Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[Frank Dernie]

I agree that that's a big part of it. But I've never tired of it, because to me, it's more like live acoustical music in a hall, and the further the speakers are from the front wall the more realistic that effect is. I've tried absorption behind the speakers and the sound became very precise, but unrealistically so. Diffusion works best.

Another thing -- since they dump less energy into the room and it doesn't reflect off the sides, I think they sound more detailed. I've never been sure how much of the detail of electrostatics, planars, and horns is due to that, and how much due to the impulse response of the drivers themselves. Maybe both -- if you put a true ribbon in an enclosure, the highs still sound more natural than they do with most dynamic tweeters.

I enjoyed the spaciousness created by my Apogee Divas bouncing the listening room sound around on music I bought.
On my own recordings it overshadowed the recording venue acoustics though.
The main reason I sold them was a new room had a window on the front wall and the Divas blocked too much light but I must say going back to conventional speakers gave a much more accurate reproduction of my own recordings.
IMO both dipole and wide dispersion speakers give a euphonic reproduction rather than an accurate one. No problem with that but it is something to be aware of.

 

[josh358]

I enjoyed the spaciousness created by my Apogee Divas bouncing the listening room sound around on music I bought.
On my own recordings it overshadowed the recording venue acoustics though.
The main reason I sold them was a new room had a window on the front wall and the Divas blocked too much light but I must say going back to conventional speakers gave a much more accurate reproduction of my own recordings.
IMO both dipole and wide dispersion speakers give a euphonic reproduction rather than an accurate one. No problem with that but it is something to be aware of.

Interesting. How close were the Divas to the front wall, and did you use diffusion at the early reflection points behind the speakers? Because I think it's important that the early reflections be at least 15 dB down for the first 20 ms, to avoid masking the early reflections on the recording, since the first reflections in a good concert hall are 20-25 ms. In most rooms you can't do that with a bare wall because the speakers would have to be 10 feet out, but diffusion can reduce the early reflections without making the room too dead.

I've tried absorption behind the speakers, and then they sound very much like what I hear in the studio or from highly directional speakers. Without ambiance, two channel sounds too dead to me. In the concert hall, I find I'm wrapped in the sound, which is actually louder than the direct sound in the far field beyond the first few rows. A pair of cardioids flown over the stage or close-miked recordings don't capture that, hence, I think, the need for listening room support in two-channel stereo.

Wendell Diller toured the country demonstrating the 30.7's and he said that all of the best rooms used diffusion. He uses some wonderful Reference Recordings recordings of the Minnesota Symphony for setup -- Jim Winey has orchestra seats so he's very familiar with the sound, and when the speakers sound the same as the hall, he knows he has the setup right.

 

[David Harper]

Maybe we all need to take our own opinions (and vested interests) less seriously. I love the sound of the LRS but that doesn't mean that any of the criticisms and flaws of them pointed out here are false. Especially in the case of Amir's test results. He obviously knows what he's talking about. (he is a HE, isn't he? I mean, the image isn't actually him, right?) I once brought home a pair of very highly rated B&W speakers, listened to them for three days, hated the way they sounded (metallic, harsh, bright, and opaque) and returned them. The guy who had recommended and sold them to me was real annoyed (actually pissed off). He took it personally that I didn't agree with his opinion. Same thing going on here.

 

[josh358]

Maybe we all need to take our own opinions (and vested interests) less seriously. I love the sound of the LRS but that doesn't mean that any of the criticisms and flaws of them pointed out here are false. Especially in the case of Amir's test results. He obviously knows what he's talking about. (he is a HE, isn't he? I mean, the image isn't actually him, right?) I once brought home a pair of very highly rated B&W speakers, listened to them for three days, hated the way they sounded (metallic, harsh, bright, and opaque) and returned them. The guy who had recommended and sold them to me was real annoyed (actually pissed off). He took it personally that I didn't agree with his opinion. Same thing going on here.

Well, I think there are two things going on here.

One is whether the objective test results are applicable, or whether the experimental methodology doesn't yield meaningful results. And I suppose you could include the subjective listening test as well, since I don't think you can judge dipoles unless they're properly set up. Personally, I think that the test results are *partially* meaningful -- I don't think anyone would claim that the LRS plays down to 20 Hz! -- but that overall, they don't do justice to the in-room measurements or the sound of the speaker. In particular, they fail to capture the reaction of most people who have actually seen the LRS -- these are $600 a pair? Because I don't know of anything that matches them on bang for the buck, with acoustical music, anyway (rock I think requires a sub).

The other I think does get down to personal preference and the type of music you prefer. Beyond bang for the buck, the strengths of the LRS are its elecrostatic-like transparency -- something you don't find in inexpensive dynamics, it's spectacular imaging, and its wonderful midrange. Its weaknesses are poor bass extension and the upper octave issues that Amir noted. So again, better for naturally balanced acoustical music, not so good for rock -- though there are people who love Maggies for rock because they like being able to hear the detail on the recording, however artificial and pasted together it may sound -- and of course they add that sub.

Anyway, I think what got some people here hot and bothered were all the dismissive comments by people who, not coincidentally, had never even heard it. Say what you like about the shortcomings of non-blind listening, they don't compare to the shortcomings of not listening at all. Whereas Amir's measurements and conclusion, however valid you think they are, make for an interesting discussion. And the other discussion here from people who have heard the LRS or are speaking about other dipoles they've owned.

My personal interest, which I had mentioned to Amir before the review, is in why planar dipoles sound so good even though they don't measure very well. And I think there's been an interesting discussion of that, even if it's not entirely settled in my mind. It's easy to point to some factors, e.g., lack of the "boxy" resonances of inexpensive dynamics, 4.8 dB less off-axis contribution, rejection of x- and y-axis modes and floor and ceiling reflections, good transient and power response. Not to mention the high bang for the buck of a loudspeaker without a costly enclosure. The contribution of the front wall first reflection as opposed to the side wall reflection of wide dispersion dynamics seems to be more controversial. My sense is that neither is natural, but that both are necessary for a reasonably convincing two-channel reproduction of acoustical music, and that the ideal setup is in effect a poor man's RFZ room, in which in the latter case reflections are suppressed within the first 20 ms and ambiance is provided by diffusion at the rear. But there's no question that directional speakers like horns or many ESL's are closer to what's on the original recording. Dipoles and wide dispersion monopole/cardioids use what is in effect artificial reverb.

 

[yourmando]

I think all of these dipole/panel speakers create high level of spaciousness that audiophiles tend to love and associate with hi-fi/realism. I too used to be there but the effect wore out for me and then became a liability. I did not like that everything played on them sounded big and spacious regardless of the original intent of the recording.

So the psychoacoustic is clear.

This.

I currently have Linkwitz Orion dipoles as mains and they have this spacious effect in spades. (Thankfully, they measure a lot better at least in room. Sadly, I’ve not seen spinorama data, but doubt it has perfect dipole directivity control.)

I’m currently upgrading to a 7.3.6 setup and using Auro 3D upmixing, mainly on Floyd Toole’s recommendation.

He made a comment that it normalizes wide vs narrow dispersion characteristics (I believe on AVSForum), so that perceptual difference between the Salon 2 and M2 become less.

I’m looking to get the Neumann KH 310 and KH 120s as surrounds, based on your review and other owner comments here.

I’ll be keen to see how the full Auro 3D setup affects the sense of spaciousness (and the effect is adjustable).

I might then replace my Orions with more KH 310s just so that everything is matched.

 

[16/44]

I should also add the visual impression on what we audibly perceive is huge. In controlled blind listening this factor is taken away and preference scores come way down (due to poor tonality).

Agree completely. Something about the imposing nature of huge panels changes my mindset.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Interesting. How close were the Divas to the front wall, and did you use diffusion at the early reflection points behind the speakers? Because I think it's important that the early reflections be at least 15 dB down for the first 20 ms, to avoid masking the early reflections on the recording, since the first reflections in a good concert hall are 20-25 ms. In most rooms you can't do that with a bare wall because the speakers would have to be 10 feet out, but diffusion can reduce the early reflections without making the room too dead.

I've tried absorption behind the speakers, and then they sound very much like what I hear in the studio or from highly directional speakers. Without ambiance, two channel sounds too dead to me. In the concert hall, I find I'm wrapped in the sound, which is actually louder than the direct sound in the far field beyond the first few rows. A pair of cardioids flown over the stage or close-miked recordings don't capture that, hence, I think, the need for listening room support in two-channel stereo.

Wendell Diller toured the country demonstrating the 30.7's and he said that all of the best rooms used diffusion. He uses some wonderful Reference Recordings recordings of the Minnesota Symphony for setup -- Jim Winey has orchestra seats so he's very familiar with the sound, and when the speakers sound the same as the hall, he knows he has the setup right.

I had them in 3 different rooms, one a huge room in my French house with a mezanine but with the speakers in the part that was the full height of the house up into the eaves. I tried different distances and toe-ins and curtains shut or open in the room with the windows behind.
I always found they sounded lovely but it wasn't until I went back to conventional speakers I realised how much of the room acoustics they added to the sound.
Absorption is, in any case, rarely even across frequency, nor is diffusion. I have diffusion on the side walls, FWIW. I do find the more untidy the room the better the sound, in general.
Anyway, I loved them and enjoyed them for many years and often miss the sound but I am sure every speaker with a wide directivity, and omni and dipole must be adding the acoustics of the lsitening room overlaid on the recording. How wouldn't they be?
They sounded lovely and euphonic rather than accurate.
All speakers I have used over the last 50+ years have been very sensitive to room position but none more than the Divas.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Anyway, I think what got some people here hot and bothered were all the dismissive comments by people who, not coincidentally, had never even heard it. Say what you like about the shortcomings of non-blind listening, they don't compare to the shortcomings of not listening at all.

Well said.
I completely agree, too many members are wont to jump into slagging off or worshiping based on data they are not experienced with and a "score" which is far too crude to be of any use IMHO, certainly not to me, and when they may have only listened to a tiny number of never measured different speakers in their lives.
It is the price of the forum getting bigger I suppose.
OTOH I do find the raw measurements extremely interesting and useful and suspect the LRS, which I have never heard, is way off being as good as the biggest 2 models, which I have, as one may expect.

 

[DonH56]

I agree that that's a big part of it. But I've never tired of it, because to me, it's more like live acoustical music in a hall, and the further the speakers are from the front wall the more realistic that effect is. I've tried absorption behind the speakers and the sound became very precise, but unrealistically so. Diffusion works best.

Another thing -- since they dump less energy into the room and it doesn't reflect off the sides, I think they sound more detailed. I've never been sure how much of the detail of electrostatics, planars, and horns is due to that, and how much due to the impulse response of the drivers themselves. Maybe both -- if you put a true ribbon in an enclosure, the highs still sound more natural than they do with most dynamic tweeters.

The first part of the bolded statement is generally not true, depending upon how you define "less energy", and the second is partially true.

Most dipoles put more energy into the room than conventional speakers due to the back wave. Ignoring sensitivity and such a dipole puts equal energy front and rear over all frequencies whereas a conventional speaker has no (or small) back wave over the lower bass region. I personally tend to damp the back wave, sacrificing "space" for better imaging and reduced comb filter effects (I really dislike the latter).

At low frequencies where wavelengths get longer than the panel they behave more like a conventional speaker (point source, sort of). As frequencies rise they radiate more to the front and rear, less to the sides, providing the dipole pattern. It is a smooth transition, not a sharp cut-off.

FWIWFM - Don

p.s. Obligatory disclaimers: No, I have never heard the LRS; yes, I have heard many Maggies, and owned them over the years (still do but no longer in my system). I have always much preferred the larger models and true-ribbon models over the smaller models.

 

[josh358]

I had them in 3 different rooms, one a huge room in my French house with a mezanine but with the speakers in the part that was the full height of the house up into the eaves. I tried different distances and toe-ins and curtains shut or open in the room with the windows behind.
I always found they sounded lovely but it wasn't until I went back to conventional speakers I realised how much of the room acoustics they added to the sound.
Absorption is, in any case, rarely even across frequency, nor is diffusion. I have diffusion on the side walls, FWIW. I do find the more untidy the room the better the sound, in general.
Anyway, I loved them and enjoyed them for many years and often miss the sound but I am sure every speaker with a wide directivity, and omni and dipole must be adding the acoustics of the lsitening room overlaid on the recording. How wouldn't they be?
They sounded lovely and euphonic rather than accurate.
All speakers I have used over the last 50+ years have been very sensitive to room position but none more than the Divas.

No question that speakers use room acoustics for what in effect is artificial reverb -- ITD is basically the pre-delay setting on a reverb. As I recall, Floyd Toole found that recording engineers preferred a dry acoustic at in the studio because it let them hear all of the details on the tape, but a warmer acoustic at home. As I recall he also found that listeners preferred the room reverberation to come from the sides.

What I find interesting is that closed-baffle speakers actually use 4.8 dB more "artificial reverb" than dipoles, which is why an untreated listening room is too reverberant for them.

In theory, anyway, multichannel sound should provide a more realistic sound than any one-size-fits-all two-channel approach (I read about one studio that actually had slats that could open on absorption to accommodate recordings made in different sized venues!).

I'd be curious about what you'd make of your recordings on dipoles with diffusion. It tames that first front wall and second corner reflection that masks the acoustics of the venue since it arrives earlier than the first reflection on the recording. The diffusers spread the reflection throughout the room, where they are reflected with a delay and emulate the reverberant field of the recording hall. That's what in my experience yields the most realistic reproduction I've heard from two-channel sources.

 

[josh358]

Maybe we all need to take our own opinions (and vested interests) less seriously. I love the sound of the LRS but that doesn't mean that any of the criticisms and flaws of them pointed out here are false. Especially in the case of Amir's test results. He obviously knows what he's talking about. (he is a HE, isn't he? I mean, the image isn't actually him, right?) I once brought home a pair of very highly rated B&W speakers, listened to them for three days, hated the way they sounded (metallic, harsh, bright, and opaque) and returned them. The guy who had recommended and sold them to me was real annoyed (actually pissed off). He took it personally that I didn't agree with his opinion. Same thing going on here.

Well, I think there are two things going on here.

One is whether the objective test results are applicable, or whether the experimental methodology doesn't yield meaningful results. And I suppose you could include the subjective listening test as well, since I don't think you can judge dipoles unless they're properly set up. Personally, I think that the test results are *partially* meaningful -- I don't think anyone would claim that the LRS plays down to 20 Hz! -- but that overall, they don't do justice to the in-room measurements or the sound of the speaker. In particular, they fail to capture the reaction of most people who have actually seen the LRS -- these are $600 a pair? Because I don't know of anything that matches them on bang for the buck, with acoustical music, anyway (rock I think requires a sub).

The other I think does get down to personal preference and the type of music you prefer. Beyond bang for the buck, the strengths of the LRS are its elecrostatic-like transparency -- something you don't find in inexpensive dynamics, it's spectacular imaging, and its wonderful midrange. Its weaknesses are poor bass extension and the upper octave issues that Amir noted. So again, better for naturally balanced acoustical music, not so good for rock -- though there are people who love Maggies for rock because they like being able to hear the detail on the recording, however artificial and pasted together it may sound -- and of course they add that sub.

Anyway, I think what got some people here hot and bothered were all the dismissive comments by people who, not coincidentally, had never even heard it. Say what you like about the shortcomings of non-blind listening, they don't compare to the shortcomings of not listening at all. Whereas Amir's measurements and conclusion, however valid you think they are, make for an interesting discussion. And the other discussion here from people who have heard the LRS or are speaking about other dipoles they've owned.

My personal interest, which I had mentioned to Amir before the review, is in why planar dipoles sound so good even though they don't measure very well. And I think there's been an interesting discussion of that, even if it's not entirely settled in my mind. It's easy to point to some factors, e.g., lack of the "boxy" resonances of inexpensive dynamics, 4.8 dB less off-axis contribution, rejection of x- and y-axis modes and floor and ceiling reflections, good transient and power response. Not to mention the high bang for the buck of a loudspeaker without a costly enclosure. The contribution of the front wall first reflection as opposed to the side wall reflection of wide dispersion dynamics seems to be more controversial. My sense is that neither is natural, but that both are necessary for a reasonably convincing two-channel reproduction of acoustical music, and that the ideal setup is in effect a poor man's RFZ room, in which in the latter case reflections are suppressed within the first 20 ms and ambiance is provided by diffusion at the rear. But there's no question that directional speakers like horns or many ESL's are closer to what's on the original recording. Dipoles and wide dispersion monopole/cardioids use what is in effect artificial reverb.

 

[josh358]

The first part of the bolded statement is generally not true, depending upon how you define "less energy", and the second is partially true.

Most dipoles put more energy into the room than conventional speakers due to the back wave. Ignoring sensitivity and such a dipole puts equal energy front and rear over all frequencies whereas a conventional speaker has no (or small) back wave over the lower bass region. I personally tend to damp the back wave, sacrificing "space" for better imaging and reduced comb filter effects (I really dislike the latter).

At low frequencies where wavelengths get longer than the panel they behave more like a conventional speaker (point source, sort of). As frequencies rise they radiate more to the front and rear, less to the sides, providing the dipole pattern. It is a smooth transition, not a sharp cut-off.

FWIWFM - Don

p.s. Obligatory disclaimers: No, I have never heard the LRS; yes, I have heard many Maggies, and owned them over the years (still do but no longer in my system). I have always much preferred the larger models and true-ribbon models over the smaller models.

Hi Don, actually, it is true that dipoles dump less energy into the reverberant field -- 4.8 dB less. As Linkwitz puts it,

A dipole, thus, has a 31/2 = 1.73 times larger reverberation distance. Correspondingly, for a dipole the ratio of direct to reverberant sound pressure level is 4.8 dB greater than for a monopole. A typical reverberation distance is quite small, 0.68 m for the monopole and 1.18 m for the dipole in the example room. Thus, at 3 m distance from the source, the direct sound would be 12.9 dB below the reverberant sound field for the monopole and 8.1 dB for the dipole. The 4.8 dB lower level of the reverberant field in the case of the dipole is significant by subjectively reducing the masking influence of the room upon sonic detail, by avoiding the sensation of overload of the room during loud passages of program material and by being much less noisy to neighbors.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/AES'98/aes-98.htm

Intuitively, you can think of the dipole radiation pattern as taking a notch out of the omnidirectional or cardioid radiation of a closed baffle loudspeaker via the phase cancellation you mentioned..

Here's where things get really interesting: a full-height dipole line source never acts as a point source! That's because the floor and ceiling reflections mimic a line source of infinite dimensions. In practice, this effect is limited because floors and ceilings aren't completely reflective, but it's sufficient IIRC to increase the effective acoustical length of the line source to 2.5 the height of the room, so you're listening to the equivalent of a 20 foot tall line and in a typical room are always in the near field. This is not true of short line sources like the LRS -- Dave Reite measured his MMG's and found that they behave more like a point source (1/R^2 radiation pattern) in the bass. Actually, with the ceiling reflections, the omni or short line source are going to have some interesting vertical lobing above the frequency at which the reflected image is acoustically more than half a wavelength distant from the speaker -- it's just as if two drivers were too far apart.

 

[josh358]

Well said.
I completely agree, too many members are wont to jump into slagging off or worshiping based on data they are not experienced with and a "score" which is far too crude to be of any use IMHO, certainly not to me, and when they may have only listened to a tiny number of never measured different speakers in their lives.
It is the price of the forum getting bigger I suppose.
OTOH I do find the raw measurements extremely interesting and useful and suspect the LRS, which I have never heard, is way off being as good as the biggest 2 models, which I have, as one may expect.

Definitely. I have a modified pair of Tympani IVA's at home (seven BG Neo 8 in place of the original midranges) and there's no comparison with the smaller speakers at the extremes of the frequency spectrum. What's remarkable about the LRS is how much of the quality of the large models it gives you. It's the bottom few and top octaves where it can't compare, and also maximum SPL, which for some reason doesn't seem to be measured in most reviews.

 

[josh358]

Agree completely. Something about the imposing nature of huge panels changes my mindset.

I do think though that line sources have a different presentation than monopoles. This is true even when I close my eyes. The interesting question is why, since, after all, there's only one vertical channel. My guess is that it has to do with the effect of early floor reflections. They arrive before any other reflection and along with the HRTF allow us to localize the speaker vertically. And of course dipoles have a different presentation than closed baffle speakers whether they're point sources or line sources. I have some old Monsoon computer speakers that have little planar panels and I've never been able to get them to sound like a full height line. On the other hand, the Mini Maggies, when listened to in the near field, do sound like the larger lines. The Monsoon panels are too small to listen in the near field, even when they're on your desk.

 

[DonH56]

Hi Don, actually, it is true that dipoles dump less energy into the reverberant field -- 4.8 dB less. As Linkwitz puts it,

A dipole, thus, has a 31/2 = 1.73 times larger reverberation distance. Correspondingly, for a dipole the ratio of direct to reverberant sound pressure level is 4.8 dB greater than for a monopole. A typical reverberation distance is quite small, 0.68 m for the monopole and 1.18 m for the dipole in the example room. Thus, at 3 m distance from the source, the direct sound would be 12.9 dB below the reverberant sound field for the monopole and 8.1 dB for the dipole. The 4.8 dB lower level of the reverberant field in the case of the dipole is significant by subjectively reducing the masking influence of the room upon sonic detail, by avoiding the sensation of overload of the room during loud passages of program material and by being much less noisy to neighbors.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/AES'98/aes-98.htm

Intuitively, you can think of the dipole radiation pattern as taking a notch out of the omnidirectional or cardioid radiation of a closed baffle loudspeaker via the phase cancellation you mentioned..

Here's where things get really interesting: a full-height dipole line source never acts as a point source! That's because the floor and ceiling reflections mimic a line source of infinite dimensions. In practice, this effect is limited because floors and ceilings aren't completely reflective, but it's sufficient IIRC to increase the effective acoustical length of the line source to 2.5 the height of the room, so you're listening to the equivalent of a 20 foot tall line and in a typical room are always in the near field. This is not true of short line sources like the LRS -- Dave Reite measured his MMG's and found that they behave more like a point source (1/R^2 radiation pattern) in the bass. Actually, with the ceiling reflections, the omni or short line source are going to have some interesting vertical lobing above the frequency at which the reflected image is acoustically more than half a wavelength distant from the speaker -- it's just as if two drivers were too far apart.

You said "energy" and that is what I responded to. The reverberant field energy is a different thing and not total energy. The actual energy depends upon the room, room treatments, etc. but in general I would not disagree with Linkwitz (natch). Of course the rear wave has a longer path length and the reverberant field is affected.

I am not sure you are always in the acoustic near field (not by my calculation for most listeners and above the bass region), pure line source or not, but this thread has diverged enough.

 

[josh358]

You said "energy" and that is what I responded to. The reverberant field energy is a different thing and not total energy. The actual energy depends upon the room, room treatments, etc. but in general I would not disagree with Linkwitz (natch). Of course the rear wave has a longer path length and the reverberant field is affected.

I am not sure you are always in the acoustic near field (not by my calculation for most listeners and above the bass region), pure line source or not, but this thread has diverged enough.

Have you seen the Griffin white paper? There's an excellent discussion of the near field/far field issue and the role of floor and ceiling reflections in increasing the far field distance on pages 7 through 10:

https://audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf

(I see that, as I feared, I remembered the effective height of the line incorrectly, it's actually 3x rather than 2x line height.)

Otherwise, point taken, and I'll hereby shut up.

 

[tvrgeek]

Sounds like Maggies are still Maggies. If you can get them set up in just the right room and just the right position. OK, until you crank them up.

 

[josh358]

Sounds like Maggies are still Maggies. If you can get them set up in just the right room and just the right position. OK, until you crank them up.

Which models? If the LRS is like my old MMG's, it starts to sound unhappy in the upper 90's, but at the opposite extreme my IVA's cruise at 110 dB (I've never tired pushing them higher) and back in the day, my 1D's played even louder (I was younger and braver then, popped many a fuse on the 1812 Overture).

BTW, if you add a sub to the LRS it will play as loud as you want -- it's the low frequency excursion that bottoms out the panel. They have a small baffle so there's a lot of acoustical equalization down there to make up for the 6 dB/octave dipole loss.

Overall, I'd say that the larger Maggies sit somewhere in the range of dynamic speakers as far as maximum SPL's go. They won't match a big Wilson, never mind a far-field studio monitor, but they'll play louder than a lot of smaller dynamics. Since I want to preserve what's left of my hearing I stay away from 120 dB SPL's. In practice, I found that my MMG's set the maximum volume levels I could listen at but with the IVA's, my ears do.

Another thing that often happens with Maggies BTW is people put amps on them that are too small. They're inefficient. This happens surprisingly often.

 

[Wes]

The last 53 pages point up the need for blind listening tests.

 

[josh358]

I hope you didn't read them all.