Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-21-2014, 09:12 PM   #21
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
...but does it have a 24 bit, high quality DAC and audio path? No way, a phone will have the cheapest, lowest power consumption 16 bit DAC they can fit in the phone.

Heh, heh...

I betcha I can get as good a fidelity out of a one bit dual (2 channel) DAC as you can get out of a 24 bit DAC.

Yeah. ONE bit.

And I'll match the fidelity of your 24 bit DAC, and beat it on figure of merit and baseline noise level.

HINTS:
Digital encoded audio is a bitstream, a serialized sequence of ones and zeroes, wrapped in various flavors of blocking and compression, but still a bitstream.

Multibit DACs rely on switched resistor networks on the integrated circuit substrate to reconstruct analog values. Each such resistor is also a source of thermal noise.

Delta-sigma modulators. I knows them.

Audiophiles...
__________________

__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-21-2014, 09:42 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Heh, heh...

I betcha I can get as good a fidelity out of a one bit dual (2 channel) DAC as you can get out of a 24 bit DAC.

Yeah. ONE bit.

And I'll match the fidelity of your 24 bit DAC, and beat it on figure of merit and baseline noise level.

HINTS:
Digital encoded audio is a bitstream, a serialized sequence of ones and zeroes, wrapped in various flavors of blocking and compression, but still a bitstream.

Multibit DACs rely on switched resistor networks on the integrated circuit substrate to reconstruct analog values. Each such resistor is also a source of thermal noise.

Delta-sigma modulators. I knows them.

Audiophiles...
Oh, I've know about 1 bit converters for decades, didn't need any hints for that one.

But the point of that post was that a phone is not going to have the same quality audio path that I'd expect from the PONO group (assuming that's not vapor ware), or any high quality DAC audio device.

The DAC in a phone is going to be constrained by size, cost and power consumption - sound quality will take a far back seat to those three. Those are not nearly as constrained for a dedicated audio DAC for a stereo system. Do you disagree?

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 09:43 PM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
But aren't all DACs in the market now of the 1-bit Sigma/Delta type? And the 16-bit or 24-bit type refers to the bit resolution that is meaningful for the oversampling frequency and the processing (noise-shaping, anti-aliasing and all those details) built into the chip?
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 09:55 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
But aren't all DACs in the market now of the 1-bit Sigma/Delta type? And the 16-bit or 24-bit type refers to the bit resolution that is meaningful for the oversampling frequency and the processing (anti-aliasing) built into the chip?
Could be, I don't really know which of the technologies are in common use today to achieve the stated resolution.

But as you say, and the point of my earlier post, regardless of the specific technology, I would not expect a phone to have anywhere near the accuracy in the audio path as a dedicated device. Would any technologist question that?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:13 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Heh, heh...

I betcha I can get as good a fidelity out of a one bit dual (2 channel) DAC as you can get out of a 24 bit DAC.

Yeah. ONE bit.

And I'll match the fidelity of your 24 bit DAC, and beat it on figure of merit and baseline noise level.

HINTS:
Digital encoded audio is a bitstream, a serialized sequence of ones and zeroes, wrapped in various flavors of blocking and compression, but still a bitstream.

Multibit DACs rely on switched resistor networks on the integrated circuit substrate to reconstruct analog values. Each such resistor is also a source of thermal noise.

Delta-sigma modulators. I knows them.

Audiophiles...
Heck, my Tact amps are 1-bit DACs. Digital in, analog speaker outputs. I love them.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:20 PM   #26
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
But aren't all DACs in the market now of the 1-bit Sigma/Delta type? And the 16-bit or 24-bit type refers to the bit resolution that is meaningful for the oversampling frequency and the processing (noise-shaping, anti-aliasing and all those details) built into the chip?
Heh. Yup!

No digital audio DACs, not even that insanely expensive Burr-Brown part, are true 16, 24, 32, or 48 bit DACs. They're all one bit DACs feeding sigma-delta modulators, a nifty little circuit built around the humble operational amplifier wired up as an integrator.

The number of bits only sets the maximum dynamic range of the encoded signal, and that is a function of the digital media encoding as an absolute maximum, and the signal processing done in mastering to ensure the digital media's dynamic range limit is not reached. (Clipping. In digital media, you really wouldn't like what happens...)

It's primarily a Marketing Department number. If someone can claim to have 192 KHz 24 bit audio decoding, they can sell more expensive cr*p to The Golden-Eared Ones, the True Audiophiles. You know, the guys who buy a couple of AudioQuest Type 4 ten foot speaker cables for $110.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:25 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Heh. Yup!

No digital audio DACs, not even that insanely expensive Burr-Brown part, are true 16, 24, 32, or 48 bit DACs. They're all one bit DACs feeding sigma-delta modulators, a nifty little circuit built around the humble operational amplifier wired up as an integrator.

The number of bits only sets the maximum dynamic range of the encoded signal, and that is a function of the digital media encoding as an absolute maximum, and the signal processing done in mastering to ensure the digital media's dynamic range limit is not reached. (Clipping. In digital media, you really wouldn't like what happens...)
But, but, but the 24-bit chip thinggy has a higher oversampling frequency than the pedestrian 16-bit chip, more fancy digital filtering, etc... Surely the performance will be better.

Whether I or someone else can hear the difference is another thing, but the chip with the higher bit resolution IS better.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:29 PM   #28
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
But as you say, and the point of my earlier post, regardless of the specific technology, I would not expect a phone to have anywhere near the accuracy in the audio path as a dedicated device. Would any technologist question that?
The entire audio path? Sure. It's a phone. Different purpose.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:40 PM   #29
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
But, but, but the 24-bit chip thinggy has a higher oversampling frequency than the pedestrian 16-bit chip, more fancy digital filtering, etc... Surely the performance will be better.

Whether I or someone else can hear the difference is another thing, but the chip with the higher bit resolution IS better.

Paging Doctor Nyquist... Doc Nyquist, please pick up.

Once I'm sampling fast enough to accurately reconstruct the original signal, additional sampling doesn't actually improve things further. The extreme oversampling would just be noise not present in the original signal.

For purposes of feeding a delta-sigma modulator, I'll oversample at a (small) multiple of the target sample rate set by the digital media, specifically to meet the Nyquist limit criteria and feed the noise shaping of the modulator.

Fun audiophile example: Given a 48 KHz bandwidth two channel signal, what frequency can we claim in the marketing literature?

Well, the Nyquist rate for each 48 KHz wide channel would be sampling at 96 KHz. There are two channels, so we are clearly doing two samples at a time, or two streams at 96 KHz. Why, that must be 192 KHz total! Put that on the packaging!
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:43 PM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
The oversampling I talked about was the internal oversampling prior to anti-aliasing the bandwidth down to the audible range. It's the oversampling that gives a chip the 24-bit resolution in contrast with the 16-bit one.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:56 PM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
Heck, my Tact amps are 1-bit DACs. Digital in, analog speaker outputs. I love them.
Right, I've got a few of those switching amps at home too. But mine (and my external DAC to drive my Class AB power amps) do not accept an input beyond 16 bit. (more on that later)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
...
It's primarily a Marketing Department number. If someone can claim to have 192 KHz 24 bit audio decoding, they can sell more expensive cr*p to The Golden-Eared Ones, the True Audiophiles. You know, the guys who buy a couple of AudioQuest Type 4 ten foot speaker cables for $110.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
But, but, but the 24-bit chip thinggy has a higher oversampling frequency than the pedestrian 16-bit chip, more fancy digital filtering, etc... Surely the performance will be better.

Whether I or someone else can hear the difference is another thing, but the chip with the higher bit resolution IS better.
I see this the same as NW-B. As I've said earlier in this (and probably other) threads, I'm not sure I could hear the difference between 16 bit source material and 24 bit source with reasonable respective hardware. But there is a measurable difference, due to technical differences. Or 'better' as NW-B puts it, but I suppose it is questionable if it is truly 'better' if no one can hear the difference. But I'm willing to give some 'golden ear' the benefit of the doubt when the measurements show differences that could at least lead to a plausibility of being detected (unlike many of the 'super cables').


Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The entire audio path? Sure. It's a phone. Different purpose.
Well that was the context of my post. It was in reply to someone claiming that something like the PONO isn't any better than a phone, since some phones can play FLAC format (I don't know if many/any phone can even decode 24 bit material). That's why I didn't understand what came across as a condescending comment from you:
Quote:
Audiophiles...
-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 11:07 PM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
The oversampling I talked about was the internal oversampling prior to anti-aliasing the bandwidth down to the audible range. It's the oversampling that gives a chip the 24-bit resolution in contrast with the 16-bit one.
Right. It seems to me that M Paquette is somehow confusing the rate that the samples are taken/decoded with bit depth of the samples that are taken/decoded?

I can have source material of 16bit sampled at 44.1K, or say 24bit sampled at 44.1K. If my DAC (regardless of the specific technology) can only decode 16 bit inputs 44.1k times per second, it can't have more than 96db dynamic range. If it can decode 24 bits 44.1k times per second, it can (theoretically) provide 144 db dynamic range. Same sample rate.

Internally, those DACS (whether sigma-delta or binary weighted resistor ladder) must be different, and the 24 bit (all else being equal) will have better specs, right (realizing that it won't come near to 144 db, due to other limits)?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 11:22 PM   #33
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 366
Honor Roll of well-mastered pop CDs, pretty much nothing after 1990.

...iTunes radio - some hopeful news
Dynamic Range compression: Are The Loudness Wars Over?

Sampling Theory For Digital Audio is a good article on digital sampling rate.
__________________
springnr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 11:46 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
No, I do not think M Paquette is confused between the bit depth and the oversampling.

All 1-bit D/A converters have to run with an internal conversion frequency at a multiple frequency of the sampling rate of the incoming digital signal. That was what I talked about.

At the output, after all the antialiasing and filtering, the output sample frequency may be back to 44.1KHz as done in old CD players, or it could be at a higher rate. The latter was what M Paquette talked about when he mentioned Nyquist.

PS. If the output sampling rate is high (oversampling), it makes anti-aliasing filtering an easier job. When the output sampling rate is 44.1KHz, a low-pass (brickwall) filter of 20KHz would need to be of a very high-order design, because the bandwidth approaches the Nyquist rate.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 12:11 AM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
No, I do not think M Paquette is confused between the bit depth and the oversampling.

All 1-bit D/A converters have to run with an internal conversion frequency at a multiple frequency of the sampling rate of the incoming digital signal. That was what I talked about.

At the output, after all the antialiasing and filtering, the output sample frequency may be back to 44.1KHz as done in old CD players, or it could be at a higher rate. The latter was what M Paquette talked about when he mentioned Nyquist.

PS. If the output sampling rate is high (oversampling), it makes anti-aliasing filtering an easier job. When the output sampling rate is 44.1KHz, a low-pass (brickwall) filter of 20KHz would need to be of a very high-order design, because the bandwidth approaches the Nyquist rate.
Right, and it is the oversampling that plays a major role in the S/N ratio of the DAC. Maybe the confusion here is that a 'one-bit' DAC is rated in terms of resolution by the theoretical S/N ratio that its topology can obtain, and that is expressed in 'bits of resolution'?

Some excerpts:

Demystifying Delta-Sigma ADCs - Tutorial - Maxim

Quote:
Note that the SNR for a 1-bit ADC is 7.78dB (6.02 + 1.76). Each factor-of-4 oversampling increases the SNR by 6dB, and each 6dB increase is equivalent to gaining one bit.


....

If we apply a digital filter to the noise-shaped delta-sigma modulator, it removes more noise than does simple oversampling (Figure 6). This type of modulator (first-order) provides a 9dB improvement in SNR for every doubling of the sampling rate.
My brain hurts - off to bed!

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 12:13 AM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
By the way, my laptop has D/A and A/D sampling rates up to 192KHz, and bit depth up to 24 bits. It's not that big a deal anymore.

I should try to sample input signals up to 96KHz (1/2 of 192KHz) to see what happens, but when I output a signal, I saw that there was a low-pass filter that rolled off fast beyond 20KHz.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 08:57 AM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
By the way, my laptop has D/A and A/D sampling rates up to 192KHz, and bit depth up to 24 bits. It's not that big a deal anymore.

I should try to sample input signals up to 96KHz (1/2 of 192KHz) to see what happens, but when I output a signal, I saw that there was a low-pass filter that rolled off fast beyond 20KHz.

Interesting, but of course, just because a device has some technical capability, that does not mean it is implemented well.

Like the 'mega-pixel' wars in cameras, the higher mega-pixel ratings didn't always mean higher quality - the actual size of the sensor, noise levels, and a few other specs said more about quality than the pixel count.

And I suspect that is the case in your laptop, and a phone. They won't have optimum ground layouts, or low noise power supplies, or high quality audio paths in general. At 16 bits, we are already talking ~ 96db capabilities, and that is already quite demanding on the other components and implementation to keep noise floor that low. So I doubt that increasing the stated bit rating of the DAC in those cases is meaningful.


Getting back to Nyquist rates, higher sample rates, and that 20kHz filter:

Of course there are debates about all things audio, but if we agree that output beyond 20KHz is not providing anything we can hear, I still think there may be advantages to sampling rates beyond the CD standard of 44.1KHz (which means you can theoretically capture sounds up to 22.05Khz).

It takes a sharp filter to pass 20KHz, but block 22.05KHz (often called a 'brick-wall filter' - you really don't want anything >22.05KHz leaking into the converter, that gets 'folded' back to a low frequency, which is a completely non-natural sound, just UGLY! *NOTE BELOW). So a higher sample rate can reduce the demands on that filter.

Now I don't know if a gentler filter is cheaper in practice, but if it is, that means that they can afford to spend more on other components, or provide more silicon real-estate to those other areas. And a gentler filter can have less phase shift in the audio band - again, I'm not sure that is an audible thing or not, but I would not rule these factors out.

So I can at least entertain the idea that a 48KHz, or even 96KHz could provide some benefit if there were also changes in the filter to take advantage of that rate. But I'm very, very, very skeptical that 128KHz is going to do anything that anyone could hear beyond what 96KHz could/might provide, 96KHz would already really lighten the demands on that filter, compared with 44.1Khz which already sounds very good.

*NOTE on Nyquist for less technical types: An easy visual parallel is the well known effect of seeing a wagon wheel appear to go backwards, or slow, or stop in a motion picture. The frames of film are 'sampling' the wheel at discreet times, just like an ADC 'samples' sound at discreet times. If the object moves fast compared to the sample rate, you see some slower, false difference frequency. Same in audio - if a 22KHz signal gets into a 44.1KHz converter, it will record a 50Hz signal. You will have a bass note appear out of nowhere!

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 10:06 AM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Interesting, but of course, just because a device has some technical capability, that does not mean it is implemented well.

Like the 'mega-pixel' wars in cameras, the higher mega-pixel ratings didn't always mean higher quality - the actual size of the sensor, noise levels, and a few other specs said more about quality than the pixel count.

And I suspect that is the case in your laptop, and a phone. They won't have optimum ground layouts, or low noise power supplies, or high quality audio paths in general. At 16 bits, we are already talking ~ 96db capabilities, and that is already quite demanding on the other components and implementation to keep noise floor that low. So I doubt that increasing the stated bit rating of the DAC in those cases is meaningful...
I suspect that you could be right that having the D/A-A/D chip sitting next to a bunch of fast switching digital chips is going to cause some noise to couple into the analog path. My point was that the chip itself was not that expensive anymore.

But this makes me wonder. Darn, now I'll just have to find out what the audio hardware inside my laptop is capable of. I have not been able to hear much difference between this and that, but I can "see" with scopes, FFT, and graphs.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 10:13 AM   #39
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Westcliffe
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by springnr View Post
Honor Roll of well-mastered pop CDs, pretty much nothing after 1990.
Lots of great sounding CDs there ...
__________________
Mr. Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 10:25 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by springnr View Post
Honor Roll of well-mastered pop CDs, pretty much nothing after 1990.

...iTunes radio - some hopeful news
Dynamic Range compression: Are The Loudness Wars Over?

Sampling Theory For Digital Audio is a good article on digital sampling rate.
Thanks, some very interesting info in those links.

The last one covers some of what I talked about regarding diminishing returns in higher sample rates, and gave some specific advice (I bolded):

Quote:
Nyquist pointed out that the sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth. What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill. In fact all the objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz.
He says the downside of going beyond 60KHz (in addition to higher storage requirements and higher power consumption in the device), is that higher frequencies will actually reduce the accuracy in those converters - it's generally easier to get better accuracy at lower frequencies. 60KHz is apparently in the 'sweet spot'.



The iTunes article brings up some fascinating points that might be 'heresy' to some self-proclaimed 'audiophiles' (emph mine, with some minor edits for clarity):

Quote:
Mastered for iTunes is an initiative to get higher quality conversions to AAC than ever before, by supplying 24-bit masters to Apple for encoding.

... generally, 256 kbps AAC sounds as good as or better than 320 kbps mp3 ...and 320 kbps mp3 is just a bit below CD quality. However, when the 256 kbps (AAC) are made from the 24 bit master, everything turns around, and many AAC masters sound better than the CD because the AAC preserves more of the depth and space from the 24-bit original than the 16-bit CD.
Ah-hah! 'Compressed' sound that is better than CD (but the key is to start with a master higher than CD quality)! I remember thinking about this years ago, but didn't know if it would pan out in real life. But I recently read an article about photo compression, and it makes sense there at least.

That photo article pointed out that for a given output file size, you get better image quality by starting with a relatively high resolution (large file size) and using relatively high compression, compared to a lower resolution and mild compression. IOW, the compression algorithms are pretty good and they do their intended job - the 'compressed' image is better than a non-compressed at the same file size. But you need that higher rez image at the start.

Apparently, the same is true of audio. Pretty neat. So if a 256 kbps from a 24 bit master can (apparently not 'always') sound better than CD quality, I would think that something like 512 kbps from a 24 bit master would always have more info than CD quality - and still be smaller than a CD quality FLAC (~ 720 kbps file size). Win-Win!

I still might want to have access to that master though, so that I could convert to other formats w/o generational artifacts from re-compressing, but that might not be a practical issue if that source compressed file is already higher than CD Q.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I think I can. I think I can. Gil24 Hi, I am... 26 01-22-2014 05:48 PM
I think I'm close, what do you think? erinsd Hi, I am... 6 04-08-2012 08:30 PM
HFWR and other Audiophiles Sarah in SC Other topics 5 03-09-2008 06:16 AM
55 and anxious to retire, I think I can, I think I can 56mga Hi, I am... 6 10-09-2007 05:12 PM
I think I can, I think I can, but why am I afraid? behappy Hi, I am... 30 09-26-2007 11:29 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.