Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    8

    Question Why and how to break new speakers in?

    Finally decided to get rid of my Kenwood HTiB front speakers, while reading the reviews, I find many reviewers mentioned you need to break new spearkers in, can anybody explain why and how you do it? Thank in advance.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by TorontoFish
    Finally decided to get rid of my Kenwood HTiB front speakers, while reading the reviews, I find many reviewers mentioned you need to break new spearkers in, can anybody explain why and how you do it? Thank in advance.
    Well, just as many people believe in psychics too.
    All jokes aside, those reviewers are wrong and yes, that many can be wrong easily.

    Just play your speakers and enjoy them from day one, minute one.
    mtrycrafts

  3. #3
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,676
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Just play your speakers and enjoy them from day one, minute one.
    Yep! You'll get used to their sound in no time. Wether you like it or not is another story.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ottawa-Ont
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Yep! You'll get used to their sound in no time. Wether you like it or not is another story.
    I wonder if its breaking in the speaker or the speakers breaking in yours ears?? just go ahead and play your source dont over crank them but enjoy them. its like a car dont go hard on it right off the bat...but enjoy it !!!

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583

    Use Pink noise or FM noise...

    Then place the speakers face to face and close together, about a foot apart. Then switch the wires on one of the speakers, black on red, red on black, thus reversing the phase. This is an effective way to break in speakers.
    Remember, different isn't always better, but it is different.
    Keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple.
    Let your ears decide for you!

  6. #6
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    The idea behind breaking in speakers is that the tweeter and woofers need to settle into their operating parameters. Many car makers say the same thing when you put new break pads on your car to go easy on them for the first 1000 miles.

    The idea is the speaker drivers have been placed into the box and never been used and thus after they play for a while they will settle into their appropriate operating parameters. Theoretically, it has some merit and a recent test of a B&W CDM 1NT was taken right out of the box and then again with several thousand hours on them and they do MEASURE differently...very subtle but it is there in the audible band...whether you'd hear and notice it is another matter but then the subjective correlation matches the measurement.

    I had a set of B&W DM 302s and for the first 3 hours or so the speaker made some looud audible POPPING sounds like popcorn in the microwave. Not as fast but clearly audible - thought it was an LP.

    However, no such thing with my Audio Notes.

    Quite simply speaker break in is a non issue because all you have to do to break a speaker in is to PLAY THE SPEAKERS. Since this is wht you do with speakers anyway don't worry. One big reason they advertise speaker break in is because people buy them get them home and if the sound is bad in the first 10 minutes people return them. They want you to listen to the speakers for a few weeks so you get used to them and ALSO so that by then you will probably play several cds and good ones will sound good and bad ones will sound bad.

    After 10 hours and careful positioning in a reasonably acoustically room friendly room if the speaker sounds BAD things will not get better enough and I would return them. Most speaker manufacturers recommend 30 hours. I say if the return period allows for 30 hours of listening that you give the manufacturer that time - since it makes no difference anyway. And if it's your ears that begins to like them great if the speaker's subtle measurement difference is actually the reason that's great too...the point is moot if after 30 hours the sound is more enjoyable or totally sucks.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,187
    The notion of loudspeaker break-in is extremely troubling to me and flies in the face of everything we know about modern manufacturing. The analogy between loudspeakers breaking in and automobile engines breaking in is absurd. Automobile engines are not manufactured to the precision of loudspeakers. If they were, they wouldn't need breaking in either. Automobile engines and other auto parts have to endure temperatures and pressures far greater than anything any loudspeaker built will likely ever see. Loudspeakers routinely handle a few watts, a few dozen at most, and very rarely a couple of hundred for a brief time. Automobile engines handle dozens and even hundreds of horsepower and every horsepower is 746 watts. Brakes, transmissions, and other moving parts undergo similarly huge temperatures and pressures compared to audio equipment and loudspeakers.

    The goal of modern manufacturing is predictable uniformity of product. That means that the finished product must match the characteristics of a prototype in all respects including performance. This is enshrined in the ISO 9000 principle adopted by many manufacturers. Those who don't adopt ISO 9000 often adopt comparable standards from other organizations. The manufacturer wants to exercise the utmost control over his product to be sure his customer will be satisfied by getting exactly what he expected from hearing a demo unit. It is only small garage operation which make a few units at a time as piecework that have neither the technical nor financial resources for such activity.

    The problem with the "break in" is how does the manufacturer control or predict changes to his product after it leaves his factory? How does he know where the changes will stop. Will they take place? To what degree? Will the product perform so differently from the prototype within a short period that it is unacceptable? If a speaker needs a breakin, wouldn't it make more sense for the manufacturer to do it at the factory so that he could exercise total control over it and reject those units which exceed the performance specifications after break in?

    All equipment ages. But I expect these gradual changes to elapse over decades, not hours, days or weeks. Personally, I'd avoid any loudspeaker or other equipment for which the manufacturer or salesman says a breakin is required.

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Willow
    its like a car dont go hard on it right off the bat...but enjoy it !!!

    Yes, he needs to enjoy it, not worry about it. But, the speaker is not really like the car about break in.
    mtrycrafts

  9. #9
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    Skeptic.

    If you avoid speaker manufacturers the recommend break-in you'll be avoiding all of them including AR.

    Iso is propaganda garbage set out to be meaningful for Quality control and My old company was ISO 9000 approved to the highest level. We sold teeth on bull-dozer buckets and they were all over the map when it came to actually lasting the duration period.

    Bryston amplifiers - professional amplifer maker for decades and hardly any slouches include a measurement graph of their amplifier so you the owner know exactly how your amp fares. Of course they all meet and better their speac sheet but they are never identical. Which is no big deal since the Bryston 3B ST is rated at 120Watts and you'll be sure to probably get 150Watts.

    The B&W DM 302 I had was an extreme example but for 3 hours of rice crispies I had another 2 years flawless performance.

    It seems to be intermittant and if engineers are so smart thye will know how their speaker will break in because they would have listened to their products. Granted some don't listen to their speakers when they make them and those are the ones best avoided.

    I once bought a pair of shoes right before a 10k run...and that low technology practically killed me...the worst thing you can ever do. I learned first hand to ALWAYS wear a set of broken in shoes if you're going to do such a thing. Simple leather and rubber. A year later(the next Sun Run) those shoes gave no blisters no problems whatsoever.

    Personally I feel the speaker break in is more about customers getting used to the sound of the speakers...since most people say have X model for a decade and the new speaker has a metal tweeter and is Brighter it takes a long time to get used to the pingy ringy dingy sound...after a few months you go back to the older speaker and it sounds lifeless and car bassy. Or then again the new speaker could just be like nails on a chalkboard...the manufacturer is gambling most people won't return the speakers given enough hours even if you're not wildly thrilled.

    But I doubt you're going to find the same model form the same manufacturer sound Identical - or I should say MEASURE identically. How many reviews I have read where the reviewing company gets a malfunctioning unit no less.

    Who's to say that companies don't send a top notch unit to reviewers and cheap out on the stuff they sell to the masses.

    One reason the Canadian Car safety test organization actually goes out and BUYS a car at random from a lot and tests them...not having GM send them a car. This way you know there is not added protection for the test model to make them do better in the test. I wish I read that on my 94 Grand-Am the Death Trap that it is.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    "Breaking Wind", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Jan/Feb 1997, pg 90-94. (Break in myth)

    "Test Report: Dynaudio MW 190, 12" Subwoofer", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Oct 1997, pg 83-88. (More break in myth)

    These show that while some measurement of speaker parameter goes up, others go down.
    Under DBT listening, no differences can be detected.
    mtrycrafts

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    8

    Smile Got it.

    Thank you all for the input! After reading all of them twice, it seems to me "break in" is just a strategy that speaker manufactures use to protest themselves from getting immediate product reture. It's like me, when I first bought the rear projection TV, I was doubting if I have made the right decision (I had Sears change the TV twice, peasonally I like the second one the best, but I can only keep the third one, they don't know where the second one is. If you can, avoid Panasonic for rear projection), now I am used to it, because I have spent probably thousands of hours in front of it.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,187
    KLH many years ago guaranteed that their speakers were within +/- 1db of the prototype at all frequencies. McIntosh guaranteed that their units would meet their published specifications for life and would be adjusted or repaired for free if they ever exceeded the published tolerances for those specifications. I have reported on another board that my father who was the quality control manager of a military electronics firm personally audited Acoustic Research's facility in Cambridge and was shown vast piles of deliberately destroyed drivers which failed performance specifications and would never see the light of day in any AR product even by accident. Bose culled their CTS drivers in their early days segregating them into at least three groups having different performance characteristics so that if you need a replacement driver, they would have to know the serial number to select the proper one for your unit. This is far beyond what many manufacturers, especially small outfits do because they have neither the test equipment nor the time and expertise to perform such tests. But more than that, the suggestion of break in requirement means that the product is inherently unstable. We know this is true for most automoble engines. We know that the first 10,000 to 20,000 miles results in the final machining of the inside of cylinder walls, valves, transmission parts. But far less so with precision robotic machining at the factory today than it was 30 or 40 years ago. If a loudspeaker is so unstable that its performance will change over a matter of hours, days, or weeks after it is put in service, IMO, the manufacturer has done a very poor job of selecting and assembling the components. If you buy one, basically you have no way to know what you are getting. There is good reason to believe that no two will sound exactly alike.

  13. #13
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,048
    Skeptic, I usually like your devil's advocate posts, but how did you start comparing car engines to loudspeakers? If speakers were built like car engines, we'd all be in trouble.

    Still...there's no doubt in my mind that speakers will change subtley in sound over time. I recently sampled the new Paradigm Signature series...a floor demo model, and a new model, right out of the box. At the time the immediate difference in sound was quite noticeable, to the point that you would never believe it was the same speaker.
    Lo, and behold, I've since found out those speakers were exchanged as it appears they were damaged in shipping. Not sure how they served as floor demos for a month, I'm starting to wonder about either the Signature series, or the integrity of my local dealer.

    I'm starting to agree now that break-in time is really more for your ears to adjust to the sound, rather than the speakers to change a bit. However, I have read reviews before that did use a DBT to prove that there are some very small audible differences in speakers with varying degrees of playing time. I don't have the link but it doesn't matter the final point of the article was that these differences would almost be impossible for a person to say they made a significant and substantial difference. The article seem to find that very high hissing noises would disappear over time. This would be consistent with RGA's comments. I wonder if speakers are made in such a way so that they'll sound better once all the components have been used a bit. If so, why not put 30 hours on them at the factory?

    And how did ISO 9000 get brought into this? I use to audit for ISO at car dealerships in my internship in my MBA program. As for ISO being garbage...Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, that company doesn't even follow it's own guidelines.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,187
    Is ISO 9000 garbage? At least the concept behind it isn't. For those who don't know what it is, it is the result of an International Standards Organization program for manufacturers. And yes they are in the Hague. In the US we have our own standards organizations such as ANSI, the American National Standards Institute. Many industries also have their own such as API (American Petroleum Institute), ASTM (American Society of Test Materials) NEMA (Nationa Electrical Manufacturer's Association.)

    What are the purposes of these systems of standards and how does it relate to consumer electronics. The short answer was given by the administrator for ISO 9001 at a company I used to work for which was unnecessarily (IMO) audited by Lloyds of London for ISO compliance and certification. And that answer is; Do what you say, Say what you do, and have the records to prove it. What it means is that when you sell someone a product you manufacture, you have a trackable system in place to assure the customer that the unit delivered to him is as identical as possible to the sample he saw and made his decision to purchase it on. This doesn't imply, it insists that the process of testing all incoming components, closely monitoring all processes at every step, and testing the final product verifying that a rational process has been put in place and followed to assure the customer gets what he expects. That means cars, loudspeakers, nuclear weapons, anything. To suggest that changes will occur in the course of usage shortly after delivery means that the state of the art, or at least as it is practiced within reasonable economic restraints cannot avoid such changes. For example, a new Ford Taurus will probably need to be broken in. A Rolls Royce won't. Why? Because all of the final maching of the components has been done at the factory at great additional cost. What about a loudspeaker? Every component going into a speaker system should be tested and the final assembled product tested again to assure that it will conform to the performance of the prototype. This is the essence of quality control. If it need breaking in, it should be performed at the factory so that if it does not achieve acceptable performance after break in, it will be rejected and not shipped to the customer. If they can't do that, I for one don't want them. It might interest you to know that most manufactures cull a random sample of their products for destructive testing. That means pushing them in one way or another beyond all reasonable limits. Will a loudspeaker subjected to 1000 watts contiunously or plugged into a wall socket catch fire? Will a television picture tube hit with a hammer or impacted by a 38 caliber bullet explode showering all occupants of a room with flying glass? The manufacturer wants to know or at least he should. But if you are a small guy putting units together on order a few at a time in a garage, you can't do that either.

    BTW, I do not play devil's advocate just to be perverse. I see the world a certain way based on my training and experience. I've been around the block technically speaking at least a few times myself and feel those who have should share some of it with those who haven't. Then they have the choice ot believe any, some or none of it.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    56

    Cool Interesting technical discussion fron usenet group on speaker break-in


  16. #16
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,048
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Is ISO 9000 garbage? At least the concept behind it isn't. For those who don't know what it is, it is the result of an International Standards Organization program for manufacturers.
    This is the largest misconception of ISO's purposes. BY ISO's own figures manufacturers account for less than 25% of all business conducted in the world. And slightly less in North America. Truthfully, ISO was designed with service providers in mind, not tangible products and manufacturers. There were already various QSM programs in most developed countries which may or may not have adequately addressed "product and process quality management". What ISO did was apply a few of those concepts in within the framework of organizational goveranance and design to apply them to the service industries. It spread faster among manufacturers due to some bad marketing and poor education, but ISO turned it into positive and stole alot of business from QSM programs. In essence, ISO's philosophy is backwards from quality management. It does not examine the end product so much as each individual process along the way. ISO targets throughput, not output. By definition, if the throughput is perfect, the product should be as well. This does not always hold true.
    You are correct in your "do what you say" bit though...that's the infamous slogan we preached to all the companies. The theoretical problem with ISO, which we are working on now is that there are positive and negative synergies. Organizational integration generally forces many compromises. To maximize each departments performance for example, often requires compromising anothers.
    For some reason, car dealerships were the most prevalent businesses where this held true, and are the focus of many of our models.
    Common sense says to do what makes the most money and keeps the most people happy. But it's hard to create a guideline or policy that people can apply. Too many business aren't thinking.
    ISO's been rather successful at "forcing" companies with ISO certification to only outsource, or deal with other ISO certified companies...great business building for us.
    Here's why ISO is garbage too...once we teach all these companies how to run themselves, they stop paying us and continue to use our practices and advice...we never saw that one coming.
    Actually, since I'm talking about my employer, ISO is great when used properly...just too often it causes people to stop thinking for themselves.
    And it's funny that people still think of us as a "standards organization" or something idealistic and pure like the United Nations is suppose to be...we're a business for all intents and purposes.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    127

    Lightbulb

    Just like you'd break in a new pair of shoes. Wear them or.......use them!!



    Quote Originally Posted by TorontoFish
    Finally decided to get rid of my Kenwood HTiB front speakers, while reading the reviews, I find many reviewers mentioned you need to break new spearkers in, can anybody explain why and how you do it? Thank in advance.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,187
    It is true that ISO focuses on the quality of the process and not the quality of the product. It is also true that you can have a high quality process and an awful product. Companies, whether manufacturers or service providers which are truely focused on producing a quality product may use ISO as a tool, or develop their own comparable tool. This would be one of many tools to assure a quality product. However, any organization which haphazardly manufactures its product one way today and another tomorrow without rhyme or reason except at the whim or quirk of the plant manager or some department manager has no chance at all of producing a consistant product. ISO is not a be all, end all. It is merely one group's systematized way of expressing one point of view of producing a salable item or product in a predictable, rational way. There are others and ISO in itself is not sufficient. But compared to what many manufacturers do, it would be a giant step in the right direction.

    If I buy a new loudspeaker from say JBL today, I think my speaker will perform pretty much like the one I heard in the showroom, and whether I like it or not, or it is any good or not is another matter. On the other hand, if I buy one from xyz high end manufacturing corp which only makes 50 pairs of them a year, there is an excellent chance that not only will my pair not sound like the ones in the showroom, the left and right may not even sound like each other.

    If you read the history of JBL on their website, you will see that one of their most ambitious and prestigious models of all time the Paragon which was the most expensive product of its type in its day was manufactured so haphazardly that it is likely that of the thousand or so that were ultimately made, no two were exactly alike. I'll bet that most manufacturers today operate the same way.

    It is small wonder that only 25 percent of all maunufacturers in the world comply and are certified with ISO 9000. I'll bet there are millions of small to medium sized companies especially in the "developing world" which never heard of ISO. Do you think your $4 pocket radio made in some backwater town in China is made to ISO standards? It's a miracle it works at all. So if your speaker was made by a guy who orders a bunch of parts from suppliers, merely puts them in a box, and plays them for a few minutes to make sure they sound OK and that all of the parts work, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the moment I started using it, changes start happening. Round and round the wheel she goes, and where she stops, nobody knows.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    10

    Try this..

    Get a group of approximately 8 to 10 people to encircle your speakers. Put in a nature CD with some ocean sounds, turn down the lights, turn on a strobe light, have everyone hold hands without any clothing to eliminate any chance of static buildup, and start chanting artifacts be gone over and over until the sound of the ocean waves feel like they are sweeping over your bare feet. Sometimes just calling the local witch-doctor to do his own dance seems to work as well.

    Seriously, I have a CD by Sheffield Labs containing a break-in track that I put on repeat for a number of days. It supposedly speeds up the break-in process. Basically it plays either white or pink noise while simultaneously playing a repeating low to high frequency.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,187
    According to the article, a twenty to thirty second burst at resonance with a strong signal is required to "break in" the woofer suspension. This will result in a 5% drop in resonant frequency and a 0.2db reduction in efficiency. This is within what is reasonable and is inaudible as well. A 5% reduction in resonant frequncy would be 2 1/2 hz reduction at 50 hz. There is no mention of any changes at any other frequencies. BTW, pink noise, white noise and normal music are useless for breaking in the speakers according to the article so the way I read it, it is a minor laboratory curiousity but in practical terms, it just doesn't exist. (No mention of tweeters or midrange changes. BTW, insofar as the cost of the manufacturer breaking it in, I believe the origianal article's numbers are way off the mark. I don't think the cost would be significant. Especially with the expected service that goes along with the sale of very expensive high end speakers.

  21. #21
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,890
    Break in's a non-issue because it just happens with normal playing. The only time that you might be able to detect any kind of audible difference is when the speakers are brand new out of the box. I had a pair of dealer demos available when I bought my Studio 40s, and the first A/B comparison did yield some differences when comparing those demo units versus brand new units. And I did that A/B comparison only because when I plugged those new speakers in, they just didn't quite sound the way that I expected and I wanted to make sure that the units were not defective. (FYI, this was done using the A/B speaker switch on my receiver -- equal power, identical source, identical room, identical cabling, instantaneous switching) Afterwards, I simply put on a CD, and left it playing while I went out to dinner. When I got back the differences were nondetectable, so I concluded that my speakers were fine and sent the demo units back to my dealer.

    It's only when people start preaching 100+ hour break-ins and specific procedures that I would become suspicious. You're probably right that the notion of extended break-in is more of a ruse to keep people from immediately returning something that they don't like, and there is some truth that the "break in" process has more to do with your ears getting used to a pair of speakers.

  22. #22
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,469
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    "Breaking Wind", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Jan/Feb 1997, pg 90-94.
    I have no doubt that Nousaine will hear no difference "breaking wind" with car stereo equipment. Does car stereo have anything at all to do with high resolution audio anyway? For those who manufacture speakers of a completely different caliber, however, the answer can be different. Ever hear a pair of Alon Grand Exoticas? I would guess the answer is no.

    http://alonbyacarian.com/about_b.htm#breakin

    rw

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I have no doubt that Nousaine will hear no difference "breaking wind" with car stereo equipment. Does car stereo have anything at all to do with high resolution audio anyway? For those who manufacture speakers of a completely different caliber, however, the answer can be different. Ever hear a pair of Alon Grand Exoticas? I would guess the answer is no.

    http://alonbyacarian.com/about_b.htm#breakin

    rw

    Amazing. You assume things not in evidence. How about if you get a hold of the paper and read it first so you don't look so foolish.

    As to your second assertion about your bandied about speakers, please cite the evidence from DBT that anyone can hear audible differences between a brand new unit and one with many hours on it. Please don't speculate and assert nonsense, that is not evidence for audibility.
    mtrycrafts

  24. #24
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The manufacturer wants to know or at least he should. But if you are a small guy putting units together on order a few at a time in a garage, you can't do that either.
    This is interesting. Sugden tests everything that goes out their door. Every product is hand built and listened to and tested before it gets boxed up and Sugden is not necessarily small but they sure are not big. B&W is as big as it gets in the Audio Industry and yet my speakers were obviously not checked according to your rationale. Audio Note of course checks all their stuff since they measure each and every product that goes out the door. But then they're not small...supposedly the second largest Audio Maker out of Britain.

    So where does that leave us...some large and some small do and or don't check their stuff some of or all of or not at all some of the time.

    If you design your stuff right and you have the right people on the line you should not need to make 1000 units before you discover the fatal flaw - no doubt the American car making philosophy that oh well so what if the car explodes on rear impact it's too costly for us to have a recall and far cheaper to settle with the thousands of families. I rarely see that if ever from Toyota because they had a competant non cheap out design to start with so you don't have to have some entity to ensure QC...they had it for 20+ years without.

    In theory it's fine.

  25. #25
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    And it's funny that people still think of us as a "standards organization" or something idealistic and pure like the United Nations is suppose to be...we're a business for all intents and purposes.
    Wow if ISO is like the United Nations then it's both corrupt and totally useless...D'ohh.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest AudioReview Articles

Hot Deals

Latest News

AudioReview on Facebook