naturally gives a good example of how a mic creates a sound field. You can judge for yourself if you like. The first is recorded with my Sony ECM-MS907 which has the M/S design and IMO creates an excellent sound field. The circuitry used to interpret the stereo imaging in the Sony M/S mics is very good IMO even though it isn't an expensive mic. It has it's shortcomings for sure. You can hear a MP3 sample of it here. I also have a sample from my XY design Nady CM-2S available. It's a shorter sample and it's in wav format. Overall the Nady is a better mic but the imaging isn't quite as good as the Sony but it still has decent imaging IMO. Your opinion might be different from mine but I think both of these mics do well in the imaging department. Neither is an expensive mic but I think both are good bang for the buck mics. Let me know if you think I'm wrong. I'm always open to learning something new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A440 Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm obviously going to have to revise my thinking on single-point mics. The two different kinds of pickups in the MS907 and the physical separation in the Nady provide much better imaging than I would have expected. The MS907 sounds just right for this band. Its shortcoming is that it doesn't go below 100HZ, but you don't have to worry about that with this music. Wait'll they hire a bass fiddle....The Nady CM-2S, as I said in another post, sounds a little nasal or hollow around the vocals--I imagine the guy singing through a long tin tube. But I don't know if that's the performance (through a PA?), the room acoustics or the mic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) I actually think the MS907 sounds a little thin compared to the Nady. As I said in the other thread I believe the singer was getting some room echo because of sitting near a corner and he always sings with a nasal tone to his voice. He's a decent singer but he has an unusual style. The Nady will pick up some echo in a bright room but I believe a lot of that is due to it being a very sensitive mic. I have to keep the sound level adjusted a little low to keep it from picking up too much reflected sound but I think I've learned to keep it in check for the most part. I don't believe there's too much echo in the guitars in that recording which also covers the same frequencies that a male singer covers. It may be that it has too much echo in certain ranges. I wouldn't say for sure it doesn't.I have a recording of another guy singing the same night. I can post a clip of that and maybe you can check if you hear echo in his voice. If you're interested check out this clip and see what you think. Edited February 12, 2007 by King Ghidora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 I have seen a few (non-professional) single point (distance of 5cm/2" or less) omnidirectional mics around, which i think is generally a bad idea. Stereo omnis need the distance and/or a physical separator to create the illusion of dimensionality, otherwise they will just sound very close to mono indeed. These might have shaped some people's opinions about single point mics towards a negative direction.Directional mics (cardioid or similar pickup pattern) on the other hand can be angled for creating a channel difference and don't necessarily need a distance or barrier in between to create sufficient channel difference (stereo effect).Because of the nature of wave propagation, these directional single point mics will pick up higher frequencies with greater channel difference than the lower, which is ideal for mono compatibility / loudspeaker playback, but (to me) sounds unnatural over headphones (there is a reason why your ears are on each side of your head with a distance in between and your head as an additional wave forming sphere).As for the samples, i think the Nady's stereo field sounds wider, high frequencies more clear, but altogether at least as nasal as the MS907. Both sound good over lsp. but not too natural over headphones. The bottom end sounds thin in both samples to me, even more so in the Nandy one, but i realize this depends to a great part on the original sound source. A tight bottom can be beneficial for lsp. playback to lower room resonances though. Again, less desirable for hp. playback.By the way, the last sample doesn't seem to work for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) In my samples the bass is definitely limited by the original sound. The bass is played over a not too spectacular amp and is played lower than it should be IMO. I think it's a reflection of the bass players lack of confidence though I think she plays pretty well. You might check out the other clip I posted to see if you still think the vocals sound nasal. IMO most of what you're hearing is a result of the singer's style. The other singer doesn't sound that way. You can hear the other clip here. I believe the links are working now.I don't doubt that a binaural setup will just about always sound more natural through headphones. In the past it was always considered a trade off to go one way or the other though. I can see where using directional mics in a binaural setting could give the best of both setups. Edited February 12, 2007 by King Ghidora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I think the last sample shows similar characteristics. Also, I wonder why the left channel is so much louder in both Nady clips, was it due to mic placement, were they recorded in the same location? How close have you been to the stage?I think using directional mics in a binaural setting wouldn't be necessary. The (dummy) head will work as a baffle and give even omnidirectional mics the desired degree of directionality.Other than that, if you have the time or interest, I would be interested in your opinion about the sq/versatility/suitability for lsp. playback of my pseudo-binaural setup with omnis - not in, but close (just above) the ears. I have samples in the gallery here and here. Most of them were done from quite a distance, so that may kind of limit the suitability for lsp. playback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 The clips were much louder on the left because the mandolin is usually much louder than the guitars so I get the mandolin player to sit at the extreme left so I can attempt to turn the mic away from him to keep the volume down but it still sometimes sounds much louder. The guitar player was even further to the left that night and essentially he just played very loud on the song he sang. The other guitar players essentially didn't know the song so they barely played at all. The mandolin player played louder because the guitar was playing louder. So basically I just had two guys playing loud on the left side and practically no one but the bass player on the right side and I couldn't get her to turn up the bass despite my asking her several times.These are recordings of a practice session and one where a new guy (the singer and guitar player on the left) has just started playing with the band. The songs he has been practicing are not the same songs the other guys have been practicing so they play louder on some songs and he plays louder on others. This isn't exactly ready for prime time stuff. It's just some friends practicing around the living room of the mandolin player's house. Getting a perfect recording isn't the primary reason I'm recording the group right now. It's basically so they can have a copy of each other's stuff to practice with at home so when they come back together they know each other's songs better.We did get some decent recordings about a year ago but since then they lost their banjo player and that made them play different songs and they just sorta drifted along for a while. Mainly they are just about getting together to play right now anyway. They've all been very successful at times in the past and they really don't care if they go down that road again. They just like to play. I basically just posted the clips to show the sound field ability of the single point stereo mics I've been using but it became about the quality of the Nady. I knew this wasn't a perfect setup by any stretch. Like I said elsewhere I tried to get the guys to shift positions that night and they wouldn't even do that mainly because the new guy didn't want his guitar to be heard on the songs he hadn't practiced. The bottom line is that the mic does a decent job with a sound field and it does have some problems with picking up too much echo. I've known that from the time I got the mic. But it isn't a deal breaker IMO. In the right setting it can do very well. All mics need to be setup and positioned well to work well. Sitting on a coffee table in the middle of a living room with no adjustments made to limit echo really isn't the way to pass final judgement on the mic. I do know it picks up too much sound from out of the pickup range which is why it gets a lot of echo. Still I think I could adjust most of that problem out if I needed a perfect recording. I made what adjustments I could that night of the recording but you do the best you can in the situation you're in AFAIK. Again I wouldn't pass this mic off as a top quality mic. It isn't one. It's just a good mic and a good price. Personally I've never seen any perfect equipment but there's some mighty good stuff around. I am glad to get other opinions about this mic and they pretty much have agreed with what I have already thought except maybe for the nasal part. I think that's more a characteristic of the singers than the mic especially the one singer. I think you'll notice that the singer sounds nasal in the Sony mic clip too. So anyway thanks for the help. I'll listen to your clips and get back with you on that soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) The stereo imaging is definitely there when played through lsp but there were some of the problems I remember being associated with binaurals too. For example the jazz band in the church sounded excellent through my phones (original Sony MDR-V6 - not the second release version) but the bass got muddy and so did the vocals when played through lsp (Cerwin Vegas DX-9's). The highs weren't nearly as crisp either. It sounded like a lot of phase problems going on IMO or maybe crosstalk. Through the phones I got that fabulous binaural 3D feeling of standing in the room instead of that over the head imaging normally seen with phones and a stereo signal. They are really quite impressive through phones. Binaural is an impressive technology.That was always the story with binaurals AFAIK. I did hear that Neumann was working on correcting the phase problems somehow but I don't know the details on that. I'm sure if it's Neumann it will be quite expensive. Even with the phase problems removed the sweet spot for hearing binaural through lsp is very small or that's what I've heard. I do remember people talking about pointing their speakers in at a 45 degree angle to deal with some of the phase problems. A lot of this stuff is from what I heard many years ago so I'm sure I'm forgetting some details.I just know I heard a definite problem with phase in your recordings. They sound great through phones but not so great through lsp. Listen to the jazz band in the church through a set of phones then listen to the same clip through lsp. You'll hear pretty quick what I'm talking about. Notice how the bass doesn't sound tight at all through the lsp. Notice how the voice sounds muffled and how the highs aren't as crisp as they should be. Edited February 13, 2007 by King Ghidora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.