|
Audio grade outlets: because that's where the weak link is in your power system. http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/25/the-14772-audio-grad.html
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Elentor posted:Sincerely, this is all bullshit. Even if these "effects" were all real, their impact in the final sound heard by a human would be absolutely 0. Some of them are bullshit, yes. A lot of them are not. Speaker spikes can make a measurable and audible difference. Preamplifiers (and more specifically volume controls) can have a very measurable and audible effect. Speaker technologies obviously have a massive effect on final sound quality. Almost anything involving the physical playback of vinyl can have a measurable and audible sound difference. That video didn't just focus on fringe tweaks. quote:I'm not much into speakers, but I personally enjoy some good headphones. A lot of the expense of high-end audio involves soundstaging, imaging, and room interactions, which ultimately are all intertwined, and are avoided by using headphones. quote:Amplifiers do make a difference. You're going to need to be more specific here. Are you speaking about just an amplifier, or are you talking about an amplifier paired with some form of volume control? If it involves a volume control, of course you can hear a difference -- volume control is perhaps the most difficult part of the analog electronic chain to get right. If you're dealing with mismatched impedances, of course you're hearing a difference. If you're switching between solid state and tubes, you may be hearing a difference. But, assuming that the electronics are properly matched and capable of driving the speaker load without distorting, changing the amplifier should make the most negligible difference in sound quality. The difference, arguably, should be inaudible. quote:Any other fancy crap that isn't the headphone, the amp or the source (which doesn't make much difference if you have an amp, keep in mind) is complete and absolute bullshit. Unless there's a very specific function you need for something really relevant, these trinkets to improve the sound quality, "bring the details", "enrich your experience" or "reduce the micro-vibrations and the noise level from the omicron rays coming from the outer space" are absurd and I'm amazed people buy them. Yes, some of it is bullshit, and a lot of it is not. The bags of marbles that sit on your components? Obviously laughable. Other things are not. Once again, using headphones eliminates a lot of these problems, but eliminates aspects of the presentation as well. quote:Sincerely, I don't think it's possible for all of these rich people to believe that what they're buying is really making a difference. I think they see these things as jewelry. It just makes them feel better because it's more expensive. I can't for the life of me comprehend how can someone spend hundreds of thousands and believe all these fancy stuff is really making a minimal difference. I've attended a good number of audio shows and I know a lot of audiophiles. I have a friend who owns a pair of Wilson Audio Alexandrias, which retail at well over $100,000. I don't know a single one who purchases expensive equipment merely because it is expensive. On the other hand, I have talked to many high-end dealers, though, who have said they have clients who come in wanting a new home theater, and the only requirement is that it be better than the one their friends just had put in. What I'm trying to say is that the people who purchase these things as 'jewelry' are generally not enthusiasts, or audiophiles for that matter. quote:On the other hand, we should start our own company to develop sound equipments. I can help with the design. We can be rich. People like to say this, but the audiophile world is rarely as profitable as people like to think, including cable manufacturing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 06:06
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:People like to say this, but the audiophile world is rarely as profitable as people like to think, including cable manufacturing. You know that guy who runs Machina Dynamica? The troll audiophile store? Dude has sold at least one Clever Clock ($279, price for clock and sticker he makes it from is $5) and one Teleportation Tweak ($60, its a phone call where he plays a sound at someone and probably costs $0.30 to him if his long distance plan really sucks). Way I see it, he's made crazy profit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 06:33
|
|
|
madprocess posted:Way I see it, he's made crazy profit. Crazy profit and get rich are entirely different things. Kinda funny that somebody bought it. If i had the funds, I would buy a few to send to some specific friends as a gag gift, and to reward the guy for some clever writing. Anyway, moving away from esoteric tweaks and into things that make a discernible difference in sound quality, here's a two-part interview with my favorite speaker designer, Richard Vandersteen, in which he discusses his new $45,000 pair of speakers. Richard is well-known for his adherence to a cost plus system for pricing his speakers, simply meaning that the retail price directly reflects the cost of building the speaker, and I've been told by a few dealers that the margins on his speakers are lower than the industry average. It's an interesting read for anyone who wants to see the kind of thought that goes into audio design. Part 1: http://www.ultraaudio.com/features/20090901.htm Part 2: http://www.ultraaudio.com/features/20091001.htm And the speaker in question, as part of a $300,000 system (the turntable accounts for half of that): 
TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 07:46
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:...Richard Vandersteen, in which he discusses his new $45,000 pair of speakers. Richard is well-known for his adherence to a cost plus system for pricing his speakers, simply meaning that the retail price directly reflects the cost of building the speaker... Maybe it says it in the links you posted and I missed it, but what exactly is it in his speakers that cost so much money if his mark-up is so low? The cones are made out of carbon-fibre and balsa wood, with neodymium magnets. The boxes are HDF and carbon-fibre, and painted with car paint. After those hundreds of dollars worth of materials you end up with something that looks like it came straight out of 1980s Doctor Who?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 10:30
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:And the speaker in question, as part of a $300,000 system (the turntable accounts for half of that): As far as "what exactly does all this fancy poo poo get you?" that's really more about the customer than the product. Some people want to own hand-built objects made out of exotic materials and are willing to pay more for it regardless of if it makes any real performance difference. A $150,000 Ulysse Nardin watch doesn't keep better time than a Timex but it sure looks cooler. qirex fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 18:51
|
|
|
Watches are kind of an iffy comparison, the price does come out of actual research, materials and labour costs which are all huge since companies don't share info, you use gems and precious metals, and it takes a very long time to train a watchmaker. Of course you can use a steel quartz watch which will keep better time but the actual costs are justified in mechanical watch production. Might not make a difference but atleast you're not getting bullshit from their claims. With audio stuff producing by hand isn't necessary and the materials don't actually cost much unless you're using tons of silver wiring. The "research" is mostly just snake-oil as well. So unless you have a a gold plated amp with diamond encrusted controls then theres not much to justify costs, its mostly just the idiot premium. The claims by audiophile companies that they are somehow producing a superior product with some magic advantages discovered by unqualified researchers are the worst since they actually claim to be able to discern differences that labs costing exponentially more than their entire networth can't. I'm pretty sure that companies that do actual valid research and have much larger research divisions would incorporate actual innovations into their products.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:08
|
|
|
Yeah what I'm saying is that there's a market of people who will buy the fancy-looking thing with outrageous claims. It's not a big market though, these companies that make $30,000 amps probably only have a handful of customers so while they're clearing $10k/unit if you only sell 20 a year that's maybe enough for a 3 or 4 person operation depending on how much they spend on marketing. If tomorrow some researcher came out with a $200 utterly perfect speaker driver there would still be people willing to pay $15,000 for "the best" speakers with those drivers in them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:17
|
|
|
qirex posted:Why are there 5 amps? Or is that 4 amps and something else? There are 2 amps on the floor behind the speaker, and the speakers there have built-in amplifiers for their subwoofers. On the left side is the line stage with dual mono power supplies. On the right is the phono preamplifier, also with dual mono power supplies. The electronics are all from Aesthetix, and the turntable is from Clearaudio. Gromit posted:Maybe it says it in the links you posted and I missed it, but what exactly is it in his speakers that cost so much money if his mark-up is so low? The cones are made out of carbon-fibre and balsa wood, with neodymium magnets. The boxes are HDF and carbon-fibre, and painted with car paint. From the end of Part 1, speaking about the new midrange driver: quote:The only real problem with our resulting cones is the cost. The cones for the midrange driver cost something like $2000 a pair, which is basically an order of magnitude more than what otherwise-available, top-quality midrange drivers cost, with all subcomponents included. That's not even for the full driver, just the cone. Place a 40% profit margin on that for the manufacturer and you come out at about $3300. Place a 40% margin on that for the dealer and you're up to about $5500 just for the midrange cones. quote:I'm pretty sure that companies that do actual valid research and have much larger research divisions would incorporate actual innovations into their products. The linked article is about a small company that does do "actual valid" research and develops new products as a result. Yes, there is a lot of crap out there, but at the same time there are a lot of companies that are producing products (at any price range) based on good science and not snake oil claims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
What are the "dual mono power supplies" about? Is there actually a separate power supply for each channel? What's the point on a preamp and line stage? They barely use any power compared to an amp. Power stuff is right behind cables on the worthless snake oil ranking IMO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
Well, here's the inside of the actual line stage box: It's a true dual mono design, down to separate volume controls and power inputs for each channel. This is normally sold with a single power supply for both channels, but yes, dual power supplies are available. I make no claims as to whether this makes any audible or measurable difference, but placing the power supply (and more specifically, the transformer) as far from possible from the audio path is a good thing to do. An easy way to do this is to use a second box, like you see here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 20:22
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:placing the power supply (and more specifically, the transformer) as far from possible from the audio path is a good thing to do
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 20:40
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:And the speaker in question, as part of a $300,000 system (the turntable accounts for half of that): a $150,000 turntable is a luxury item, not a piece of professional audio equipment. If I wanted really accurate sound reproduction I'd use a digital medium with error correction, probably something like a Reed-Solomon code, instead of indentations in plastic. Oh wait, somebody already came up with this, its called a compact disc. I don't really care what people spend their money on, but it is crazy to claim that a custom $150,000 turntable is better than a technic 1200 ($300) for the sole reason that it reproduces the audio more accurately, as it is not the best way to do that. davepsilon fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 21:27
|
|
|
Actually for critical listening in a quiet environment using a really good needle there is some risk of picking up motor noise from a direct drive turntable. That said you can get a REALLY good belt drive turntable for home listening for a grand or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 23:18
|
|
|
davepsilon posted:I don't really care what people spend their money on, but it is crazy to claim that a custom $150,000 turntable is better than a technic 1200 ($300) for the sole reason that it reproduces the audio more accurately, as it is not the best way to do that. A can't be better than B, because C is superior. That's faulty logic if I've ever heard it. While we're at it, CDs are poo poo because they're only 16-bit/44.1kHz. Anything short of 24/96 is obviously inferior, so why purchase a CD? And yes, the $150,000 turntable is a luxury item. Nobody would ever claim otherwise. The system there represents a cost-no-object attempt at putting together the best sound possible, and anybody who attempts that understands that they'll be paying exorbitant amounts of money for very incremental improvements in sound quality. If they can afford it, and that's what they want to do with their money, then who cares? And I'm not even get into the analog vs. digital debate. I currently don't own a turntable because I don't have the space to store records, but as soon as I do I plan to purchase one. Regardless of sound quality, I find playing vinyl to be a more enjoyable experience. There's more satisfaction (for me, at least) in setting a record, turning on a motor, and playing a record than there is in hitting the play button on a remote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
I don't get why a $300,000 system is setup in a room with, from a glance, isn't even setup perfectly. I don't recall ever seeing a really finished setup without some pretty blatant bass traps
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 00:31
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:A can't be better than B, because C is superior. That's faulty logic if I've ever heard it. While we're at it, CDs are poo poo because they're only 16-bit/44.1kHz. Anything short of 24/96 is obviously inferior, so why purchase a CD? It is a cost / benefit analysis - it isn't a logical argument. It is more like A is better than B because of x, yet if you really want x you should use ZZ. Not to mention ZZ is cheaper than B. I am saying one could justify any audio setup if they like the sound the piece of equipment outputs, and their enjoyment of the sound is worth the price of the equipment. Yet, super expensive turntables are typically marketed as less noisy and a more accurate reproduction of the sound. It seems you are making a distinction between the noise induced by vibrations and needles and I am saying that is no different than the noise induced by the information being transmitted based on the height of plastic. Since it is exactly this inherent noise that makes vinyl more appealing to many (over digital audio signals) noise is not a bad thing in a turntable system. There is no justification to say this is less noisy, only that this sounds better to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 01:47
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:That's not even for the full driver, just the cone. Place a 40% profit margin on that for the manufacturer and you come out at about $3300. Place a 40% margin on that for the dealer and you're up to about $5500 just for the midrange cones. Well, the cone is the main part of the driver, surely? After that you have a big magnet, and they are cheap. I find it hard to believe it really costs someone $2000 to make a cone out of balsa and CF, too. I'll admit I really don't know anything about it, but those speakers contain a few hundred dollars worth of materials, surely? Balsa, HDF, automative paint - all bought from a hardware store. Carbon-fibre is a few bucks a pound. I guess lamination could be tricky, but who knows. I guess I'm just not getting that these things are worth $45k if the guy has really low mark-up. Looks more like $42k of mark-up if I'm being *really* generous. Hard to put a dollar figure on his R&D costs, I guess, but this will always be the case if he's keeping all that to himself. Anyway, I'm not expecting any sort of discussion as we don't know his costs. I think it fair, though, to suggest that buyers of these are after the bragging rights rather than the output?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 02:09
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I think it fair, though, to suggest that buyers of these are after the bragging rights rather than the output? First, I really wish that I did know his precise costs, because it would be fun to see precisely where the money goes. The audio world has plenty of gear with prices that in no way match their materials costs-- Lamm Industries and Wavac are two that come to mind-- but I see no reason to believe that this speaker isn't priced by the same cost plus method. I also haven't had the chance to listen to the speaker in question, so I can't honestly comment on its value, but I have spent a considerable amount of time listening to the next model down, the 5A. It currently retails for $16,900, and if I could I would purchase a pair. Yes, this is already way past the tipping point of diminishing returns, and I freely admit that, but I personally see enough value in it that I would consider spending that much money. Now, back to the quoted question. Yes, some buyers purchase ultra-expensive gear for bragging rights. Some purchase it because they're wealthy enough that they purchase the best of everything and just happen to want a stereo. Others purchase it because they want the best sound possible. I really don't think that many people purchase based on bragging rights. First, who are you going to brag to? People on the internet? Other audiophiles? High-end audio generally isn't "conspicuous consumption" in the same way that, say, a porsche or a boat is. The general public doesn't care about sound reproduction enough. It's quite possible that Joe Average would be more impressed if you blew your money on that "really cool Bose system with the tiny cubes." If you ask me, the real division between audiophiles is best shown by their music purchasing habits vs. their gear purchasing habits. If you're talking to somebody who has blindly swapped cables/amps/speakers 5 times in the last month based on what somebody over on audiogon suggested but hasn't bought new music in the last 3 years, and instead listens to the same 5 reference discs over and over while he moves his speakers 1/32" of an inch at a time, just walk away. They've clearly lost track of the purpose of the hobby, and I would argue are the people most likely to purchase expensive gear simply because it is expensive. On the other hand, if you're talking to a guy who's constantly searching for new, great sounding music, has a well-set-up system, and changes components when he feels that the change makes a significant difference, you've found a quality audiophile. Oddly enough, the almost-deaf guy I know absolutely falls into the second camp. TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Oct 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 10:20
|
|
|
Does anyone happen to know what the general audiophile consensus is regarding the laser turntable? http://www.elpj.com/ I guess maybe it isn't expensive enough at a mere $15k and there's probably some vague reason for why regular turntables sound better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 21:06
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Does anyone happen to know what the general audiophile consensus is regarding the laser turntable? I'd actually love to have that if had facilities for easy transfer to digital storage. I have a bunch of old 78 rpm records from my grandparents that I'd like to transfer, but anyone who's used them knows how fragile they can be and how using the wrong shaped needle will utterly ruin them. It also seems it would indeed eliminate most of the pops/clicks/hiss you get from physical contact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 21:27
|
|
|
MrBling posted:laser turntable It got a lot of really positive attention when it was first released, but ultimately suffered from a pretty major fault. If the record being played wasn't perfectly clean the turntable would screech loudly every time the laser ran over the piece of dust. This was back when it was first released, and for all I know the issue has been fixed, but I don't really see the turntable being discussed much anymore. madprocess posted:I'd actually love to have that if had facilities for easy transfer to digital storage. A lot of people were interested in it for just this. I know of a good number of audiophiles who make digital recordings of their records for casual listening and preserve the vinyl itself for more serious listening sessions. TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Oct 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 22:36
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:First, who are you going to brag to? People on the internet? Other audiophiles? I would have said yes to both of these, but then I'm not this sort of nutter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 05:06
|
|
|
I guess what I find most curious about these folks is that they are all seeking out the best way to play cd and records (Glass and vinyl of varying weights). But, I haven't read anything about people seeking out master TAPES or duplicates of master tapes from studio sessions on reel to reel. Which I assume are fairly abundant now considering the multi-track tape market has essentially died. It just seems puzzling that no one has caught onto the fact that a majority of stuff was recorded and edited onto multi-channel tape and would likely sound as good as it possibly can in that medium.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 05:19
|
|
|
2reachmu posted:But, I haven't read anything about people seeking out master TAPES or duplicates of master tapes from studio sessions on reel to reel.  Never mind the speakers, because seriously what the gently caress, but this is a company that refurbishes old reel-to-reel machines. It's not very common, but I do know a few people who have reel-to-reels for exactly the purpose you've described. I've also seen them used as a source in some show rooms, but sadly never in a system I've cared for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 05:47
|
|
|
Those speakers look like EPI 1000s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 07:59
|
|
|
82Daion posted:Those speakers look like EPI 1000s. Why are they so large?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Why are they so large? Some more info is here. I'd say that it's a rather elegant way to increase the power handling and bass response of the system without using large drivers, but given the era from which they originated, it may have just been designed to satisfy the "Mine's bigger!" sector of the market. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 22:23
|
|
|
Reel to reel is indeed alive and well in the audiophile world. I'm not a big fan of it myself because they require a large footprint and more care then vinyl. Go over to audiokarma and read the tape forum for some good info/laughs. Going back to the dual mono debate, from what I understand the biggest advantage is better stereo separation and being able to pump more power per channel. A McIntosh MC275 produces 75 watts per channel in stereo mode, or if you have two you can get 150 watts per channel in dual mono mode.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2009 06:04
|
|
|
I presume the biggest problem with the CD is the 16-bit rate instead of 24, and not the 44.1kHz right? Because I can't imagine many people being able to listen to the accurate frequency range of other formats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2009 14:14
|
|
|
You people are discussing all kinds of expensive "audiophile" solutions in the thread about ridiculing "crazy" audiophiles, thinking you are better than the people buying cables and magic stones for hundreds of dollars. However, I wonder if you yourselves would even be able to differ between your own equipment and my motherboard's integrated soundcard in a blind test at any reasonable music volume.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:You people are discussing all kinds of expensive "audiophile" solutions in the thread about ridiculing "crazy" audiophiles, thinking you are better than the people buying cables and magic stones for hundreds of dollars. However, I wonder if you yourselves would even be able to differ between your own equipment and my motherboard's integrated soundcard in a blind test at any reasonable music volume. Most people can, integrated motherboard sound hardware always has an annoying buzz. You basically get rid all of that by buying a $20 sound card though, and a $20 soundcard will do 24 bit/192 kHz quality sound over the speaker port these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2009 20:44
|
|
|
Elentor posted:I presume the biggest problem with the CD is the 16-bit rate instead of 24, and not the 44.1kHz right? Because I can't imagine many people being able to listen to the accurate frequency range of other formats. While you're a child/teenager, the frequency is probably the limiting factor. Once you're older and you actually have the money to buy nice stereo equipment, you can no longer hear all the poo poo you're complaining about CD's lacking, and the bit rate (and lack of dynamic range) take over. Edit: You is the royal you, if that wasn't clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2009 21:20
|
|
|
I bought one of these yesterday on ebay:  (Minus the record player, if I could find one of those though I'd grab it.) This purchase veers a bit more into audiophile range then I normally would go, but the raw stats on this receiver are impressive. 165 wpc, dual mono system with a power supply for each channel. Vintage audiophiles love to say that this is one of the best solid state receivers ever built. I tend to agree that older receivers sound a lot better then the majority of newer ones, especially for 2 channel audio. I wouldn't use this to power my home theater system, but it'll be great in my office/listening room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2009 13:40
|
|
|
madprocess posted:Most people can, integrated motherboard sound hardware always has an annoying buzz. You basically get rid all of that by buying a $20 sound card though, and a $20 soundcard will do 24 bit/192 kHz quality sound over the speaker port these days. Or use your already expensive video card HDMI port. Instant sound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2009 17:54
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Or use your already expensive video card HDMI port. Instant sound. Wouldn't this also be true with the cheap on-board SPDIF?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2009 19:25
|
|
|
HKR posted:I bought one of these yesterday on ebay: Very nice! Do you stick with vintage speakers as well, and if so, what are you running?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2009 19:28
|
|
|
evobatman posted:Wouldn't this also be true with the cheap on-board SPDIF?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
Fuzz1111 posted:Yes, something a lot of people overlook (and something soundcard makers probably owe a fair amount of sales to) is that pretty much every motherboard made in the last 3 or so years has SPDIF out (I've got a gigabyte micro ATX mobo that was bottom of the barrel when I bought it over 2 years ago and it does). It may be found as a (typically 3 pin) header on the mobo instead of as a coax port on the backpanel, but this isn't much of a problem when making an adaptor is easy, and the only parts required is some sort of cable that will fit onto the header (ie: $2 CDROM audio cable) which will be hacked up to connect to a coax port of some sort, the pinout for the header can probably be found in the motherboard manual. Not just this, but most HDMI-equipped video cards have an SPDIF-in on them these days, so you can run a single cable for audio/video if your gear supports it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:
Master tape sounds soooooo good though. Seriously. Unfortunately the tape project's catalog is so small and the price is astronomical. (Like $200/record last I checked.) Elentor posted:I presume the biggest problem with the CD is the 16-bit rate instead of 24, and not the 44.1kHz right? Because I can't imagine many people being able to listen to the accurate frequency range of other formats. It's actually the sample rate (the 44.1khz part). And it's because 1/2 the frequency (called the Nyquist frequency) is so close (22.05khz) to the range of human hearing, it is difficult (re: impossible) to filter out the noise without inducing phase shift at high frequencies. A process called oversampling is used, which works fine (some crazy audiophiles complain about it, but mathematically it's basically inaudible.) However, on top of that, a lot of cheap (and some not so cheap) digital to analog converters use a process called noise shaping with low bit-width dacs. These high-order noise shaping filters are inherently unstable and are 'nontrivial'. Meaning there is no perfect one under all conditions. Personally they are one thing I avoid, although good R2R dacs are getting rare and expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 23:42
|
|