Forums | Search | Archives

All Forums  Hardware & Soundcards  Superlux -early sound cheak results.....

Author	Topic
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 1:40 pm  I recieved the Superlux Mic today, and ran up to the music store to buy a shock mount for it, as it didn't come with it. no big deal. So I ran some sound checks, using a Martin D-18 six string acoustic guitar, going thru the Tubessence pre-amp, thru the Mackie mixing board, into the Audiophile 2496, into Cool Edit Pro 2.1., 32 bit settings. I made four seperate 30 second recordings, onto four seperate tracks in Cool Edit. All EQ settings, chords tempo, mic placement, the same, only difference was the various microphones. Track 1- The Superlux CM-H8A Track 2- AKG C1000 Track 3- Martin Fishman Built it pick-up Track 4- Sennheiser 421 Here's the results Superlux, Nice smooth, even, overall tone, the winner !! The AKG C1000 close second, but a little boomy. The Sennheiser- a little bland in comparison. The Fishman Martin built-in pick up, way too bright Up till now, the AKG C-1000 was the most senitive mic I have, but the Superlux is even more so. It puts out a very strong signal, and has smoother sound to it. The finish is an attractive aluminum/silver-ish color, and with the shock mount, looks great in my studio. I like it !!!!
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 2:04 pm  This all seems reasonable. The C1000 is AKG's rather long in the tooth cheapest electret. Not bad, but the Superlux should be able to exceed its performance easily. The Sennheiser is a dynamic mic (okay a pretty good dynamic mic), and is never going to sound like a condensor. As for the internal pickup... well, its inevitable that this is going to sound completely different anyway. I'm glad you're happy with the Superlux - out of the mics, etc you've mentioned, I'm sure that its the best one you've got. _________________
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 2:20 pm  The AKG isn't a bad sounding mic at all, I've done similar tests and compared it to a AKG 414 and found very little difference in sound quality. The Superlux is noticably hotter than the C-1000, and should give better results. I agree, out of all the mics I've have, the Superlux comes out on top for sound quality. The Fishman Martin pick-up in my D-18 is the cheaper model, and I have never liked it. I have a Martin Goldline pick-up in my 12 string that sounds great, but I didn't use it in these tests. The Goldline costs twice as much, but it is worth it. It's not a Nuemann, but it's not bad for a home studio.
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 3:07 pm  A side note, The AKG test between the 414 and the C-1000, was a little tainted with the C-1000 running thru the Tubessence, and a Mackie board, where the 414 was running thru a Soundcraft board. The final results were very similar sounding. Before I jump on the bang for the buck soap box though, I would spend some time with the Superlux to see if it continues to perform well over a long period of time. The higher priced mics have been time tested, where as the electronics in the Superlux are fairly new. I suppose if I baby the mic, it should last a while. I could play footbal with the Sennheiser and it would still work, I'd be leary of dropping the Superlux though. But then again, I wouldn't recomend playing footbal with a U-87 either. The price difference is huge though. I've seen prices for the two mics at $150 for the Superlux, vrs. $2,500 for the U-87. A few years ago I paid around $225-230 each for the Sennheiser and C-1000.
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:48 pm  Well the second round of sound checks is showing off the Superlux's abilities. Thru headphones, I tried miking various things including vocal's, the Martin D-18 Guitar, the Taylor 12 string, marimba's, An African drum and flute. All with excellent reults. Using the headphones, I can move around the mic and located the sweet spots right away. Because of it's sensitivity, I don't have to be right up on the mic, actually things sound better 6-12' away. I tried recording the twelve string guitar into Cool Edit, and played a little "More Than A Feeling" by Boston, and it sounded very much, if not better than the record. It's got that special sound, I've been looking for. Vocals are coming thru with lots of power, a rich sound tone, and resonance, I haven't heard on my other mics. For once, my voice doesn't sound lame to me. The mic adds a lot of resonance, without changing the tone. The extra sensitivity is picking up breathing while playing the flute, and every nuance on the African drums. The marimba tends to over drive the mic, when played too close to it, but at a distance sound good. The more I work with this mic, the more I like it !!! It's inspiring !!
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:20 am  Well now that I have a really sensitive mic, the next obvious step is a dead quiet sound room. This mic picks up everything !! My computer fans sound like a wind tunnel, and with my air conditioner on, I might as well be doing recordings on an airport runway with a jet idling near by. I may have to construct one of those "po man's sound booth", using pvc pipe and quilts.
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:35 am  ... which takes us back to 'why are we recording with a computer anyway?' in a recent thread. People may laugh at my 8 track minidisc machine, but at least it's silent in operation - I've even used it in the audience of a classical recital (with permission!!) without complaints. But I'm glad you continue to be pleased with the mics. - Ozpeter
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:06 am  I don't laugh at those 8 track mini-disk machines. I've heard them, they sound very nice !! I had a six track cassette recorder once, which was kind of cool but had a little tape hiss. I got some cool recordings with that, but the mini-disk was a much better sounding machine. The only problem with the one I was looking at, was it had a short 15 minute recording time capability per disk. I needed more time than that for live recordings. Looking back though, I would have invested into better mics than the Sennheisers, but at the time, that was the best I could afford. The Superlux mic is a definite upgrade for me.
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:31 am  djwayne wrote: Well now that I have a really sensitive mic, the next obvious step is a dead quiet sound room. This mic picks up everything !! My computer fans sound like a wind tunnel, and with my air conditioner on, I might as well be doing recordings on an airport runway with a jet idling near by. I may have to construct one of those "po man's sound booth", using pvc pipe and quilts. Don't be too surprised if just hanging some quilt up doesn't fix the problem, will you? It may well cut down the reberberant field in the immediate region of the mic (which will help a little bit), but it won't stop external low frequency noise getting in at all. You either need a carefully designed structure, or a truly massive one to stop most of the noise you are experiencing from getting to the mic. If it was that easy to stop noise, why do you think that studios spend so much money on it? If it's noise generated in the room, you need to be looking at treating the sources of it, initially probably rather more than you need to be building a booth! _________________
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:25 am  In the past, I've set up my mics in a seperate room, (my living room), closed the door, turn of the furnace, disconnect the phone, turn off the breakers for the furnace and refrigerator, locked the dog in another room, and hope it doesn't rain or any trucks drive by, during the session. Doing all this resulted in getting some surprisingly very good recordings. True, a dead quiet, specially built sound room would be great, but not possible in the place I'm at now, so I have to work with what space I do have available, and the outside enviorment. I'll be running more sound checks thru-out the week. Most of my recordings were made using midi equipment with direct line in from sound modules, so actual acoustic recordings of instruments or vocals are rare, and sound proofing isn't need for that. At the time I started this project, studio time was quoted at $25 to $125 per hour, so a home studio was the best route for me, as I planned on spending lots of time writing and working on arraingements.
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:39 am  That's the problem - we can record in 24 bit sound, with super-quiet mics and preamps etc, but can we find (a) somewhere quiet enough to record and (b) somewhere quiet enough to listen afterwards - without running up costs that make the aforementioned equipment look cheap? There's not many genuine 24-bit acoustics. - Ozpeter
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:03 am  Yes, and after doing all that to make music, the radio stations just want to play songs like "Closing Time" over and over a million zillion times, music fans want the recordings free off the internet, or only buy 12 cd's for the price of one, record companies won't even talk to you unless you can guarantee them a profit, other people want to take your musical ideas and run with it, and to top it off, they spend millions of dollars to build the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to honor musicians and kick me out cause I smoke cigarettes, and threaten to sue me and destroy my computer if I were to downlaod a song from the internet, and God help you if you try to be a dj, ascap will demand a fee, musicians will want your gig, politicians will try to shut you down, customer's try to get you fired cause you don't play any "Reba". There's no business like show business........hehehehe
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:07 am  ozpeter wrote: There's not many genuine 24-bit acoustics. Okay, a bit of a digression... How about none? Well, not for any sounds that you could make and be in the presence of, anyway. If we started with the quietest place we could manage, we'd have to make a noise 144.49dB louder than this to use the whole 24-bit range. Leaving aside finding the location for a moment, there's not a recording system around that can manage this - they can't even get anywhere near it! It's quite spooky being in one of the quietest places on earth, as it happens - there aren't very many of them, and as far as I'm aware, only one in the UK. What you have to do is engineer a space where the noise level is dependent only on the absolute temperature, and then make the space anechoic... enter the BBC. The Beeb has precisely one chamber that meets these requirements, and it sits buried in the Research Centre at Kingswood Warren, its mere existence being constantly under threat. It's the chamber where some of the best monitors in the world were developed, but that doesn't seem to matter very much. But inside, with the door shut, it is seriously Q U I E T . . . and if you want it quieter, you have to use it in the winter, having cooled all the air down first... It is also an extremely dangerous place, for a lot of reasons - partly to do with air, but mainly to do with falling off the platform onto the bloody great 8' spikes that run through the foam wedges! Seriously, you'd be badly injured if you fell off. And then there's the rotating boom... that thing could easily knock you off the platform into the wedges if it caught you unawares. Acoustic research is a far more dangerous undertaking than many people realise! Now, what I would like to do is record some music in anechoic conditions. You would not believe how difficult this is turning out to be - or maybe you would in view of what I've just described! The only thing that's not going to be a problem is the mic positioning - you really don't have a lot of choice about this! _________________
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:28 am  I was in one of those quiet rooms once at a research center for a manufacturing plant. It was dead quiet. It had 6-8" thick doors that must have weighed a ton. It was like being in a vault. Even though there was tons of shop noise outside, inside it was so quiet you could hear your heart beat. Your words would be soaked right up into the walls of sonex. You could hear the flouresenct light bulbs. It was weird.
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:52 am  We've got a pub in Houston that actually is in an old Bank building. The billiards room is in (what used to be) the vault. They have a really nice sound system and better yet......... great beer!!! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:17 am  djwayne wrote: I was in one of those quiet rooms once at a research center for a manufacturing plant. It was dead quiet. It had 6-8" thick doors that must have weighed a ton. It was like being in a vault. Even though there was tons of shop noise outside, inside it was so quiet you could hear your heart beat. Your words would be soaked right up into the walls of sonex. You could hear the flouresenct light bulbs. It was weird. On the Beeb one, you measure the door thickness in feet. Something that is coming on line soon, but is not anechoic, is the new reverb chamber at the National Physics Laboratory. This is equally spooky - no parallel surfaces anywhere, and a rather longer reberb time than anticipated. It will be quiet in there, though. The entire building it's in is environmentally controlled, and the chamber is isolated within it. It has, I think I remember, a triple set of doors, and some well-thought-out isolation measures. Oh, the reverb time? A nearly unworkable 19 seconds. For what the chamber might be used for, this is really too long - to do any sort of meaningful testing in there, the delays, and amount of material you will have to use, will be significant. I think that this may need to be artificially reduced a little. There are no pictures yet - I don't think they've moved in. But the outside of the new building looks like this: _________________
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:25 am  I guess it all depends on what your needs are. I've recorded in 4 different studio, not counting my own. One had a very quiet sound room, all lined with shag carpeting, this was back in the 70's. Sonically the recording came out really good for a rock band. Another studio had seperate isolation rooms, but nothing in the way of soundproofing, all wood paneling, but made great acoustic recordings. Another was soundproofed like crazy and made professional, but bland, sounding recordings. Another home studio had a very small vocal booth, a little bigger than a phone booth, but not much. Here again, bland recordings. I watch the Chieftain's DVD, "Down The Old Plank Road", and they show an actual recording being made at a studio in Nashville, that looked just like a large living room with mics all over the place, and the recording sounds fabulous. Go Figure.
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:19 pm  I thought that Down The Old Plank Road was recorded at the Ryman Auditorium.... That particular session also had the "best of the best" session players also. Tim O'Brien Buddy and Julie Miller Vince Gill Ricky Skaggs and Kentucky Thunder Allison Krauss Jeff White Lyle Lovett Earl Scruggs Bela Fleck Patty Griffin Del McCoury Band Martina McBride Gillian Welch David Rawlings John Hiatt Bryan Sutton Marc Savoy Emmylou Harris I'm sure that these players "alone" had alot to do with the quality of the final product. ;) _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:37 pm  Yes, The DVD was recorded at the Ryman, however, the DVD also has a bonus track of a studio recording of the song, and that's what I was referring to. I think they are running credits with the studio footage in the background at the end of the DVD. I'm sure having all that talent, in one room helped to make it sound great, but the setting is a very comfortable one. Not to mention the top engineers working on it, with the top equipment available. Paddy Malone of the Chieftains is one of the top producers in Europe and has many studio credits to his name, so it's fair to say he knows what he's doing !!!
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 2:40 pm  Yeah, all studios sound different except Eastlake/Westlake ones. And the sound doesn't have anything to do with the isolation, as a rule. But it does have everything to do with the furnishings. There was a craze at one stage for people to build 'LEDE' studios - I think that this was mainly an excuse for everybody else to get as far away from the drummer as possible! The other way to avoid the drummer was to have a pretty dead studio, and tell him that the drums were going to sound best in the hall, lobby, bathroom, kitchen, next door, out in the street, whatever. This method worked a treat for a lot of bands. And I'm not joking about that list - they've all been done, and a few more besides. The best natural acoustic that I've heard about around a studio is what they've got in Sawmills, Cornwall. If you open the back door, it looks out over a sodding great creek up the river Fowey with a range of hills behind it, and it's in the middle of nowhere. The reverb/echo you get from a guitar amp on the lawn is awesome! _________________
jester700 Posts: 546	Posted - Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:07 pm  The only anechoic room I've been in was at Temple U. in Philly when I studied there. I'm sure it was nowhere near the level of the BBE facility (the wall wedges looked to be maybe 2' deep, and you were walking on the floor material, not suspended above wedges). Still, spooky is a good word. Personally, I doubt I could play or sing anything worth recording in such a place to begin with. Maybe goth metal or something equally depressing would work well. ;-)
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:57 am  Being 15 minutes for NASA (and having a good friend who works there), I've managed to check out their Audio Testing facility. "Spooky" is a good description of a "dead quite" environment. _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
MusicConductor Location: USA Posts: 1524	Posted - Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:16 am  Hey Jester, cool -- I'm a Temple alum (1989). When were you there, and where in the world was there an anechoic room (maybe across the street at SCAT, I suppose)? --Bill
DeluXMan Location: Canada Posts: 330	Posted - Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:17 pm  WHAT?, if anything can be done with materials and design to stop sound from getting out to the people next door? X( This has become the weakest link in an otherwise near perfect home studio enviroment. We now have endless channels of 24 bit audio, editting bliss, affordable super reverbs, monitors, and now super microphones, not to mention some great affordable instruments. But we still have to go to a commercial studio to practice/record. The cost really adds up fast if you're putting in the hours. Most people will not be willing or allowed to build a cement building inside their appartment so it would take some fancy physics to keep the sound inside with much less material. If it was removable and transportable great. Any ideas?
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:34 pm  Quote: Now, what I would like to do is record some music in anechoic conditions. You would not believe how difficult this is turning out to be - or maybe you would in view of what I've just described! I think it would be a bit more difficult to record anything good in there. The musicians would probably just barely tap and pluck and whisper, because anything else would probably seem too loud for them. Plus, how uncomfortable of an environment would that be!? (rhetorical, clearly) _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:38 pm  DeluXMan wrote: Most people will not be willing or allowed to build a cement building inside their appartment so it would take some fancy physics to keep the sound inside with much less material. If it was removable and transportable great. Any ideas? If you want some sort of idea of what you're up against, then read this BBC research report. They've done quite a bit of work on this - this is really only to give you some sort of an idea. The rest of it is shrouded in mysteries known only to us acousticians! _________________
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:49 pm  Quilts over the windows helps, heavy drapery. Heavy blankets, comforters draped over amplifiers to contain the sound. Direct line inputs when possible. Use headphones when possible. And if all else fails, move out to a newer place. Ain't nothing worse than a neighbor banging on your door in the middle of a session screaming "Turn that noise down !!!", that tends to kill your inspiration, and ends your session. For really loud stuff, I try to get it recorded as quickly as possible, and shut it down before the neighbors complain. Lucky for me though, I'm blessed with very old almost deaf neighbors, and don't get many complaints. Also if you can schedule your really loud sessions when the neighbors aren't home, that may help. Sometimes just finding a new practice space is the only answer, or recording at a gig, either before or the day after a show. There's many times I'd like to crank it up and let it rip, but it's also good for my hearing, not to do that too often. loud noise for long periods of time, can seriously damage your hearing, so take it easy, before you get permenant damage. Even with headphones.
DeluXMan Location: Canada Posts: 330	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:55 pm  thanks for the suggestions. 8) How about this stuff: :???: http://www.acoustiblok.com/index.html I'm thinking about a 'drum tent'. Maybe a tent within a tent within a tent. It might get cramped inside but isolation between tents, walls and floor could be near 100% if it could all be spring suspended. This would probably need a strong steel [not wood] frame to support the 2-3 thousand pounds of acoustiblock and the drums+drummer=300pounds only, just for a guestimate.
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:23 pm  There's many different products you can use in designing your sound room. I've even read of one studio that has I believe, thick glass walls filled with colored sand. All depends on your budget, your space requirements, your intended use, length of use, weight restrictions on your existing structure, ect... Whatever though, keep fire and electrical safety in mind, and don't use materials that support flames spreading. If you're going to use really heavy materials, be sure to build it to your local building codes and manufactures suggestions, you don't need the roof collapsing in the middle of a session. Good Luck !!
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:40 pm  Quote: Maybe a tent within a tent within a tent. It might get cramped inside but isolation between tents, walls and floor could be near 100% if it could all be spring suspended. This would probably need a strong steel [not wood] frame to support the 2-3 thousand pounds of acoustiblock and the drums+drummer=300pounds only, just for a guestimate. IMO, if your willing to spend this sort of money and endure that large of a project, you would be better off contacting a design Architect and doing it right! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
DeluXMan Location: Canada Posts: 330	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:02 pm  I suppose it could become an expensive disaster without a professional. I was also thinking that a foot or two of fine french pastry on the walls would be an ideal acoutic treatment, with all the layers of pastry seperated by air-space like that, but rejected the idea when i calculated that it could never support the weight of the jelly filling. :O I suppose i could try SteveGs' ol' hanging carcusses trick. :P In any case a single wall of Acoustiblok® provides only 15db of attenuation at 100 Hz.
djwayne Location: USA Posts: 583	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:36 pm  Well it's totally up to you. Hanging a few quilts over some pvc pipe for a temporary structure is one thing, using heavy material in a permanent design, requires more planning. Safety becomes an major issue. Building codes come into play. Electrical codes come into play. Building a pro-quality recording studio, is a little more involved than building a tree-house. But with lots of proper planning, it can be done. Roll up your sleeves and do your homework !!!
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:46 pm  DeluXMan wrote: I suppose it could become an expensive disaster without a professional. I was also thinking that a foot or two of fine french pastry on the walls would be an ideal acoutic treatment, with all the layers of pastry seperated by air-space like that, but rejected the idea when i calculated that it could never support the weight of the jelly filling. :O I suppose i could try SteveGs' ol' hanging carcusses trick. The hanging carcusses won't help at all with any bass problems. Bass is a nightmare to control - there are factors here that you haven't even begun to contemplate... One thing you could consider if you have the space is one of these ready-made booths - some of which work pretty well, and would probably cost you far less than an expensive experiment with acoustiblok, or one of the other proprietry solutions. Your real issue with sound escaping is that you won't stop it getting out at all with anything that's basically an acoustic treatment - this is only meant to control the acoustics in the room itself, and can only make a marginal difference to what gets out. To stop sound getting out (or in) you have to consider the attenuation in the airborne paths, and the effects of any flanking (structural) transmission. And this is where it gets expensive, because fixing these problems properly invariably involves some building work, and if you are not going to waste even more money, the services of an acoustician. There's a limit to how much I can tell you about this, because I haven't seen the room, and we haven't negotiated a fee... :) And it's a long way away. It's much easier doing internal treatment problems at a distance - structural ones usually require site visits and measurements, and then you have to employ a builder who is anal retentive about detail, because that's where these treatments usually fail to be fully effective. A local qualified acoustician would probably be worth his fee, though - just in money you would save by not making a big mistake. _________________
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:58 pm  If you want some sort of an idea of what's involved, then in the UK we have just released a new version of a book called affectionately 'Approved Document E', which is all about the acoustic treatment of new-build and conversions into flats/apartments. It's been fudged (this is complicated, and involves legislation), but the acoustic parts are still hot to trot, and it is available as a download here. There is a lot of it, and most of it you won't need to bother with, but there is some useful constructional guidance in it. _________________
DeluXMan Location: Canada Posts: 330	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 6:03 pm  Cool! Thanks Steve. I'm DLing now... 8) Just kidding about the hanging carcusses of coarse, as i recall these were used as ideal bass traps. I'm interested though in the factors i may have not even begun to contemplate. Like it would be great to know the first things that came to mind anyway.. bearing in mind that i'm looking at a booth and not a room/wall treatment. The pastry thing was a bit OT.
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 6:32 pm  DeluXMan wrote: I'm interested though in the factors i may have not even begun to contemplate. Like it would be great to know the first things that came to mind anyway.. bearing in mind that i'm looking at a booth and not a room/wall treatment. The pastry thing was a bit OT. I thought the pastry was quite interesting - but I could see drummers eating the insulation! The factors thing: Have you ever wondered how long the wavelength of bass notes is? And what this might mean to your acoustic treatment, and coupling into the building structure? There are some serious ramifications to this... and you will get a few clues from App Doc E as well. _________________
DeluXMan Location: Canada Posts: 330	Posted - Fri Jul 11, 2003 7:40 pm  I can see some of the issues. With such long wavelengths this booth could just act as a big bass drum and make things worse, if the walls can move even a bit. At these low frequencies it's also a matter of pressure containment, so a 'tent' is not going to cut it. A pressure sealed hyperbaric chamber might make a good starting point.. oh well. :clown: Thanks for the tips! oh ya hmm... i guess it's possible that the wrong hyperbaric chamber, energized at just exactly the wrong low frequency, might explode!
	Topic

Page: