Phil Leigh;234523 Wrote:
I'm tired of pointing out that 30 years ago we measured different things
and thought that we knew what we were doing - and now we all know that
was simply wrong!
And I'm tired of pointing out that it doesn't matter how our brain
works. If you take the human brain into
tomjtx;234582 Wrote:
servies,
I think you might be missing the point.
We are listening to music, not test tones.
The point is that he's not listening to you guys either. He may be
reading the posts and typing a reply, but is it really going in?
One problem with internet fora is that
I'm curious as to exactly what tests an engineer would enact to compare
two cables. What specific measurements would be taken? Are these
tests complete enough to truly be able to replicate all of the elements
involved in our hearing?
I'm reminded of the many debates that have been posted on
pablolie;234563 Wrote:
Heisenberg paradigm: measuring something sometimes interferes with the
result...
You've heard of Godwin's Law (that sooner or later in any heated online
discussion, someone brings up the Nazis)?
There seems to be a specialised version used in audiophile forums:
sooner
Let's try to explain it:
we have cable A and cable B. They both have different physical
characteristics, so they could sound different, that's what we want to
proof.
We hook 'm up between an amplifier and some speakers.
We put a microphone somewhere in front of the speakers.
This microphone
servies;234628 Wrote:
Geez... still living in the 1940's?
@adamSlim,
maybe, the microphones aren't perfect, but that's the case for both
tests (cable A and B)
and that also would be eliminated if you go for option B (comparing the
signal at the entrance of the speakers), but ofcourse there
servies wrote:
Robin Bowes;234617 Wrote:
Or are you now telling me that we can produce microphones that can
perform as well as the human ear?
Geez... still living in the 1940's?
Microphones are tone controls.
The most lust object micros are Neumanns from the 50s and RCA ribbons
from the 30s.
jeffmeh;234644 Wrote:
An elephant just quantum tunnelled to appear intact in my living room.
Should I reconsider buying the expensive cables?
Is the elephant wearing headphones?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call
Robin Bowes;234617 Wrote:
Or are you now telling me that we can produce microphones that can
perform as well as the human ear?
adamslim;234626 Wrote:
snip
Your test is pointless.
Actually it's not a bad idea. What you both seem to be missing is that
everything we listen to over an
servies;234613 Wrote:
This microphone registers everything which is coming out of the
speakers.
It's quite a good one then. Transducers are not perfect. Ears have
flaws and tolerances, microphones have flaws and tolerances. Your
argument has flaws.
Difference testing on interconnects
Robin Bowes;234617 Wrote:
Or are you now telling me that we can produce microphones that can
perform as well as the human ear?
R.
Geez... still living in the 1940's?
--
servies
servies's Profile:
cliveb;234593 Wrote:
You've heard of Godwin's Law (that sooner or later in any heated online
discussion, someone brings up the Nazis)?
There seems to be a specialised version used in audiophile forums:
sooner or later someone brings up quantum mechanics.
Does this mean this thread is
Let me see if I got this right. If it measures great but sounds like
crap you'd go for the measurements? You got to be kidding right? At the
end of the day forget the objective/subjective debate we ALL use our
ears to listen. And isn't the point of all of this, to acheive good,
great, amazing,
The problem lays in common misbelief that the best thing for audio is
zero-distorted signal. This is correct for mastering, but clearly
contradicts psychoacoustics when taken in context of end-user
listening, aimed for enjoyment rather then evaluation. There are
certain types of distortion that
325xi;234370 Wrote:
The problem lays in common misbelief that the best thing for audio is
zero-distorted signal. This is correct for mastering, but clearly
contradicts psychoacoustics when taken in context of end-user
listening, aimed for enjoyment rather then evaluation. There are
certain
Wow 325xi I think I agree with you! After many years of audiophileness
I've come to the simple conclusion that ALL audio equipment is flawed.
One will never be able to recreate the live or recorded performance in
ones room, simply because it's your room, it's not the concert hall,
stadium or that
325xi;234370 Wrote:
The problem lays in common misbelief that the best thing for audio is
zero-distorted signal. This is correct for mastering, but clearly
contradicts psychoacoustics when taken in context of end-user
listening, aimed for enjoyment rather then evaluation.
Your definition of
325xi;234370 Wrote:
The problem lays in common misbelief that the best thing for audio is
zero-distorted signal. This is correct for mastering, but clearly
contradicts psychoacoustics when taken in context of end-user
listening, aimed for enjoyment rather then evaluation. There are
certain
ErikM;234366 Wrote:
Let me see if I got this right. If it measures great but sounds like
crap you'd go for the measurements? You got to be kidding right? At the
end of the day forget the objective/subjective debate we ALL use our
ears to listen. And isn't the point of all of this, to acheive
servies wrote:
ErikM;234366 Wrote:
Let me see if I got this right. If it measures great but sounds like
crap you'd go for the measurements? You got to be kidding right? At the
end of the day forget the objective/subjective debate we ALL use our
ears to listen. And isn't the point of all of
Robin Bowes;234428 Wrote:
Unless you're not measuring the right thing.
Exactly. The available means for measurements, especially if we take
complexity of human perception into the picture, can only be compared
to an attempt of describing an elephant by its mere length from it's
tale to the
325xi;234244 Wrote:
Ok, as a physicist, do you believe that cable geometry and material
(particularly isolation) properties don't make any difference in
audible spectrum? That would be strange because at least geometry
directly affects RLC numbers... But then cables made from perfectly
Robin Bowes;234428 Wrote:
Unless you're not measuring the right thing.
I have two cables. They both measure exactly the same (90 cm), yet one
clearly sounds different than the other.
R.
Apparently you have such excellent hearing that you can hear the
difference between a cable with a
servies;234469 Wrote:
Apparently you have such excellent hearing that you can hear the
difference between a cable with a length of 90.001 cm and a cable
with a length of 90.002 cm, you must be a true 'audiophile'
then...
Yawn...
I believe Robin's point is that there may be
servies wrote:
Robin Bowes;234428 Wrote:
Unless you're not measuring the right thing.
I have two cables. They both measure exactly the same (90 cm), yet one
clearly sounds different than the other.
R.
Apparently you have such excellent hearing that you can hear the
difference between a
jeffmeh wrote:
servies;234469 Wrote:
Apparently you have such excellent hearing that you can hear the
difference between a cable with a length of 90.001 cm and a cable
with a length of 90.002 cm, you must be a true 'audiophile'
then...
Yawn...
I believe Robin's point is that
servies;234394 Wrote:
Nope, you misunderstood.
If it measures the same, it can't sound different.
No no no - you just are unable to understand that we may not be
measuring the right things yet. Why can't you accept that we may not
know exactly what to measure at this time?
Because we do not
Robin Bowes;233938 Wrote:
I think this illustrates perfectly the concept of measuring the right
thing. The power of the human auditory system is not defined by its
frequency response, dynamic range, or directional capabilities. The
brain overcomes all these supposed flaws to produce a
servies;234002 Wrote:
Et voilà, you answered your own question...
The brain is interpolating/upsampling the data it gets, coloring it
with all the past experience it has...
Is this bad? I've never had a problem with it, but I'm not going to say
that we humans have hearing capabilities we
Phil Leigh wrote:
servies;234002 Wrote:
Et voilà, you answered your own question...
The brain is interpolating/upsampling the data it gets, coloring it
with all the past experience it has...
Is this bad? I've never had a problem with it, but I'm not going to say
that we humans have hearing
Phil Leigh;234027 Wrote:
But surely that's the whole point? - I agree we can probably determine
what the ear itself is doing, but we have no great method of dtermining
what the brain is doing with whatever limited information it IS getting
from the ear (and we mustn't forget about bone
servies;234070 Wrote:
Where is that info your ears and bones are sending to your brains coming
from? From your speakers. If there is no difference in that signal
between the different cables then there is no difference whatever your
brain may think. That's what this whole test is about:
IMO, it is all really in the ears of the beholder, i.e., if someone
feels that an expensive cable makes his system sound better, that is
great.
For my money, I want to know that the difference is perceivable. 1)
Demonstrate that someone, somewhere, on some system can reliably tell
the
Quote from the article:
Dave Clark, Editor of audio review publication Positive Feedback Online
describes the ANJOU performance as being ... way better than anything
I have heard... He goes on to say, Simply put these are very
danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the
There is really only one way to do the following two things
simultaneously:
1. Fully include a human's ears *and* brain in a test.
2. Filter out all psychological factors not related to the sound
itself.
Love it or loathe it, the blind test. This is how things are PROVED.
Or - if you prefer -
servies;234114 Wrote:
Quote from the article:
... In our opinion this cable is better, but when they say
the above, then I want ...
I think when people say in my opinion .., they admit to possibly
flawed subjectivity. It's not a categoric statement. At that level
people can agree to
Whats interesting to me is that wars are fought and mega $ spent over
marginal differences introduced by well understood and low tech
devices that have reached engineering maturity: cables, power supplies,
CD players, DAC, op AMPs,
For these kinds of devices once you spend 3 times more
opaqueice;233551 Wrote:
The problem is that the signal is _not_ exactly the same. It's pretty
easy to measure the differences between cables. What's much harder is
to hear them...
Then the conclusion is simple: the cables are not equal.
Which one is better is a different question and IMHO
Pat Farrell;233614 Wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
Of course 1 + 1 = 2 - that's been mathematically proven.
Actually, its usually defined as being true.
One of my favorite courses (I've got a Mathematics BS) was looking at
the minimal number of hypothesis that you can have, and proving
... What has happened in the last few years is that good
enough audio gear is available at reasonable prices ..
Very true. I just moved to a small apartment temporarily, and no way
could I take my audiophile shrine with me. Way too big, too demanding.
So I bought some AudioEngine 5s based
servies wrote:
Pat Farrell;233614 Wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
Of course 1 + 1 = 2 - that's been mathematically proven.
Actually, its usually defined as being true.
One of my favorite courses (I've got a Mathematics BS) was looking at
the minimal number of hypothesis that you can have, and
Yes, any thing or any ritual might make you happier about the sound. IME
a blind test can make you happier about the sound too (when you discover
something you thought you liked makes no difference or makes it worse).
Whatever floats your boat mentally. The crucial difference is that
blind tests
Robin Bowes;233781 Wrote:
servies wrote:[color=blue]
Pat is not an audiophile. I am not an audiophile. I can't speak for
Pat, but I'm a music enthusiast with a background in audio engineering
(I have a degree in Electracoustics, worked in recording studios,
worked on live sound, etc). I
servies wrote:
In that case: why does it seem like you have a problem with debunking a
possible fraud?
I don't. That's not what this is about.
If they claim that their cable is superb compared to
others, why can't I ask them to proof it with a valid test.
The key word here is valid. What
Robin,
That was a very balanced and well reasoned post.
I suspect many people agree with that middle of the road opinion.
I certainly do.
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449
Seconded.
I am willing to accept there are things out there we can't measure but
we can nonetheless perceive. Cables don't appear to be one of them,
they are very well understood...if there were any small-scale
variations that had large-scale effects electrical delivery systems
would be
I like apples better than pears (excuse the pun) but that doesn't make
one BETTER than the other, just DIFFERENT. As a fan of Randi, I find it
impossible to validate a claim that one thing is better than another.
It's all subjective, like most things in life. So not only is this a
stupid
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm way out to lunch here.
Look, we're talking about interconnects here, right? So wouldn't the
'benchmark' be no interconnect at all? - that is, the signal at the
output of the amp is the signal at the speaker post - no interconnect.
Hmmm... so how do we put
Yes, absolutely, the best a cable can do is nothing whatsoever. The
perfect cable is not danceable, does not have a cavernous
soundstage or possess bottomless bass. It just passes the signal
through, whatever it may contain - and that might be rubbish -
unchanged.
We all know the truth about
Robin Bowes;233798 Wrote:
Human ears, or more accurately, the human hearing system is an amazing
piece of kit and is capable of doing things computers can only dream
of.
That is why I am sceptical about the we can measure more than we can
hear approach.
R.
I think you're giving the
servies;233853 Wrote:
I think you're giving the human hearing system to much credit. It's
extremely limited and it's very limited in it's capabilities of
accurately processing sound. The dynamic range is pretty small as is
its frequencyrange or directional capabilities. Compared to the
servies wrote:
Robin Bowes;233798 Wrote:
Human ears, or more accurately, the human hearing system is an amazing
piece of kit and is capable of doing things computers can only dream
of.
That is why I am sceptical about the we can measure more than we can
hear approach.
R.
I think you're
I think servies has a point, actually. What's really amazing about
human hearing is our ability to process the data and extract useful
information from it, not the ears themselves.
One interesting thing is to estimate (using Shannon) the maximum
information capacity of a human ear/brain
opaqueice wrote:
I think servies has a point, actually. What's really amazing about
human hearing is our ability to process the data and extract useful
information from it, not the ears themselves.
One interesting thing is to estimate (using Shannon) the maximum
information capacity of a
Such a fascinating debate. Engineers that need a visual representation,
a test, to determine a difference, and audiophiles who supposedly can
hear things that can't be tested by manufactured equipment. I guess
that last sentence sounds a bit tilted and maybe that gives away my
perspective.
To
Ok so I have some mixed feelings on this whole cable thing, I have
decent cables under $100 per cable/pair or half that price. I have a
lot of heartburn with all this smoke and mirrors routine for ultra
expensive audio cables and now power cables are the flavor of the day.
I have been to CES
Will your local dealers let you take home the power cables and test them
yourself? If a dealer will let you take home a power conditioner and
all the cables you need to power your system with a no questions asked
return policy, why not take them home and try them. Personally, I'm
very surprised
Robin Bowes;233963 Wrote:
I don't know the answer, but I'll take that bet. Beer?
You're on. Being an ocean apart we're probably both pretty safe on
this one :-).
Actually I'm cheating a little because I once attended a seminar on
human vision, and (while I don't recall the details) I do
musiklov3r;233966 Wrote:
And I think you have to listen at louder levels, at least 85db so that
you can hear the detail of the recording and experience any distortion
or coloration that might mask detail. Sometimes just hitting a higher
volume level will reveal a cable's harshness on
Mark Lanctot;233987 Wrote:
Do that for a couple of hours a day and you won't have to worry about
detail any more.
Unless of course one is already at that level, then I vote for 90db.
Makes for a more revealing system and bankbook.
.
--
haunyack
Transporter - BK R200.2 - Vandersteen 3A
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/13/132468.html
please read this explains it far better than I can.
As in all walks of life there are people who will try to make a fast
buck. Look at all the so called hi end cables available for a few
dollars on ebay. This is the opposite
servies wrote:
Phil Leigh;233244 Wrote:
Of course, the flaw in this argument is that it assumes we know how to
measure the things that make a difference.
This is not yet proven.
One thing is sure: Nowadays we can measure more precisely than we can
hear.
And how to measure sound is pretty
Yet proven is a _very_ strong word. Many, me included, would not
accept anything except blind listening comments in determining whether
a measurement correlates to a real aspect of perceived sound quality.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Sony DAS-703ES DAC - Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1
Dell
Robin Bowes;233477 Wrote:
servies wrote:
Phil Leigh;233244 Wrote:
Of course, the flaw in this argument is that it assumes we know how
to
measure the things that make a difference.
This is not yet proven.
One thing is sure: Nowadays we can measure more precisely than we
can
hear.
Once upon a time nobody measured jitter or IMD - now everyone does.
Tomorrow someone might uncover something else important to measure.
QED.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn
servies;233504 Wrote:
Yawn... If you test 2 cables for the signal they produce and the signal
is exactly the same then they are exactly the same. Only the
'audiophiles' will still buy the $7000 version because these persons
have such good ears that they hear the unmeasurable difference
Phil Leigh;233490 Wrote:
Once upon a time nobody measured jitter or IMD - now everyone does.
Tomorrow someone might uncover something else important to measure.
QED.
Yawn... If you test 2 cables for the signal they produce and the signal
is exactly the same then they are exactly the same.
opaqueice;233551 Wrote:
The problem is that the signal is _not_ exactly the same. It's pretty
easy to measure the differences between cables. What's much harder is
to hear them...
Interesting counter argument!
So we may be able to hear things we can't yet measure...and we can
measure
servies wrote:
Robin Bowes;233477 Wrote:
Measuring precisely is not the same thing at all as measuring the
right
thing. As Phil says, it is not yet proven that we are measuring the
right things.
R.
-IT'S ONLY 'AUDIOPHILES' WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO OR DON'T WANT TO KNOW
HOW TO...-
Do I
Robin Bowes wrote:
Of course 1 + 1 = 2 - that's been mathematically proven.
Actually, its usually defined as being true.
One of my favorite courses (I've got a Mathematics BS) was looking at
the minimal number of hypothesis that you can have, and proving
arithmetic as we know it. The minimum is
Randi should expand this to include amps, cd players, phono cartridges,
lossless formats, and much more. Of course someone will always find
fault in the testing methods but in reality difference are far more
subtle then similarities in much of audio.
--
abelincoln
zanash;233069 Wrote:
Yes exactly what is better ?
different is easy but one person better is anothers worse. Theres a
thread on the audio asylum digital that puts this spurious challenge to
bed with a spanked bottom.
The problem will probably that the conclusions drawn there are
servies;233241 Wrote:
It's simple: If you can't measure the difference, then there is no
difference!
Of course, the flaw in this argument is that it assumes we know how to
measure the things that make a difference.
This is not yet proven.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path
Phil Leigh;233244 Wrote:
Of course, the flaw in this argument is that it assumes we know how to
measure the things that make a difference.
This is not yet proven.
One thing is sure: Nowadays we can measure more precisely than we can
hear.
And how to measure sound is pretty well known. It's
zanash;233069 Wrote:
Theres a thread on the audio asylum digital that puts this spurious
challenge to bed with a spanked bottom.
I don't particularly care one way or another, but I couldn't find a
thread that clearly dismissed the challenge. As far as I know, he has
the money held by a 3rd
Yes exactly what is better ?
different is easy but one person better is anothers worse. Theres a
thread on the audio asylum digital that puts this spurious challenge to
bed with a spanked bottom.
--
zanash
Acoustician and builder of interesting cables
The fact is the Audiophiles gain as much enjoyment from tinkering with
the gear, compare it, thinking about it, touch it and re-arrange it as
a listening to room optimized sound. There is nothing wrong with that!
What has happened in the last few years is that good enough audio
gear is
arge;233139 Wrote:
On the other hand buy the $7000 cable and put your wealth back in the
economy life cycle.
Hardly. All that benefits is the very small niche company that puts
out such nonsense.
I bet there's an astounding profit margin.
--
Mark Lanctot
'Sean Adams' Response-O-Matic
The killer for me on this Randi application is the pretest. It states
that JREF will run you through a pretest which is specifically stated
NOT to be your protocol, and it doesn't sound like you have any say in
the matter of the pretest.
So lets say you come up with a protocol you like using
Sure it's fair. If they didn't have any filters on this they would have
every yahoo in north america trying to win their $1M.
Imagine spending the rest of your life going through test after test
with people who refuse to believe in the laws of nature.
--
Bizarroterl
Bizarroterl;233043 Wrote:
with people who refuse to believe in the laws of nature.
And messing up the restroom.
.
--
haunyack
Transporter - BK R200.2 - Vandersteen 3A Signature. (Listening room)
SB3 (RWA analog) - Rotel RB1070 - BW Matrix 805. (Bedroom)
Fridgidare - Mirror Pond pale ale
Have a look at the tests they've done in the past. If people could
actually do what they claim they would have lost their $1M long ago.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile:
In his masterpiece, Leo Beranek came up with what is commonly referred
to as Beranek's law. It is intended to warn loudpeaker designers from
drinking their own Kool-Aid.
It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds
his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise
These overpriced Pear cables remind me of a review on Tara Lab's The
Zero cables I read in Stereophile. A pair of interconnects for a
paltry $15K USD!
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1206tara/index.html
' There are plenty of audiophiles out there who have what's technically
referred to as
Pat Farrell;232214 Wrote:
So you really pushing 30 amps down your speaker wires? :-)
Of course, I can't talk much, I've got some Cardas that are probably
also 10 gauge. Came bundled with my amp and speakers.
Lets see, 30 amps at 4 ohms 30*30*4 = 3600 watts.
It's not the current, it's
zanash;231990 Wrote:
Now why would you want to believe some one who's business is to dupe
you, ie an illusionist ?
The last time I bothered to check ...the small print and exceptions
would make it more than impossible to show sound changes between cable.
Let alone things like amps or
Mark Lanctot;232212 Wrote:
If Proctor Gamble marketed laundry detergent like exotic cable
manufacturers marketed cables, they would have been sued into the stone
age...
If it is night and day (like it ALWAYS is) then two words: PROVE IT.
The onus of proof is on the one making the
Pat Farrell;231962 Wrote:
I bet he wants DBT proof
From Digg, this link:
http://tinyurl.com/2ncuhd
James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker
Cables Are Better.
I saw a video talk by James Randi. He is amazingly cool. One of the
situations he talked
Now why would you want to believe some one who's business is to dupe
you, ie an illusionist ?
The last time I bothered to check ...the small print and exceptions
would make it more than impossible to show sound changes between cable.
Let alone things like amps or cdp.
I can easily test two
zanash;231990 Wrote:
Now why would you want to believe some one who's business is to dupe
you, ie an illusionist ?
Give me a break. The guy is probably the best known scientific skeptic
in the USA as of the last 30 years, has written several books on the
subject, was awarded a MacArthur
James Randi has offered million-dollar prizes in several other fields as
well. To date he has never awarded any money, although he has had
claimants.
Gee, the test conditions don't seem to be that stringent:
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
The money does indeed exist, held by a
his business is as an illusionist ..that says it all
I don't consider myself to have golden ears...there the same fleshy
colour as everyone elses.
More to the point why don't you think cables can make a difference ?
if you were to get a cable of a slightly higher resistance will that
zanash;232067 Wrote:
More to the point why don't you think cables can make a difference ?
Of course cables make a difference, but is there a difference between
expensive cables and horribly expensive cables? And can those
differences be measured or detected
--
funkstar
funkstar;232069 Wrote:
Of course cables make a difference, but is there a difference between
expensive cables and horribly expensive cables? And can those
differences be measured or detected
I'm sure many think there are. Proving it though is the million dollar
question.
The standard
Ah yes but does he have the golden ears all the audiophiles have?
Probably not. He's getting on in years, his HF hearing probably isn't
perfect.
A million dollars does buy a lot of stuff, even Pear Anjou cables.
--
Mark Lanctot
'Sean Adams' Response-O-Matic checklist, patent pending!'
Everyone knows the Pear Bartlett, Comice and Bosc blow the Anjous out of
the water!
--
Videodrome
Two-channel System:
SB3 - Behringer SRC2496 - Musiland MD-10 DAC;
Outlaw 970 Pre/Pro;
McCormack DNA-125 amplifier;
Quad 11L speakers;
Sota Sapphire ttbl. w/ Grado Ref. Platinum Cartridge - Rolls
Now why would you want to believe some one who's business is to dupe
you, ie an illusionist ?
You mean like people that make $7250 speaker cables? ;-)
--
Kurt
Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: 'o-dE-O-fI(-)l
Function: noun
: a person who takes the pursuit of high-fidelity sound
zanash;232067 Wrote:
his business is as an illusionist ..that says it all
It does? What does it say? Can you give us an actual _logical_ argument
why it follows from the fact that he worked as a magician that he is in
some way duplicitous in his attack on this aspect of audiophilia?
zanash;231990 Wrote:
Now why would you want to believe some one who's business is to dupe
you, ie an illusionist ?
You mean like you , Zanash? After all, you are a cable maker.
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile:
opaqueice;232195 Wrote:
However the situations in which they are audible are typically very
extreme (like 30 feet of 24 gauge zip cord compared to decent cables),
and even in those extreme cases level matching makes it MUCH harder to
hear the differences.
OK... so which ones sound better?
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
