If there ha been progress in DAC technology in the last few years, it hs been in the quality of clocking and the implementation of I2s or USB ports. The basic chips or ladder designs are maature. That said, significant progress in these 2 areas has material benefits. A well designed asynchronous USB port with high quality clocking (whether OCXO or Rubidium) through the slaving of the server/player is clearly superior to synchronous implementations of yore. |
I don't think you can hear a difference...I think they more or less all sound the same....but true Audiophiles will tell me ,I know nothing....stop listening with ur mind....listen with your ears and enjoy... |
"All competently-designed DACs will sound alike"".
DACS come in many sonic flavors. . . some may not hear the differences,
though.
|
Very nice thread, indeed! I'm learning a lot!
So, high end vintage dac can sound as good as contemporary equally or mid priced ones.
But... how would compare a mid-fi vintage dac to one of the cheap nowadays?
Being (very) specific: I'm using a Sony blue ray player (BDP S480) to play redbook CDs to my system. Found a guy selling a new old stock MSB Link DAC III (plain, with the wall mart e no Nelson upgrades, not like @wturkey) for the same price as a new SMLS m3.
Not considering the usb port on SMLS m3, which would/could improve the sound quality? Vintage MSB Link DAC III, contemporary SMSL M3, or the built in DAC on the blue ray player?
Thank you for the shared knowledge and opinions! Greetings from Brazil ;) |
Midareff1 said:
”Where I think you will find significant differences are not necessarily confined to tonality, the differences are quite apparent in the sound-stage presentation. Width and depth of the stage ... the definition of performers outline and their location in the performance, not only side to side but front to back and their isolation from each other within the performance, as well as the layering of depth of stage. These are the areas I have noticed huge improvements in with one of today’s top DACs while still using the same amps, speakers and pre-amp as I did 25 years ago.”
To that I say:
I still use my Theta Pro Basic II fed by a Rega Planet through a Genesis Time Lens I put together in the early 90’s. For USB, I use a Gustard D-D converter via AESBU to the Genesis from my Mac-Mini. Where the Theta stood out and got my purchase was stage depth, width, performer location, separation and ambience. After listening to it and several others, I was sold.
Any DAC that accomplishes these things is a very good DAC indeed irrespective of age. I would also add, when I bought the Genesis, it took the Theta to an entirely higher level. Retrieval is the only word I can think to describe it. Going through my tubed system to the Maggies, the synergy is magical. I can put a performer right in the room which is what distinguishes the Theta.
I have listened to many modern DACs in my system in the intervening years that equal the Theta in tonality but precious few that rival its air. For me, getting that right is the holy grail. When accomplished, the DAC simply disappears. Some can hear this, others can’t, I suppose. In my experience, those who say DACs sound the same cannot it seems. I stay out of that.
For the newer DACs that did get it right, I could not justify the price to upgrade. The differences were just too inconsequential. The Theta holds its own and sounds pretty darned good for the price I paid and the years I have enjoyed it.
Getting a good vintage DAC is not a bad value proposition in my book.
Thanks, Midareff1, for the summation.
|
"Acoustic is the sleeping princess in Audio, but all people are looking for one of the working 7 dwarves...."
Very well said, mahgister! |
yes -- this is a pretty good thread, with some good knowledge and perspectives that may useful to many - especially for those who don’t need more modern usb based connectivity
of course like with most well populated a-gon threads, you have to filter out a minority of the posts that are patently ridiculous, trolling, and/or just plain ignorant |
@jasonbourne52:
"
All competently-designed DACs will sound alike. This applies to ones from 20+ years ago to the present"
Huh ? When I was shopping for DACs, I did home-demos of DACs from PS Audio, Heed, Metrum, COS and Aqua and was shocked by the dramatic differences in resolution and tonality. These differences appeared to have little to do with price (Units ranged in price from 1K to 6K).
I'm scratching my head as to how you could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. Or is it your contention that one must spend over 6K to get a "Competently designed" DAC?
|
What a long thread in 2021.
I agree with 80% of the comments and I really like the comments about the environment, room acoustics and type of music you listen.
I currently listen to the current production Mytek, Berkeley, Hegel and also a vintage CAL master series mid 90s tube dac.
First I would like to share that is so much fun and a privilege to have the opportunity to listen to music in different electronics.
All my 4 dacs sound amazing with their different sound signatures. Once my ears get used to one, I start enjoying without thinking how the others sound and back and forth and on and on.
The 3 newer dac’s seam to have more resolution, some more separation of the frequencies and the older on is more upfront and punchy and warmer, probably do to the tube it uses. But the kind of music does matter, and to me playing with different dac’s is like playing with different styluses on a turntable.
Now regarding the initial question of the old dacs being worth it or not. A famous tech said to me one time that to make a proper dac the analog board needs to physically be large and also transformers size and type matter. So he believes that none of the newer dac’s that are put in small boxes are good enough and vintage ones that are build with the proper principals are better. But I got to hear to believe, so Im on the hunt for a vintage dac with the biggest analog board in the world :)
Oh, another interesting one is that currently Border Patrol makes a tube dac and the designer choose to use one of the old Philips chip. People love this little and I still yet have to hear it in my system.
All I can say is that all is relative and everything matters in a system but most important ti me is to get transported from listening to the equipment to start floating in the music. And all electronics that makes this magic happen to me are somehow divine.
I thing that older dac’s are deffinetly worth looking in to as long as they are up to spec and none of their parts have gone bad with age and in that case bring it ti the right tech that will give it a second life.
Do they say, that age is just a number ;).
|
I have 2 vintage Enlightened Audio Dacs that I really like for cd. As with most older units they have only digital coaxial and spdif inputs- no usb. Not a problem as I use them for enlightened audio transports. I have a Topping and RPI4 w/HIFIBERRY DAC hat attached- and both sound great for streamed music. A $10k new DAC may blow all of these away, but since I don’t know I am completely happy with what I have. |
@drew_k ,
"When D/As became a $99-500 commodity, these design principles went out the window and the focus was on the chipset and general architecture (ladder, R2R, etc). The original designs put note emphasis on the “A” instead of the “D" I concur and corroborate... Anyway i own a low cost NOS dac Tda 1543 .... There is no limitations on any count imposed by this vintage designed chip re-used in his own way by a french designer, no audible limitations in my audio system WHY? Because the acoustic controls of the room is way more impactful than a dac, and optimize your audio system putting it on an another level completely, especially if you did not use the harsh analytical sigma dac on the market.... But like i already said: Acoustic is the sleeping princess in Audio, but all people are looking for one of the working 7 dwarves.... The marketing schenanigans are more powerful than basic science....And the audio superstition around the listening of music from speakers .... We always listen music from the room....It is the last and more powerful piece of the chain.... |
@drew_k ,
"When D/As became a $99-500 commodity, these design principles went out the window and the focus was on the chipset and general architecture (ladder, R2R, etc). The original designs put note emphasis on the “A” instead of the “D"
This is so true! Too much talk about chips and specification numbers.
Your entire post is on the mark in regard to what really matters in high quality DACs.
Charles |
charles1dad,
Hi @dsper,
Given the diminutive size of the Soekris DAC I imagine the optional power supply is external. I would bet its use makes a positive difference.
I emailed Mod House Audio and Soekris in Denmark but so far no response about an external power supply. I searched both websites and did not see anyhting. Dsper |
To the OP and the question of whether it is worth it to buy a vintage, quality DAC - I would say yes if you can buy it for a reasonably low amount and/or it has been serviced and is in decent working order. The early higher end DACs focused more on the tried and true principles - things like high quality power supplies (not wall warts or switching power), a heavy, inert chassis, and the implementation of a quality analog circuit. When D/As became a $99-500 commodity, these design principles went out the window and the focus was on the chipset and general architecture (ladder, R2R, etc). The original designs put note emphasis on the “A” instead of the “D.” Of course, a heavy, isolated, acoustically inert chassis is expensive, and good power supplies are expensive as well. That’s why companies like Schiit and Denefrips focus more on the “D” side of the equation.
There are current brands, obviously, that combine the state of the art on both sides of the fence, and they are predictably very expensive, and they sound great. I’m listening to an EMM Labs DAC right now, in fact, and its mind blowing. It replaced an also-good Lampizator DAC. I was in the camp saying how great the Lampis were, how much smoother, etc - untilI got my hands on an EMM. Steve Guttenberg reviewed the equivalent DAC from the less expensive Meitner line, the MA-1, and compared it with his reference, the Denefrips Terminator. Basically he said there was no comparison between the two.
So if you are game, it might be worth it to try either a really early, high quality DAC, or perhaps a newer (but still older) ~ 2010 EMM or similar. You can get an early one for $3,000-$4,000 easily (compared to current ones at $16,000-$25,000). Much of the magic for a deep discount. |
Hi @dsper,
Given the diminutive size of the Soekris DAC I imagine the optional power supply is external. I would bet its use makes a positive difference.
Charles |
No issues charles1dad. Just trying to share a current live experience!
I guess it would have to be an external PS with the Soekris. I mean it is no bigger than a hard cover book you might borrow from the library (I use a Kindle by the way as it is wonderful when you are traveling).
My problem is trying to sort out that hierarchy of sonic qualities. For example, I believe that understanding the analog output of the DAC is a key. The technical explanation has to be translated into what this means to the sound. I suppose not all designers are totally forthcoming, and if you can find the technical information, I find my eyes start to glaze over trying to relate that to sound.
It is a conundrum between the plethora of choices and relating them to the sonic heirarchy to make an informed buying decision.
I think I was rather lucky that the Soekris sounds as good as it does.
And hopefully my grammar is better with this post!
Thanks for listening!
Dsper
. |
@dsper,
I would never try to make the cast that current production DACs can not sound good, quite the contrary. My belief is that very high quality older generation DACs can be competitive and sound as good (In some instances better) as a modern DAC. There exists a hierarchy of sonic qualities in both groups of DACs.
In my experience whenever the power supply of a component can be upgraded it's worth the effort and additional cost.i see no reason why this wouldn't appy to the Soekris DAC.
Charles |
Dsper
I listen to an old (late 90's?) Theta ProBasic III DAC and use digital for CD's only. Sounds great to me... You can see my earlier post for this thread above. Anyway, I just received on Monday afternoon a new Soekris DAC 1421, which is single ended, from Mod House Audio. Just thought I would try it as I have been thinking about finding a new end game DAC. I have been considering Bricasti, Denafrips, Metrum, Mojo Audio, and Schitt. Right out of the box I could tell the Soekris was providing more detail but I also thought it was thin sounding and bright. This was while listening to "Argus" by Wishbone Ash. I left it on overnight. This morning, I still felt it did not sound very good while listening to "Crossing Muddy Waters" by John Hiatt. A couple of other CDs later, I was listening to "Tunnel of Love" by Springstein and it started to sound different. Cutting to the chase, I am listening to "The Touch of Your Lips" by Chet Baker right now at after the DAC hs been powered on for about 20 hours. I know the sound of this CD. The Soekris sound has solidified and I would no longer categorize it as thin. It is smooth to the point of being liquid?! The increased detail seems to be translating into more solid images and better clarify the whole audio range. So...this 899 dollar and 2.2 pound experiment is leading me to believe that current DACs can sound pretty darn good and I am now questioning the sound quality of the Theta. The next question right after that is whether spending bigger bucks for better power supplies, more nuanced analog circuits, etc. will translate into better sound? Thanks for listening,
|
Dsper
I listen to an old (late 90's?) Theta ProBasic III DAC and use digital for CD's only. Sounds great to me... You can see my earlier post for this thread above. Anyway, I just received on Monday afternoon a new Soekris DAC 1421, which is single ended, from Mod House Audio. Just thought I would try it as I have been thinking about finding a new end game DAC. I have been considering Bricasti, Denafrips, Metrum, Mojo Audio, and Schitt. Right out of the box I could tell the Soekris was providing more detail but I also thought it was thin sounding and bright. This was while listening to "Argus" by Wishbone Ash. I left it on overnight. This morning, I still felt it did not sound very good while listening to "Crossing Muddy Waters" by John Hiatt. A couple of other CDs later, I was listening to "Tunnel of Love" by Springstein and it started to sound different. Cutting to the chase, I am listening to "The Touch of Your Lips" by Chet Baker right now at after the DAC hs been powered on for about 20 hours. I know the sound of this CD. The Soekris sound has solidified and I would no longer categorize it as thin. It is smooth to the point of being liquid?! The increased detail seems to be translating into more solid images and better clarify the whole audio range. So...this 899 dollar and 2.2 pound experiment is leading me to believe that current DACs can sound pretty darn good and I am now questioning the sound quality of the Theta. The next question right after that is whether spending bigger bucks for better power supplies, more nuanced analog circuits, etc. will translate into better sound? Thanks for listening, Dsper |
My modified Sony SCD-1 SACD is around 20 years old (modded back then) and I still love the sound from it. It can only output analog from it due to the mods.
My 3 other DACs are all brand new models. They sound cleaner but when I hear DSOTM or Santana’s Caravanserai on SACD I am taken to another place. |
I own a now very old Chord 64. It had (has) a very peculiar system of resampling and elaborating the SPDIF signal coming out from my sturdy CD/SACD sony player used as transport, which is working flawlessly since the start through all this years. Chord had/has a special sonic characteristic, which I still enjoy! Apart from the loss of an USB input that I don't need as I stream my nas stored UHD files I'ma happy with it and I never thought of changing it |
About 10 years ago I purchased a NuForce uDac for my 2011 MacBook Pro. I distinctly remember it sounding much darker (and worse) than the internal dac on the Mac.
Fast forward to about a year ago. I purchased an Emotiva BasX Stereo Dac Pre something or other to try to replace my Oppo-BDP105d + miniDSP + UPA-200 combo. Again, it sounded “dark” compared to what I was used to with my current setup.
In that case it could have been the optical input or the amp, dunno, but it sounded distinctly worse than the pricier separates. Even my wife chimed in that it sounded inferior and she liked the idea of a net profit from selling audio gear.
Poorly designed dacs sound poor I guess.
Why anyone would throw a ton of money at a dac at this point is anyone’s guess. The specs I see on even $200ish dacs are better than my Oppo’s at this point and with multiple outlets testing equipment these days instead of just word vomiting audiophile speak, you can visually see if what you think you hear lines up.
I’m considering picking up one of these $300 Topping or SMSL units to see what the fuss is about with DSD and MQA. Formats are kind of a wildcard I guess since it’s about what they’re converting not the hardware used to convert. It’s inconvenient because Tidal is built into the Oppo and easy to control from an iPad, but I’d like to know if these newish formats actually improve the listening experience.
As an aside, the Oppo has paired perfectly with everything I’ve ever thrown at it from tube pre’s/amps to tube/ss combos and so on. Backbone of my system ever since it was released. |
Mahgister,
What dac you have that uses the 1543 chip?
A french dac with an internal battery,a NOS one, designed by Christophe Mariac, bought on EBAY... Starting point systems dac.... Look for one used anything below 200 bucks will be the right price... |
I wish I never threw away my casette tapes😃 |
Mahgister,
What dac you have that uses the 1543 chip? |
Classic Statement ,
In controlled A/B tests nobody can distinguish a $100 DAC from a $1000+ one. Try a PeachTree DAC It. to a low priced Schite Audio DAC many examples Borris, listen to a Audio Quest Dragon Dac to a Small Beater
And a Good day to you Sir |
i would think any over priced DAC Would still sound better than a under
$1 K. DAC of today , 4/2021 NO! |
@tomic601, Hi Tom, may I assume you own or have owned the 'Pandora' and if so what did you upgrade from and have you ever heard the Mojo Mystique kit. The superseded V3 interests me at about 50% the cost of pandora.
|
@minorl
you make a very important point: the analogue section of a dac is actually a preamp. In most cases a simple attenuator will suffice to regulate volume to the power amp. Ideally therefore, the manufacturer of the dac should include analogue rather than digital lossy attenuation.
This might lead one to conclude that rather than endlessly speculate on delta-sigma vs R2R technologies as well as the merits of various DAC chips, more focus should go to the quality of the analogue stage.
It would be very interesting to analyse DACs with a digital out via a reference preamp vs their own analogue stage. While one would still have to speculate about the implementation quality of the digital out- and inputs as well as the cable, it would become a very worthwhile route to better focus on the analogue stage, which after all is the source of most RFI/EMI as well as ground level distortions in dacs. |
@minorl You can always put a USB to SPDIF converter between your Aurender and DAC. That’s what I do after my computer. My DAC only has BNC input. |
Interesting post. Very interesting responses and observations.
My contribution:
1. All dac do not sound the same.
2. The analog output section (basically a pre-amp) and the thought and effort put into the power supply matters greatly.
Also, something that i did not see listed in the responses is; as for comparisons of any piece of equipment vs any other, if the volume of the system isn't exactly matched while doing the comparisons, one will make the determination that the differences they hear are based on whether one piece is better than the other, when actually if the gains weren't matched first, the determination is false.
It is not simply plug, play and listen then plug the new piece in and listen again. most equipment has different gains, and to be honest in the A/B comparison, gain/volume matching is a must.
I do that anytime I compare equipment for potential purchase.
Another important part is that one must listen to the equipment to be compared in the same system, swapping only that piece, adjust the volume to match and listen.
I've listened to and compared many DACS and I can tell you each and every one I've listened to sounds different in the same system with volume matched. Some subtle differences, some major. Depends on the analog section (how well thought out and constructed it was) and how robust the power supply is.
Would I take a previous top of the line high end DAC today? maybe. But my current Aurender music server/ripper/streamer only has USB output. So, my current DAC had to have a USB input.
Older DACS don't have USB.
enjoy
|
The older ES series were tanks w great sonics. Still in demand.
Redbook via a bit perfect rip on a Naim or other good server is also a sonic wonder |
Not a dac, but my former Sony XA7ES CD player built in 1998 stood proud against any currently built CD player. I’m wondering how much of digital is about smoke and mirrors? I regret selling that player which had a proprietary disc drawer which was at least on par with high dollar Wadia decks. |
@lemonhaze,
Yes keep your Wadia I see no reason to replace it, a classic piece.
I understand your characterization of the DCS. That is how they struck me as well. Always will be horses for courses.
Charles |
for those who wonder...Jim White of Theta and Aesthetix..makes an absolutely killer modern DAC.....Pandora..
open the box, if you dare.
Yes, the Wadia stuff was magic...hold on to that 64 |
My ancient Wadia 15 (redbook only) outperforms my Bryston BDP-1 even when it's playing hi-res!
Endlessly chasing detail, detail, detail is a mistake! A friend proudly using an uber expensive dCS agrees that my old Wadia is better but only on redbook and says if we tried hi-res on his unit there would be no comparison. I said OK lets do it. He explained that his hi-res files were at the office and that we could try another time.
Never happened. I found it very clean and detailed but would not want that soulless sound.
So yes, vintage DACs are definitely worthwhile and the good ones do age well. I get the impression my heavyweight Wadia will outlast me and just about everything else.
|
Hi @jond,
One key similarity between the Yamamoto YDA-01 and your Audio Note DAC is the choice to go with a very simple circuit and discrete analogue output stages. They avoided OP-amps in this stage and also shunned them for I/V conversion.
Rationale given was to have a zero NFB DAC circuit. All these years later and neither has saw the need to change the circuit design. . They’ve both have stood the test of time successfully.
Charles |
@charles1dad You are so right about that and the guy I sold my Yamamoto Dac to raved over it so much I almost wanted it back ;) And yes analog output stages and power supplies are probably more important than the Dac chip and its implementation.
|
Hi Telefunkin74
I'd be really curious to know if you did that test again what you'd find.
Another side effect I've found of modern DAC's' is that upsampling isn't that much of a benefit, but older DAC's consistently benefit from upsampling.
Don't get me wrong, there is a difference, but the difference is much more narrow, and in the very top octave. I can explain the benefits today by looking at the frequency response of 44.1/16 vs. 96/24 or higher. There's just a hint more air, sometimes hardness.
In older DAC's everything seemed better with high res signals. Bass, imaging, tonal complexity and the ability to play complex musical passages without becoming mushy.
|
I worked in the audio industry in the mid 80s and had the opportunity to hear many of the early attempts at audiophile grade CD sound. The results ranged from miserable to listenable, but in most cases a good FM receiver would have them licked. It wasn't until the early 90s that CD players started to perform at a level I considered comparable to a good vinyl source.
Back in the mid 2000s I was listening to a friend's audio system. He had a pretty nice DAC
(can't remember the name for reasons I will soon reveal)
that cost several grand being driven by a pretty decent digital source. I really liked the sound of that DAC and seriously thought about getting one, but there was no way I could afford it at the time.
He also had a Sony DVP-S9000ES that had the added advantage of playing SACDs, a format that was still relatively new but held great promise. We decided that I should do a blind test between his DAC and the Sony. He picked out CDs and SACDs of the same music, being sure each had the same mastering. When comparing the two using Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, one was clearly more realistic with an improved bass foundation and dynamic range. I made the assumption that the better sounding unit was the DAC since it was an "audiophile" product made with better components and bla bla bla. Of course I was wrong and I had actually preferred the Sony player. From that day I was convinced that red book CD was limited sonically and that higher resolution formats were needed to go to that next level in sound. That lead me to completely forget about the DAC and to purchase a 9000ES along with as many SACDs as I could get my hands on, paying less paying less for the lot than that one DAC would have cost. It still sounds great with CDs, but really shines with SACD.
Long story short, my advice would be to stick with a DAC built this millennia, but do as another poster suggested and buy a DAC that will allow you to play higher resolution formats. |
I wouldn’t disqualify
older DAC's, there are some fine DAC's that were made in the past.
However, you need to ask yourself some questions, such as: do you want
DSD\MQA or maybe even Ethernet connection?
If your answer is yes to one of the above then you probably find the
answer in newer DAC's
The big difference in DAC sound in the analog output, while you can
argue that all DAC'S are doing the same (converting digital information) there
are several methods for that which will affect the sounding, but the biggest
sound different relay in the analog section which in the end is responsible
for the signal that gets out of the DAC – and there, not all are created equal.
|
@runkster,
Your "humble opinion" is on the mark in my opinion 😊. For some reason the crucial analogue output stage is frequently overlooked and downplayed. Conversely the DAC chips are over credited in determining sound quality.
I'm not surprised that the older PS Audio Ultealink sounds better than the Schitt Modi, Not at all. I'd bet the Ultealink very likely has better quality analogue output stage and power supply.
Charles |
I have a PS Audio Ultralink I purchased in 1995. Stereophile Class A over $2 grand at the time and as good as there was back then. I just purchased a Schiit Modi 3+ which is a highly regarded inexpensive dac today. No contest..The Ultralink sounds better and not by just a little bit. Most folks just consider the digital technology, the chip. My experience indicates the analog section probably plays a greater role in the sound quality than people think.. Just my humble opinion.. |
@eric_squires wrote: I suspect this has to do with much more accurate clocks and anti-jitter technology in the underlying silicon. My experience with my stable of DACs is that the DAC itself is the least important component - anything can b made to sound good, or bad. I agree with the above about timing and jitter, but have a hard time proving it with measurements and sufficient subjective data, but am trying. Other stuff matters a lot too - power supplies, ground isolation, filters, analog drivers, blah blah. All lots of work too :-( Its very similar with active devices. People go off on mosfets vs JFETS vs BJTs vs whatever. In general all my designs, using all the above sound more similar than different, unless I f-ed something up. Another good DAC for the money, BTW is the Allo revolution with the USB bridge and excellent power supply (theirs or yours, been down both roads), if you can deal with their kit-car mentality, documentation (lack), customer service (lack) etc. I suspect itss why i have finally made my 30-year-old Theta DSpro II sound so good - the clock, USB I/F, SPDIF I/F, power supply, are all mine. And the basic DAC and analog filter were top notch (well there are chip buffers, but very good ones), and there's no magic in either. G |
I definitely don’t agree with the pre 2010 Dacs sound worse playing Redbook CD. @Jond his Audio Note DAC and my Yamamoto DAC are pre 2010 models. They are wonderful with Redbook and sonically compete with or exceed many current generation DACs. So it seems that the listening experiences differs amongst us.
Charles |
I still use my Weiss DAC202 which I have since 2011 and I am not changing it any time soon. The DAC chip(s) influences the sound of the DAC but there are other factors that are just as important, like the quality of the clock and jitter control cct, the power supplies, the analogue stages, the overall quality of the design, the components used and much more. I agree with most, DACs do sound different but the whole system should be resolving enough to let you hear the difference.
|
DAC's before 2010 were almost universally worse sounding with Redbook than with high resolution files. i don't agree with this - it is contrary to my own findings |
@jond
I have no idea. I am only able to guess at changes and the date. The big feature that is different pre/post this period (and 2010 is a guess due to lack of enough samples) is the sudden improvement in Redbook playback, and the vanishing gap between Redbook and high resolution files after this.
|
|
Any one who thinks all DACs sound alike has tin ears. Sorry guys and gals but that's the truth. |
