|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: How long will Dolby Atmos last?
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-14-2015 03:40 AM
The way things are most likely progressing is when you buy your next audio processor, you could upgrade to "MDA light" by just splitting and amplifying your surrounds separately and maybe add a few more speakers to fill in any obvious gaps. In a later stage you could add additional speakers, like those ceiling speakers or extra "height" channels. (I'm personally convinced height channels especially behind the screen are more useful than ceiling speakers.)
quote: Bobby Henderson
One thing is certain: Atmos, Auro and DTS:X probably will never be practical for any modest, standard priced auditoriums even if their respective sound format processors were given away for free.
You really don't need that many channels in a small to medium sized auditorium to create a very good result. Audio panning works quite well, as long as the gaps between the speakers are below a certain threshold. Dolby Atmos got its name and fame with the 64-channel mega installs we all read about in the press releases, but that's only somewhat useful in the biggest auditoriums.
Most 7.1 setups have a gap between the left and right surround and the screen, that gap should be filled. I'd also like some more channels behind the screen, because that's where the action actually takes place.
I also do think that the biggest breakthrough in the adaptation of those MDA formats will not even be how movies are being played, but how they're mixed in the first place.
If you go for a pure MDA approach while mixing, you will do away with the notion of static channel mapped sounds. So the soundtrack will become far more "dynamic" (or whatever word fits best). Even if the result will be exported to a discrete 5.1 or 7.1 mix only, it will most likely sound more immersive (one for the buzzword bingo) than a traditional mix.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-14-2015 06:32 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't know the current list price of the CP850, but my understanding is the price is closer to $30,000 than it is $20,000.
Current list price for the CP850 is $26,665.00US with a street price that is going to be under $18KUS. A CP200 was $14,000 with a street price around $11,000 PLUS an MPU (since they weren't included). You are going to be in the lower-mid teens for a CP200 system functional. And that was in '80s dollars. If you had a CP200, you were likely running 70mm...which also had an incremental increase in cost over your 35mm projection set up and your sound system was probably going to be a bit more too as the dynamics and even channel count were going to be higher. So adjusting for inflation, the top-end system of each day...A 70mm system is on the order of Atmos and likely a more expensive option. The difference, in my opinion, was that the 70mm image was very easy for the unsophisticated to see and realize it was a better show regardless of how well the sound guy incorporated the potential to the mix.
Yes, with 70mm blow ups, one would say "what's the point" and there are examples of really BAD 70mm blow ups...but on average, the 70mm show put out a steadier sharper picture that the average joe could easily see. Plus, the sound quality of 70mm compared to its contemporary formats like oh optical mono were again night/day better though nothing required people to mix beyond mono in 70mm either.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008
|
posted 04-14-2015 10:35 AM
quote:
The way things are most likely progressing is when you buy your next audio processor, you could upgrade to "MDA light" by just splitting and amplifying your surrounds separately and maybe add a few more speakers to fill in any obvious gaps. In a later stage you could add additional speakers, like those ceiling speakers or extra "height" channels. (I'm personally convinced height channels especially behind the screen are more useful than ceiling speakers.)
You really don't need that many channels in a small to medium sized auditorium to create a very good result. Audio panning works quite well, as long as the gaps between the speakers are below a certain threshold. Dolby Atmos got its name and fame with the 64-channel mega installs we all read about in the press releases, but that's only somewhat useful in the biggest auditoriums.
Most 7.1 setups have a gap between the left and right surround and the screen, that gap should be filled. I'd also like some more channels behind the screen, because that's where the action actually takes place.
I also do think that the biggest breakthrough in the adaptation of those MDA formats will not even be how movies are being played, but how they're mixed in the first place.
If you go for a pure MDA approach while mixing, you will do away with the notion of static channel mapped sounds. So the soundtrack will become far more "dynamic" (or whatever word fits best). Even if the result will be exported to a discrete 5.1 or 7.1 mix only, it will most likely sound more immersive (one for the buzzword bingo) than a traditional mix.
I was convinced that the Dolby Atmos mix of the first Hobbit movie had done this with the height channels behind the screen, since it wonderfully conveyed that the Trolls were higher than the Dwarfs placing the voices just above.
From what I've seen in the diagrams that Dolby has posted for speaker placement, there are speakers outside the screen - this was used to great use for the floating voices in 'Gravity' and the latest Hobbit movie where the music seemed to extend just outside and around the screen.
interestingly DTS-Neo 6 placed speakers also just beyond the left-center-right speakers.
Dolby also recommends / advocates five stage channels of sound for cinemas with very wide screens - this makes sense, but so far not one studio has actually encoded a feature film with five front discrete sound (plus surrounds).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-14-2015 04:08 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Most 7.1 setups have a gap between the left and right surround and the screen, that gap should be filled.
That's supposed to be one of the standard features in a Dolby Atmos equipped auditorium. I've seen that gap filled with additional side surround speakers in the Atmos theaters I've visited. But I'm not sure if Dolby really enforces that requirement. It's just like the sub-bass cabinets in the surrounds. I know not every Atmos theater has those things.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'd also like some more channels behind the screen, because that's where the action actually takes place.
I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand it might be interesting for the different kinds of on-screen tracking effects that would be possible. On the other hand, with most movies being cropped to 'scope (and letter-boxed on so many common width screens) there would probably be little if any benefit at all to stacking speaker channels above each other behind the screen. Viewers are usually looking at a very wide rectangular image. With that being said, I would be more in favor of a classic five up front, Todd-AO style setup. Additionally, some of the best 3-way and 4-way speaker systems can be pretty tall. QSC's SC-444 4-way speaker system is over 9 feet tall. Multiply that times five behind a fairly big screen and you'll have pretty good wall of sound that will work great for dialog tracking effects, especially for 'scope movies.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
If you go for a pure MDA approach while mixing, you will do away with the notion of static channel mapped sounds. So the soundtrack will become far more "dynamic" (or whatever word fits best). Even if the result will be exported to a discrete 5.1 or 7.1 mix only, it will most likely sound more immersive (one for the buzzword bingo) than a traditional mix.
Just like current Atmos mixes, MDA mixes will be a combination of both pre-mixed and flattend "beds" (or stems) already in 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 format with some or a lot of individual audio objects isolated from those beds. It would take way too much time to make an audio mix that consists entirely of separate objects. Most movie mixes already have a lot of pre-fab audio clip art.
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
true Lyle - but a film shouldn't have to be released exclusively in Atmos to use those two extra channels - case in point, Datasat is working with Robert Harris to encode the restoration of 'My Fair Lady' in it's archival 70mm / 6-track mix - so under that theory Datasat should hard encode the five front channel spread - DTS does this on their 70mm releases. So far no one has archived pre-1977 6-track (or 8 channel SDDS [not all of them were that bad]) mixes as such on DCP
D-cinema standards actually allow for Left Center and Right Center stage channels in the 16 channel audio layout. You don't actually need something like Dolby Atmos for this. The problem is not enough people in key positions care enough to make anything happen to bring back 5 stage channel mixes. If some key people could just have a couple conversations and settle the channel assignments in the 16 channel layout you could have standard LPCM tracks delivering five stage channels, two side surround channels, two rear surround channels, two ceiling surround channels, a sub-bass channel and still have four channels left for other purposes, such as two sub-bass channels in the surrounds. But no. Those guys can't make a freaking decision. That is a big part of what opened the door for new audio formats like Dolby Atmos, Auro 11.1 and DTS:X.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-14-2015 05:43 PM
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
I was convinced that the Dolby Atmos mix of the first Hobbit movie had done this with the height channels behind the screen, since it wonderfully conveyed that the Trolls were higher than the Dwarfs placing the voices just above.
While it is technically supported, most Atmos installs don't have height channels behind the screen. So maybe this effect was achieved by the system panning those sound cues between the screen channels and the front ceiling channels.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's supposed to be one of the standard features in a Dolby Atmos equipped auditorium. I've seen that gap filled with additional side surround speakers in the Atmos theaters I've visited. But I'm not sure if Dolby really enforces that requirement. It's just like the sub-bass cabinets in the surrounds. I know not every Atmos theater has those things.
The first set of Atmos installs were all done in close cooperation with Dolby, so they all followed some minimal guidelines. It's perfectly possible we could see Atmos upgrades in the future that do, for whatever reason, not fill those gaps.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Just like current Atmos mixes, MDA mixes will be a combination of both pre-mixed and flattend "beds" (or stems) already in 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 format with some or a lot of individual audio objects isolated from those beds. It would take way too much time to make an audio mix that consists entirely of separate objects. Most movie mixes already have a lot of pre-fab audio clip art.
According to the limited information available online, MDA and thus DTS:X should be 100% speaker agnostic and should therefore not rely on traditional "beds" mapped to specific speaker channels. I guess the "bed" concept was introduced in Atmos to facilitate the transition between a traditional channel based mix and a 100% object based mix.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand it might be interesting for the different kinds of on-screen tracking effects that would be possible. On the other hand, with most movies being cropped to 'scope (and letter-boxed on so many common width screens) there would probably be little if any benefit at all to stacking speaker channels above each other behind the screen. Viewers are usually looking at a very wide rectangular image. With that being said, I would be more in favor of a classic five up front, Todd-AO style setup. Additionally, some of the best 3-way and 4-way speaker systems can be pretty tall. QSC's SC-444 4-way speaker system is over 9 feet tall. Multiply that times five behind a fairly big screen and you'll have pretty good wall of sound that will work great for dialog tracking effects, especially for 'scope movies.
The nice thing about a fully speaker agnostic sound system is that it should work in either situation. If you have height speakers behind the screen it will use those for extra tracking accuracy and if you don't, you will lose a bit of accuracy. A very advanced system might even be able to adapt itself to the aspect ratio of the current feature.
quote: Bobby Henderson
D-cinema standards actually allow for Left Center and Right Center stage channels in the 16 channel audio layout. You don't actually need something like Dolby Atmos for this. The problem is not enough people in key positions care enough to make anything happen to bring back 5 stage channel mixes. If some key people could just have a couple conversations and settle the channel assignments in the 16 channel layout you could have standard LPCM tracks delivering five stage channels, two side surround channels, two rear surround channels, two ceiling surround channels, a sub-bass channel and still have four channels left for other purposes, such as two sub-bass channels in the surrounds. But no. Those guys can't make a freaking decision. That is a big part of what opened the door for new audio formats like Dolby Atmos, Auro 11.1 and DTS:X.
Some of those channels are being used for other stuff right now, like D-BOX motion code in Channel 9 and 10. Many of those key figures aren't interested in settling those discussions, because they have their own agenda, like their own, proprietary sound formats...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-14-2015 07:01 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
According to the limited information available online, MDA and thus DTS:X should be 100% speaker agnostic and should therefore not rely on traditional "beds" mapped to specific speaker channels. I guess the "bed" concept was introduced in Atmos to facilitate the transition between a traditional channel based mix and a 100% object based mix.
Dolby Atmos' use of both beds and objects isn't about facilitating a transition between conventional surround and object based surround. It's about giving sound designers more control over the surrounds. Using a combination of beds and objects a sound designer can layer together complex sound environments faster. If the entire mix has to be object based it's going to be more time consuming to create. Sound editors and mixers don't exactly get a hell of a lot of time in a post production schedule to create both a conventional 5.1/7.1 mix and a next-gen surround mix.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The nice thing about a fully speaker agnostic sound system is that it should work in either situation. If you have height speakers behind the screen it will use those for extra tracking accuracy and if you don't, you will lose a bit of accuracy. A very advanced system might even be able to adapt itself to the aspect ratio of the current feature.
That's only going to work when you have enough separately amplified speakers. Both the stage and surround speakers really need to be positioned carefully in order to render any 3D sound environment correctly. This "speaker agnostic" notion makes it sound like a theater operator can stick speakers in whatever random places he likes and install/amplify however many or how few he wants. My concern with DTS:X is some theater operators will gravitate to it in an attempt to deploy next-gen sound on the cheap.
My own opinion is if a theater operator wants a great sound system, but can't afford to do Atmos or DTS:X properly he should just go with 7.1 surround and upgrade the quality of his speakers and amplifiers as much as possible. That's going to yield better dividends than next-gen sound done cheap or wrong.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Some of those channels are being used for other stuff right now, like D-BOX motion code in Channel 9 and 10. Many of those key figures aren't interested in settling those discussions, because they have their own agenda, like their own, proprietary sound formats...
D-Box isn't a universally standard thing; it's just a very pricey gimmick, and one I don't think will last. Alternative content for sight-impaired and hearing-impaired viewers is about the only other thing justified to use 2 or more channels out of the 16-channel specification.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-15-2015 04:07 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby Atmos' use of both beds and objects isn't about facilitating a transition between conventional surround and object based surround. It's about giving sound designers more control over the surrounds. Using a combination of beds and objects a sound designer can layer together complex sound environments faster. If the entire mix has to be object based it's going to be more time consuming to create. Sound editors and mixers don't exactly get a hell of a lot of time in a post production schedule to create both a conventional 5.1/7.1 mix and a next-gen surround mix.
Then the Dolby figure I talked with during IBC must have it wrong. It was, according tho him, created to facilitate the transition between traditional mixing and object based mixing. The idea is that you can use a traditional, discrete channel based mix and use sound objects just for certain effects. I guess Dolby needed titles for their new sound system and they certainly wouldn't get them if those releases required a whole new approach at mixing.
In modern, post discrete channel sound formats, there should be absolutely no need for channel-bound "beds". Actually, a speaker agnostic format should just omit them entirely. If you want to simulate a traditional 5, 7 or 9 channel setup, you can still create "sound objects" at the locations where your speakers would be and put your channels in there.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's only going to work when you have enough separately amplified speakers. Both the stage and surround speakers really need to be positioned carefully in order to render any 3D sound environment correctly. This "speaker agnostic" notion makes it sound like a theater operator can stick speakers in whatever random places he likes and install/amplify however many or how few he wants. My concern with DTS:X is some theater operators will gravitate to it in an attempt to deploy next-gen sound on the cheap.
Essentially he/she can, yes. Just like he can with current 5.1 and 7.1 configurations, if you want to botch it up, nobody is going to stop you. The whole idea of those speaker agnostic formats is that it adapts itself to your configuration as well as possible. It doesn't protect the moviegoer from botched up installations. Protecting moviegoers from botched up presentations is what certifications are supposed to do.
quote: Bobby Henderson
My own opinion is if a theater operator wants a great sound system, but can't afford to do Atmos or DTS:X properly he should just go with 7.1 surround and upgrade the quality of his speakers and amplifiers as much as possible. That's going to yield better dividends than next-gen sound done cheap or wrong.
There is no excuse for doing audio wrong, no matter what format. I don't mind if it's done cheap, as long as it's done the right way, which isn't always mutually exclusive. But I'm pretty sure any new sound processor sold between now and 3 years will support "MDA" out of the box.
quote: Bobby Henderson
D-Box isn't a universally standard thing; it's just a very pricey gimmick, and one I don't think will last. Alternative content for sight-impaired and hearing-impaired viewers is about the only other thing justified to use 2 or more channels out of the 16-channel specification.
I have my own opinions about D-Box and they're not all rosy, but still, it's there in quite a few high profile releases, hogging one or two channels, only increasing the difficulty of adding more "standard sound channels" to standard DCP containers.
quote: Randy Stankey
Most of the public doesn't understand object based sound or why they should care. Most people don't understand phase shifting/cancellation and they won't even put fort a modicum of effort to learn.
If I ask my mother about stereo v.s. mono sound, she wouldn't have a clue. The one sounds better than the other? If I ask her about the difference between Standard and High Definition, she would say: The picture is better? Why it is better, she doesn't have a clue.
How many people even noticed the switch between 35mm and digital video? Heck, I've even witnessed sold out 3D shows presented in 2D and nobody besides me actually complained...
If we take the opinion of the average public as gold standard, we would still be on hand cranked movies and a drunken pianist would be your high end sound system. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-15-2015 10:19 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
In modern, post discrete channel sound formats, there should be absolutely no need for channel-bound "beds". Actually, a speaker agnostic format should just omit them entirely. If you want to simulate a traditional 5, 7 or 9 channel setup, you can still create "sound objects" at the locations where your speakers would be and put your channels in there.
Forcing sound editors and mixers to take a purist approach and create a movie soundtrack using only objects will create a hell of a lot more time consuming work. Sound mixes for both movies and TV use a lot of pre-existing audio elements ("canned sounds," "audio clip art"). But not all of those assets will work as isolated objects that can be panned around in 3D space. Some of those assets exist in pre-mixed stems in stereo, 5.1 or 7.1.
If you build a mix with objects only you're going to be spending a lot more time layering up all the elements needed to create a convincing sound environment in a specific scene. It will require more performance overhead from the computer. The sound editing applications will have to extend capabilities of grouping individual sound objects into different sub-groups and allow import/export of different grouped objects to make a project more manageable. More advanced scripting capabilities will have to be added to automate sound panning and volume adjustments for all those individual objects. It would be ridiculous to have to go through dozens of objects one by one manually tinkering with motion paths for volume, position and other controls on the time line.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Essentially he/she can, yes. Just like he can with current 5.1 and 7.1 configurations, if you want to botch it up, nobody is going to stop you.
Standard 5.1 and 7.1 configurations have speaker positions that have been standardized. Dolby Atmos doesn't really mess with that other than filling the gap between the screen and side wall surrounds with additional side wall speakers and adding two rows of speakers to the ceiling.
The idea of letting someone put the speakers in just any location reminds me of some of the botched home theater installations I've seen over the years -speakers placed in stupid positions because they fit the room decor better there or some other odd reason. It would be a disaster for any theater operator to start sticking speakers in just any position he saw fit. For one thing, most movies are still going to be released with 5.1 and some in 7.1. Any theater sound system absolutely must be backward compatible with those formats.
quote: Lyle Romer
Aren't the objects sounds placed in a point in space? If so, how do you code that the sound should emanate from the entire rear 2/3 of the right wall without "beds"?
I don't know what controls DTS' MDA software will provide for doing that, but AFAIK with Dolby's Atmos front end you're supposed to use a bed if you want a sound coming out of all the speakers in one of the six surround arrays.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Sources can be spread to achieve this effect. Furthermore, you could even introduce the same source multiple times.
Duplicating a lossless object multiple times to achieve the same effect as a conventional channel-based sound is grossly inefficient.
quote: Lyle Romer
For MDA (and even Atmos) there needs to be a 3rd party that can certify that the cinema was set up in at least a minimally acceptable configuration so that people will have some way of knowing.
As much as I would like that sort of thing I strongly doubt any movie theater circuit would go along with that. The approach taken these days is like that of IMAX: just stick a big logo on the building, don't provide any specific details about the process and still expect people to pay a bunch of money extra for the movie ticket.
With IMAX for example, they have no plans to convert all their IMAX-branded theaters to 4K laser, just the biggest theaters. So they're going to have a mix of mostly Dual 2K/5.0 surround installs and some Dual 4K laser/12.0 surround installations. But they'll all just be generically called "IMAX."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-15-2015 11:20 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Forcing sound editors and mixers to take a purist approach and create a movie soundtrack using only objects will create a hell of a lot more time consuming work. Sound mixes for both movies and TV use a lot of pre-existing audio elements ("canned sounds," "audio clip art"). But not all of those assets will work as isolated objects that can be panned around in 3D space. Some of those assets exist in pre-mixed stems in stereo, 5.1 or 7.1.
Well, that's why Atmos probably started off with the concept of beds, like I mentioned before, it is a transitional solution. But "beds" can be implemented as objects too, given the right tools, this can be a fully automated process. In my opinion it's best to have a pure format omitting most of the legacy and tools that do the conversion for you.
And nobody is going to create an MDA mix using a hex editor. Those tools will let you import any existing discrete channel mix and will automatically put those channels into objects. There will be presets to achieve the same thing too from scratch. Sound objects can be grouped into logical containers (even MDA supports object grouping at the delivery format) and there are countless of other ways tools can improve the efficiency of those kind of mixes.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Standard 5.1 and 7.1 configurations have speaker positions that have been standardized. Dolby Atmos doesn't really mess with that other than filling the gap between the screen and side wall surrounds with additional side wall speakers and adding two rows of speakers to the ceiling.
Someone implementing an MDA system will probably be reasonable and not mess with this default layout. If they're upgrading, they should already have a decent 5.1 or 7.1 configuration.
But again, nobody is stopping anybody from messing up a standard 5.1 or 7.1 install, so nobody will be around stopping people from messing up an MDA install. Once this stuff becomes more main-stream and more affordable, the chance of people implementing half-assed solutions will unfortunately increase.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Duplicating a lossless object multiple times to achieve the same effect as a conventional channel-based sound is grossly inefficient.
I don't know about the Atmos format, but the open MDA format should be capable of doing this with just some extra metadata tied to the "object". Also, considering the bandwidth to do something like 4K or even 4K in HFR and 3D, the overhead you would create here seems bearable and not really worth the effort for any kind of over-optimization.
quote: Bobby Henderson
With IMAX for example, they have no plans to convert all their IMAX-branded theaters to 4K laser, just the biggest theaters. So they're going to have a mix of mostly Dual 2K/5.0 surround installs and some Dual 4K laser/12.0 surround installations. But they'll all just be generically called "IMAX."
I'm by no means the biggest fan of Digital IMAX and I have my doubts they will upgrade every location, but this is, as of now, just speculation. Maybe they actually do have plans to overhaul each and every theater.
quote: Bobby Henderson
As much as I would like that sort of thing I strongly doubt any movie theater circuit would go along with that. The approach taken these days is like that of IMAX: just stick a big logo on the building, don't provide any specific details about the process and still expect people to pay a bunch of money extra for the movie ticket.
It worked before with two labels that became rather meaningless in the process: THX and IMAX. Why shouldn't it work with a new label that has some strong marketing behind it but will actually be relevant once more?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic