Jump to content


Please subscribe to MPN’s YouTube Channel!

DrSynth

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    147

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by DrSynth

    Arturia Polybrute

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    On 9/4/2023 at 1:04 PM, Jim Alfredson said:

    Ok, I found one small thing I don't like about the synth so far. I'm not really gelling with this keybed. It's not bad per se. It just doesn't feel very high quality and it doesn't respond as fast as I would like. I wonder if it's a Fatar and can be swapped out with a better Fatar. The TP9/S that I installed into my Oberheim OB8 is the kind of feel I like; fast, steady, keys not wobbling around, nice depth, and just the right amount of resistance at the bottom of the key travel. I think the Oberheim OB-X8 uses the same one. That's a nice, high quality keybed.

     

    It reminds me of the Prophet 12 keybed. I love that synth; don't like the keybed. 

     

    Jim,

     

    I totally agree, it's the first thing I noticed with the PolyBrute (and my MatrixBrute as well)-- it's weirdly 'klunky' with shallow depth of travel especially of the white keys.  I'm a 'pounder' with little technique and find it fatiguing compared to all my Yamaha keybeds.  And god forbid I play the Arturias immediately after playing the Osmose

    the French are at it again 🎚️🎹🎛️

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    On 11/20/2022 at 1:10 AM, marino said:

     

    Thanks Manny. Sort of. :D

    I think that eventually, here's what I'm going to do: Since sales of the 30% segment seem to progress slowly, I should still have a few days to think about it. In this time, I'll try to spend some time with the Anyma Phi to help making up my mind.

    In the meantime, more considerations, encouragements, slaps in the face, headsup, insults, calls to reason etc. are welcome. 🙃 😉

     

    Not that this makes it easier -- they hit the threshold for all the CV ins/out as well, so now you need to think how versatile the Omega will be as a controller in addition to the sound engine. :) 

     

    Manny

    the French are at it again 🎚️🎹🎛️

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    On 11/18/2022 at 8:02 AM, marino said:

     

    Well, now that the Poly Aftertouch keyboard has been unlocked on Kickstarter, I'm *really* struggling trying not to push that button! It's against rationality big time, and I can't really share my thoughts with my "normal" friends, even with the musicians, without being looked at in a strange way :freak: - so I'll post them here... maybe (just maybe) to put all the elements in writing is going to help my reasoning...

     

    So I have the Anyma Phi (the mono version), in fact I was one of the early adopters. I was supposed to do some testing and make a video, but my unit got stuck in the mail for two months, and when it finally arrived, I was busy and had little time to learn it. To this day, I haven't had much time to really dig into it, but I really like the sound quality and tweakability. Editing from the front panel is possible but convoluted, however the software editor is very well done and shows what's going on with clarity.

    In short, the prospect of a 16-poly version with a keyboard, a larger display, more functions, poly AT, ribbon, touch pad, multitimbrality etc., sounds very attractive.
    Probably, if the first Kickstarter batch at -40% hadn't gone in a few hours, I would not be writing this post. Right now, several units are left with a -30% price, which when including shipping, amounts to more that 1200 Euros.

    Yes, there's the module version with a lower price, but given the configuration of my little music space, I'm not inclined to use that kind of solution. Most of my modules are either two/three-unit racks, or very small desktop units (like the Anyma Phi).

     

    So what's against pushing the button?

    - It would be a *very* unwise move financially. Really against any logic.

    - I'm trying to 'reduce' the number of hardware instruments in my little home studio. I have very little space, and also thinking to use more software in the near future.

    - I have recently bought the Waldorf Iridium. It was a big investment, and I have months of learning ahead.

     

    The reasons to possibly push the button are more subtle, but in case you're still reading, bear with me:

    - There are very few hardware instruments based on physical modeling; and even the software ones are usually based on reproducing acoustic instruments exactly; this one seems to take PM as a starting point for creative sound design, which is appealing to me. I loved the Yamaha VL1 that I sold several years ago - but editing it was nearly impossible. This one has a clear editing interface.

    - At this moment in my life, I'm trying to define the instruments that I'm going to use in the next several years, namely in my old age. I love class instruments with a lot of possibilities, and this promises to be one.

    - Prices of everything electronic seem to go up, and there's no sign of that slowing down. In the long run, buying the Anyma Omega with such a strong discount could be a wise move after all.

    - If I do the crazy move and get it, it will arrive next summer, and by that time, I hope to have gained a decent knowledge of the Iridium - so not too much overlap between two complex instruments.

     

    To sum it all up: I have a bad case of GAS. :freak: 🙃 :freak:

     

    To the few masochists who have read this until the end, thanks for listening... and I would really appreciate your considerations. Insults are accepted!

     

     

     

     

    Just DO it... I've still got an Osmose coming (...eventually...) and at this 30% off for 16 note PAT advanced digital synth it's a no brainer !  I also have the Iridium, no real overlap.  GAS doesn't require logic!

     

    Manny

    • Like 1
    • Cool 1

    New Synclavier :o

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    On 10/29/2022 at 6:17 AM, Radagast said:

     

    Yes the original Synclavier II had a type of resynthesis that used what NED called “timbre frames”.  I think it involved slicing samples up into sections.  IIRC the “additive synthesis” NED offered was not real time additive synthesis.  Rather, it allowed the user to specify the levels of 24 harmonics that then were calculated into a static waveform.  So each of the 24 harmonics are locked in phase with each other.  Dynamic control  of pitch, and amplitude of each individual harmonic wasn’t present.  However, by having “partials” as they call it, it might allow for movement of harmonics in relationship to each other.  Am I correct?

     

    That is correct. The crossfading through the frames emulated having realtime control of those aspects of the 24 harmonics.

     

    A cool thing in the Regen -- now there is the capability to set the Phase independently for each Harmonic in the Additive engine.  Can allow for some cool spacial 'binaural' tricks in 2 Partial patches, but more importantly this is a really big deal for doing FM.  Shifting the phase of certain harmonics in your Modulator and/or Carrier shapes the timbre in a completely different way than Ratio/Index

    Now that you've had your Hydrasynth for a while...

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    Love mine. Huge timbre palatte, fantastic controllability, It is one of the best purchases I've made. So much so I have both version (KB and DT). The flavors of phase modulation in the various mutants have some unique implementation/versatilities that even the Quantum/Iridium can't do (BTW the KB is a great controller for the Iridium). I don't find any issues with it's 'sound' per se, though you do have to explore balancing the gain staging and filter overdrive to massage the sonic character at times (not unlike the MoogOne so I'm told)

     

    My particular reason for getting is was Wavetable - Wavetable FM, and the way you can set up the individual sequences of waves and dynamically modulate them interactively from so may controllers giving ever changing Modulator-Carrier waveform interactions makes it a textural pad monster (really enhanced with the poly AT)

     

    Two thumbs (way) up!

     

    Manny

    Kronos discontinued?

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

     

    Quick hijack of the thread into the FM weeds... it's Bessel functions, not Fourier coefficients, that creates the behavior quirks many find hard to internalize.

     

    And DX7 sine wave FM, even with the the tricks Radagast mentions, won't yield string sounds anywhere near the Oberheim timbres. Your ears will be somewhat fooled say for maybe 12-18 notes worth of range maybe an octave, octave and a half above middle C. But the low notes are nowhere close, harmonically, as you can easily hear the 'gaps' in upper harmonics that your ears can't hear are missing in the upper registers. I'm guessing if your Oberheim centric friends were fooled, they've likely spent way too much time in front of loud Marshall stacks :idk:

     

    There's adding on chorus and reverb that helps; a DX7II can get a bit better; a TX816 could get to 'reasonably close but noticeably different' if you know what to do, but in the end there's no way to really get the type of high order harmonic density of those awesome Oberheim saw waves in that original sine wave only FM implementation.

     

     

     

    Manny

     

    Well Doc, back into the FM weeds for a bit. If you look at algorithm 2 on a DX-7, you"ll notice that it isn"t just one sine wave modulating another sine wave. Modulating operator 4 is being modulated by operator 5, which is being modulated by operator six. Each layer of modulation added more upper harmonics to the result. The operator 1 and 2 pair isn"t enough by itself. But the feedback on operator 2 makes up for the lack of additional modulators that you find in the 3, 4, 5, 6 stack. And my hearing is just fine. It had the silky smoothness that my Oberheim had. Now if you are talking about buzzy sounds like on the song Jump, then you aren"t talking about typical string patches that had some low pass filtering to take the edge off. And I assure you, my DX-7 patch had plenty of upper harmonics for a good analog string patch. And if was good for many octaves. The highest octave had some aliasing in it, but how many people play analog string sounds in the highest octave? The trick that gave it some analog randomness was using fixed frequently on the carrier operators anyway. And the DX-7 was strictly speaking phase modulation, instead of true frequency modulation, so maybe that had something to do with it.

     

    Radagast,

     

    Apologies, no intent to come across as 'that guy' on the internet to troll/diss your perspectives. Trying to be helpful in outlining the characteristics of FM/PM and differences/advantages in various implementations, like MOD7. Thought I'd used emoji's in a way to indicate some tongue and cheek, and was trying to poke light fun at your friend's hearing not yours.

     

    Anyway, yes the DX7 is capable of very nice string sounds, done many of them my self :). Nice as they are, given my experience with the DX7 --'silky smooth' and Oberheim-esque is just not what comes to mind in describing the timbre space of that version of Yamaha's FM implementation, IMHO.

     

    Manny

    Kronos discontinued?

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    I think the DX7 isn't a good example, and it persists for FM to this day. Very few humans have the ability to internalize FM, mostly because our brains don't think intuitively in terms of Fourier coefficients in the spectral representation of audio.

    I doubt if 0.1% of musicians could create a predictable acoustic instrument or even a sonically pre-thought-out sound from scratch using FM. Even Chowning stumbled into it quite by accident experimenting with the modulation ratios.

    Once you understand the math you have a fighting chance but even then it's not intuitive.

     

    I had a DX-7 for many years and I found the secret to making analog sounds. I had a string patch that my diehard Oberheim friends couldn"t distinguish from a string patch on my Oberheim Xpander, which was based on the Matrix 12.

     

    It does individual string instruments reasonably well because it captures the rosin/bow attack (one of the reasons Cello was a factory patch). But it wasn't good at the lush strings like the OB or SC subtractive ala Lyle Mays. I'd love to hear how you did yours if you could show the algorithm and settings or still have audio you could post.

     

    I used algorithm #2. All operators were tuned to a 1 to 1 ratio.

    Operator 2 had feedback turned up. So it was close to 2 sawtooth waves. Then I switched the two carriers (operators 1 and 3) to fixed frequency of zero (or 1). I had to tweak it a bit. Playing with it some more I came up with sound like the growling synth sound on Tom Sawyer. I may have used the pitch envelope for that.

     

    It was switching the carriers to fixed frequency that did it.

     

    Quick hijack of the thread into the FM weeds... it's Bessel functions, not Fourier coefficients, that creates the behavior quirks many find hard to internalize.

     

    And DX7 sine wave FM, even with the the tricks Radagast mentions, won't yield string sounds anywhere near the Oberheim timbres. Your ears will be somewhat fooled say for maybe 12-18 notes worth of range maybe an octave, octave and a half above middle C. But the low notes are nowhere close, harmonically, as you can easily hear the 'gaps' in upper harmonics that your ears can't hear are missing in the upper registers. I'm guessing if your Oberheim centric friends were fooled, they've likely spent way too much time in front of loud Marshall stacks :idk:

     

    There's adding on chorus and reverb that helps; a DX7II can get a bit better; a TX816 could get to 'reasonably close but noticeably different' if you know what to do, but in the end there's no way to really get the type of high order harmonic density of those awesome Oberheim saw waves in that original sine wave only FM implementation.

     

    So, back on topic -- MOD7 in the Kronos is an exceptionally well implemented FM/PM engine. It has a deeper implementation of what Yamaha did in the SY77/99 -- complex waveforms, phase control, patchable feedbacks, filtering etc. which allow you to overcome the harmonic density issues of sine wave only FM. You have to use the computer based editor to get down and dirty into those nuts and bolts. And then learning how multiple feedbacks and phase offesets interact with everything is a whole 'nother ball of wax, definitely quite 'timey wimey" type stuff.

     

    So, to your point, how many are aware of the capabilites and utilized it ?!? 0.1% might be extremely generous :)

     

    I've always fancied a dedicated "MOD7 in a box" and was hopefull with the Opsix. But nice as it is, they cut the parameter set a bit too much (no Op phase control !) So if they do ever 'blow them out' I could easily see picking up a Kronos61 just for MOD7

     

    Manny

    In the Lab: Arturia PolyBrute

    in MPN GearLab • Interactive Reviews

    Posted

    That's cool that they have the waveform mixing/blending in the oscillators.

     

    My specifics of interest re: mod matrix is how the morph handles continuous data morphs vs. categorical data morphs. One instance could be morphing between souces in the mod matix, or things like LFO waveshape. Can they actually 'blend' everything as they are essentially voltages -- one thing that is interesting in doing morphing on an analog synth vs digital is I could see in the appropriately designed analog synth structure/signal flow all parameters could be continously morphed.

     

    This in contrast to digital synth engines which typically have a lot of categorical parameters as part of their configurability/flexability i.e. Montage/MODX. The issue with morphing in these systems (SmartMorph) is transitions of the categorical parameters create stepped discontinuities in the morph. Of course, one can build the morph analysis data set (Parents in SmartMorph-speak) with identical categorical parameter values (algorithm, feedback, filter type etc) thus giving results without any categorical parameters changes, and the results will be fully continuous.

     

    Manny

    In the Lab: Arturia PolyBrute

    in MPN GearLab • Interactive Reviews

    Posted

    I'm really curious how it handles the morphing in regards to the mod matrix source/destination assignments.

     

    From what demos I've seen so far, it's the kind of thing that could redefine what an analog polysynth can be. It has a few quirks that can be accomodated. I would have liked a longer ribbon (I'm spoiled by the Hydrasynth). Not a fan of 'above the keyboard' Pitch/Mod wheel placement. I would have extended the case width & put them between the Morphee' and the keyboard so you could play the Morphee' with your pinky and/or ring finger and still reach the Pitch/Mod with your index & thumb. Maybe that would have given them room for a bit more electronics inside, as it's killing me it's not 8 voices :)

     

    Manny

     

    PS - Hopefully it will be a big success, so they'll release an XL version with 12-16 voices, 73 note Poly AT keyboard, repositioned wheels and 4 octave ribbon. That would make me give up my FM synths... Just kidding, but I'd lay out $5-6K for that in a second!

    What was your "game-changing" synth?

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    Ooof - when you've been it it long enough, the game changes a few times. When I started the game was Minimoogs, Odysseys, Prophets 5's and OBx's.

     

    So my first game changer was the Rhodes Chroma for the configurability and touch sensitity. Very shortly thereafter the next 'changer' was the fully loaded Buchla 200 system we had at college. It really expanded the concepts of signal/modulation routing, timbre shaping & performance. Truly opened my eyes about what a syntheziser could do.

     

    Then, the DX7 (no explanation needed :) )

     

    Next was the K2000. I don't think VAST gets enough love for what it's capable. In a way the architecture is like a DSP Buchla.

     

    Not 'changers' per se, but exquisitely capable refinements advancing the game were the SY99 and FS1r

     

    So the next game changer for me was the Yamaha VL1, but unfortunately not many willing to play in the Physical Modeling game with the rise of large memory ROMplers.

     

    Honestly, even acknowledging tons of significant refinements and enhancements since those synths, nothing truly game changing for me for a long time, partially because most of the biggest advancements were in soft synths.

     

    IMHO the next game change will be enhanced performance expression / controllability. We've started down that path with the rise of the multitude of alternate controllers picking up from the performance dynamics of the Physical Modeling thing. I think timbre spaces are pretty well covered.

     

    Really looking forward to the Osmose

     

    Manny

    FM for modern sounds?

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    With the Opsix it appears the operator level is applied equally to all operators per the algorithm. I forgot or maybe never thought about this with the original DX series. Or is there another parameter I"m forgetting here?

     

    No, all Opertor Levels are independent - the cool thing about the Opsix interface is that each Operator has a dedicated Knob for Ratio and Slider for Level, plus the Red/Blue LED lightning to let you know if tit's a Carrier or Modulator. Very quick editing access for core timbre tweaking.

     

    Manny

     

    How do you independently control the amount of a modulator feeding 2 carriers with one slider?

     

    Ah, now I get what you were referring to Markyboard... I initally read it the other way around.

     

    So, the original DX architecture has always been 'source' routing, meaning that you set up the Ratio, Level and Envelope for the Modulator (i.e. source Operator) and yes, for the algorithms where that Modulator is 'patched' to multiple other Operators it will 'feed' those operator identical values.

     

    FM-X in Montage/MODX is the same as original DX architecture (unfortunately)

     

    Not having an Opsix and only looking at the manual, the 'preset' algorithms seem to follow the original DX archecture in this regard, unclear if there is a back door via the User algorithm to set up like AFM.

     

    Now, AFM in the SY77/99 does allow for independent control of how each Operator feeds into another as each Operator's 'input' can be attenuated as well. So If Op 4 Mod level is 85 feeding into both Ops 2 and 3, there is a setting for Ops 2 and 3 to let that be, say, 100% for Op 2 and 50% for Op 3. This is also present in the 3 Feedback Loops/Patchable Operators in AFM. This is one of the 4 key differences in AFM (along with individual phase offset for each Op, a DC offset/waveshaping Operator mode, & looping envelopes) that make it the most timbrally versatile FM implementation Yamaha has done.

     

    Hope that gives more clarity.

     

    Manny

    FM for modern sounds?

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    Good to know about Dexed, Manny. Thank you. I gigged VL for many years with patches like Floboe and Triple Reed. The Win 95 editor was cool, but frankly I broke more models than I built. After VL I began to use Reaktor ensembles. Steam Pipe 2 is a mainstay for me. There are also products like Respiro, Friktion and Sample modeling for wind synthesis. I've stayed away because my interest is not in imitative synthesis but in evocative expressions. I am trying to learn how to design subtle timbral changes under real time control (breath, aftertouch, etc) with FM. So far the best approach has been to set up timbral centers (harmonic components?) with independent operators and crossfade between them. Thanks for any advice you would offer.

     

    Tusker,

     

    If you're using Classic Yamaha FM hardware pre-Montage/MODX, your only realtime options are the EG Bias parameter for control of Operator Level via the AMS depth with BC, Aftertouch etc. So in these situations in the 'classic' FM arcitecture I find a useful approach is using (original) DX7 algorithm 18, using AMS on Ops 2 & 6, with the higher AMS sensitivity on Op 2. Then a Ratio of 2 to 5 on Op 2 with lower Level 45-70 and AMS of 4-7; then Ratio 1 to 3 on Op 6 with moderate levels 65-80, AMS of 1-3. If using 4-Op TX81z & related, try it with the building the basic sound using sine waves and the EG Bias controlled OP with one of the complex waves

     

    Better yet if using an SY77/99 because with AFM you get direct control of Operator Phase along with alternate waveforms, which allows pretty much for the ability to modulate any region of the harmonic spectra that you choose.

     

    Montage/MODX is extremely versatile for this because every Operator can be controlled independently by different/multiple controllers, with various controller curve responses, plus there's 8 of them.

     

    I know that's still kinda generalized, but hope it gives you some ideas.

     

    Manny

    FM for modern sounds?

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    With the Opsix it appears the operator level is applied equally to all operators per the algorithm. I forgot or maybe never thought about this with the original DX series. Or is there another parameter I"m forgetting here?

     

    No, all Opertor Levels are independent - the cool thing about the Opsix interface is that each Operator has a dedicated Knob for Ratio and Slider for Level, plus the Red/Blue LED lightning to let you know if tit's a Carrier or Modulator. Very quick editing access for core timbre tweaking.

     

    Manny

    FM for modern sounds?

    in The Keyboard Corner

    Posted

    ...

    Manny, I don't really know how to react to the FM examples you linked to except to say wow! What came through for me is the immense contribution you have made over decades of sound design. Your discipline and passion come through loud and clear. For me the moonlight sonata was the jaw dropper. Take a familiar and highly complex sound, then generate an entirely exposed rendition of it being played idiomatically. A challenge well met. To your point about the sustaining overtones at 11.40 .... I imagine hours and days of painstaking analysis of the spectra. Thank you.

     

    Speaking of spectra, there is a project I would like enlist FM's aid on. I wonder if you might have some advice. It's a melodic monophonic sound with a particular flaring of timbre which is part of the player's expression. I am not into imitative synthesis per se, but I would like to be able to replicate the idiom. (As an analogy: A saw pad can swell as an lpf opens, just as a brass section in an orchestra can swell ... yet the two are not the same sound. That swell however, is idiomatically valuable across a range of sounds.)

     

    So this idiom (which I call a "flare") is often found in double reed instruments when the player adjusts bite pressure and breath pressure at the same time. You will hear it in duduk, nadaswaram, shawm, oboe and bassoon. The timbre flares a bit brightly, sometimes there is a bit more noise/breath, sometimes the fundamental frequency is reduced, various mid-range partials are changed in amplitude. Often, the idiom is part of the tremolo of the instrument, at other times it's part of the swell of the musical phrase.

     

    I've done this "flare" with subtractive synthesis, changing the pulse width, reducing the fundamental with a high pass filter and adding a bit of rectified clipping for "bite". Subtractive is like painting with a broad brush, however. I've also got good results with Yamaha VL and Reaktor Steampipe. But it seems to me that it would be a nice idiomatic trick to put into FM. It would be a good proof case for FM, in the "mid-range" partials and with a lot of harmonicity. Also, once the trick is understood, it can be used across a range of sounds, some of which may not be at all like a double reed.

     

    Tusker, first a sincere thank you for the compliment, I truly appreciate it. One of the reasons I'm so passoinate about FM is that it's so damn playable, responsive and expressive regardless of timbre space-- imitative or otheriwise, It would be very well suited to your example (of course VL would be ideal, but more time consuming).

     

    BTW for me the most remarkable thing about the piano exercise was it was programmed by repeated playing of individual notes to get the dynamic timbre, transient and decay/sustain behaviors essentially in isolation. I'm not an accomplished player by any means compared to most everyone on the forums here. Sure, I'd pound out (literally) a few riffs and motifs here and there but that was mainly to check it sounded 'right' to my ears and to see that things meshed in chords. The Moonlight Sonata is a MIDI file I found -- unedited other than some velocity tweaks to match the Montage velocity curves I used. And it just meshed with the patch ! The harmonic textures and interactions of the overtones of all those sustaining notes at 11:40 were just 'there' - no analysis of the spectra, just that those individuals notes sounded proper when I'd let them ring out. That is something that is part of the inherent musicality of FM.

     

     

    Do you think there would be value in getting a copy of dexed and maybe going through the Yamaha catalog to find sounds to study? Are there particular patches you would direct me to? (I am reminded that the DX harmonica was killer, but I don't remember what timbral variation it had.)

     

    It could be that some parts of this sound, are just basic additive, or subtractive. I am ok with blending the synthesis tools. To me, FM has always been a spice in the kitchen, as Prof D says.

     

    I don't think DEXED would necessarily be the way to go. Nothing I can think off the top of my head patch-wise that might be out there as I always roll my own. The controllers you'd prefer to use might dictate a particular platform being more suited than another. What other FM gear/ VI's do you have ? PM me, we'll chat.

     

    Trying to make a professional FM sound where reconstruction preparation, mid-range frequency blare control and reverberation preparation are part of the algorithms in the FM computations is very hard indeed. Trying to find that golden FM piano sound (talking about the 80s/90s)IIRC is about a chance of 1 to 2 to power of 150 (the number of sound influencing bits in a D patch), which is very small.

     

    Good point! Thank you for your comment Theo. True, those electric piano tine sounds are very forgiving. You can add something at 31.5 semitones above the fundamental, or (going from memory), at 27 semitones. If it's soft enough, it will quickly begin to evoke your electric tine without affecting the body of sound. By contrast, these mid-range modifications of the "blare" or "flare" are quite subtle and they change the spectra in multiple ways simultaneously. That's why I thought that if anyone has cracked this problem for FM, it might be Manny.

     

    I will neither confirm or deny, as I'd have to kill you :) :) But seriously, this is solved by what I call the 'harmonic component modeling" approach to synthesis. Applied to FM it's using different groups of Operators for specific areas of the desired timbres and blending them together.

     

    Manny

×
×
  • Create New...