Are expensive cables worth it ?
Discussion
Good cables do make a difference compared to rubbish stuff, but good doesn't mean expensive and it's hard to know if cable is rubbish unless you test it properly.
It is however utterly incorrect to say that speaker cable cannot make a difference to what a system sounds like.
I always remember this when any "debate" about cables comes up, be they speaker or the inevitable hdmi rows that erupt regularly, for every person that says something works there is another who says it doesn't. I try to make up my own mind and having tried a huge number of different cables of vary prices, construction, thickness and materials, then I know for myself that some cables do make my system sound better, some sound a bit worse and some that make stuff all difference.
I know this as I tried it and if anyone says the phrase "double blind test" to me, then I'll simply blow rasberries in their direction.
The only consistent things I'll say is that a thicker cable seems to make my system sound better. The Material the cable is made of, I cannot hear a difference between copper or silver, or a mix and that if the cable isn't terminated properly then you are wasting your time.
So from trying things out my system has mildly expensive cabling for the front array at £20ish/m but for the front height, side and rear speakers then I've just used a drum of cable that an installer mate gave me which is around £3/m and works perfectly fine thank you very much. I've tried stuff that retails at over £500/m and I couldn't tell a single bit of difference from my £20 stuff, but I can tell the difference between the £20 and the £3 stuff, but it's no where near enough of a difference to justify spending a fortune on the long runs I need for my full system.
If you want the best, then you'd pay it, but for me, I just didn't consider it worth it.
It is however utterly incorrect to say that speaker cable cannot make a difference to what a system sounds like.
I always remember this when any "debate" about cables comes up, be they speaker or the inevitable hdmi rows that erupt regularly, for every person that says something works there is another who says it doesn't. I try to make up my own mind and having tried a huge number of different cables of vary prices, construction, thickness and materials, then I know for myself that some cables do make my system sound better, some sound a bit worse and some that make stuff all difference.
I know this as I tried it and if anyone says the phrase "double blind test" to me, then I'll simply blow rasberries in their direction.
The only consistent things I'll say is that a thicker cable seems to make my system sound better. The Material the cable is made of, I cannot hear a difference between copper or silver, or a mix and that if the cable isn't terminated properly then you are wasting your time.
So from trying things out my system has mildly expensive cabling for the front array at £20ish/m but for the front height, side and rear speakers then I've just used a drum of cable that an installer mate gave me which is around £3/m and works perfectly fine thank you very much. I've tried stuff that retails at over £500/m and I couldn't tell a single bit of difference from my £20 stuff, but I can tell the difference between the £20 and the £3 stuff, but it's no where near enough of a difference to justify spending a fortune on the long runs I need for my full system.
If you want the best, then you'd pay it, but for me, I just didn't consider it worth it.
Seeing as how they don't bother spending ££££'s on cables in the recording studio you probably shouldn't bother either.....
Have a look at the cable choices offered by Canford, Studiospares or Bryant Unlimited and I'm sure you'll find something reasonably priced that will be every bit as good as anything supplied by a 'specialist HiFi' cable dealer.
Sadly someone who pays £100s for cable will convince themself that it does sound better, rather than they have just wasted lots of money.
Plenty of these 'HiFi' cable suppliers have got ASA judgements against them for unsupportable claims. Tells you all you need to know.
Have a look at the cable choices offered by Canford, Studiospares or Bryant Unlimited and I'm sure you'll find something reasonably priced that will be every bit as good as anything supplied by a 'specialist HiFi' cable dealer.
Sadly someone who pays £100s for cable will convince themself that it does sound better, rather than they have just wasted lots of money.
Plenty of these 'HiFi' cable suppliers have got ASA judgements against them for unsupportable claims. Tells you all you need to know.
My approach has always been that you want something better than basic but the law of diminishing returns applies. Things like BiWiring speakers, speaker stands etc will benefit as much as buying good interconnects and speaker cable. You need a balance. I know for a fact that a £20 interconnect sounds better than the black one which came in the box and I also know that QED 79 strand sounds better than bell wire. Same with stands and biwiring speakers. You can hear the difference.
At work we have sold systems with £2-3000+ worth of interconnects, mains leads and USB cables. Do they make a difference? Well they will certainly be better than the standard cables and when you are trying to build a system which is as good as it gets then I think the expense is justifiable.
At work we have sold systems with £2-3000+ worth of interconnects, mains leads and USB cables. Do they make a difference? Well they will certainly be better than the standard cables and when you are trying to build a system which is as good as it gets then I think the expense is justifiable.
NorthDave said:
My approach has always been that you want something better than basic but the law of diminishing returns applies. Things like BiWiring speakers, speaker stands etc will benefit as much as buying good interconnects and speaker cable. You need a balance. I know for a fact that a £20 interconnect sounds better than the black one which came in the box and I also know that QED 79 strand sounds better than bell wire. Same with stands and biwiring speakers. You can hear the difference.
At work we have sold systems with £2-3000+ worth of interconnects, mains leads and USB cables. Do they make a difference? Well they will certainly be better than the standard cables and when you are trying to build a system which is as good as it gets then I think the expense is justifiable.
If I were in your position as a business selling A/V equipment, I'd also be offering the option of expensive cables, since there are apparently plenty of people who will buy them and it'd be daft not to supply this demand.At work we have sold systems with £2-3000+ worth of interconnects, mains leads and USB cables. Do they make a difference? Well they will certainly be better than the standard cables and when you are trying to build a system which is as good as it gets then I think the expense is justifiable.
outnumbered said:
If I were in your position as a business selling A/V equipment, I'd also be offering the option of expensive cables, since there are apparently plenty of people who will buy them and it'd be daft not to supply this demand.
Plus all the profit is on the cables, competition reduces margins right down on appliances.NorthDave said:
At work we have sold systems with £2-3000+ worth of interconnects, mains leads and USB cables. Do they make a difference? Well they will certainly be better than the standard cables and when you are trying to build a system which is as good as it gets then I think the expense is justifiable.
You really need to check this specs and tolerances when saying USB cables make a difference. The voltage variation is very forgiving on USB transfers.You sell cables which make a tidy profit so of course you're going to sell expensive cables.
IforB said:
Good cables do make a difference compared to rubbish stuff, but good doesn't mean expensive and it's hard to know if cable is rubbish unless you test it properly.
It is however utterly incorrect to say that speaker cable cannot make a difference to what a system sounds like.
I always remember this when any "debate" about cables comes up, be they speaker or the inevitable hdmi rows that erupt regularly, for every person that says something works there is another who says it doesn't. I try to make up my own mind and having tried a huge number of different cables of vary prices, construction, thickness and materials, then I know for myself that some cables do make my system sound better, some sound a bit worse and some that make stuff all difference.
I know this as I tried it and if anyone says the phrase "double blind test" to me, then I'll simply blow rasberries in their direction.
The only consistent things I'll say is that a thicker cable seems to make my system sound better. The Material the cable is made of, I cannot hear a difference between copper or silver, or a mix and that if the cable isn't terminated properly then you are wasting your time.
So from trying things out my system has mildly expensive cabling for the front array at £20ish/m but for the front height, side and rear speakers then I've just used a drum of cable that an installer mate gave me which is around £3/m and works perfectly fine thank you very much. I've tried stuff that retails at over £500/m and I couldn't tell a single bit of difference from my £20 stuff, but I can tell the difference between the £20 and the £3 stuff, but it's no where near enough of a difference to justify spending a fortune on the long runs I need for my full system.
If you want the best, then you'd pay it, but for me, I just didn't consider it worth it.
^^^ This mostly.It is however utterly incorrect to say that speaker cable cannot make a difference to what a system sounds like.
I always remember this when any "debate" about cables comes up, be they speaker or the inevitable hdmi rows that erupt regularly, for every person that says something works there is another who says it doesn't. I try to make up my own mind and having tried a huge number of different cables of vary prices, construction, thickness and materials, then I know for myself that some cables do make my system sound better, some sound a bit worse and some that make stuff all difference.
I know this as I tried it and if anyone says the phrase "double blind test" to me, then I'll simply blow rasberries in their direction.
The only consistent things I'll say is that a thicker cable seems to make my system sound better. The Material the cable is made of, I cannot hear a difference between copper or silver, or a mix and that if the cable isn't terminated properly then you are wasting your time.
So from trying things out my system has mildly expensive cabling for the front array at £20ish/m but for the front height, side and rear speakers then I've just used a drum of cable that an installer mate gave me which is around £3/m and works perfectly fine thank you very much. I've tried stuff that retails at over £500/m and I couldn't tell a single bit of difference from my £20 stuff, but I can tell the difference between the £20 and the £3 stuff, but it's no where near enough of a difference to justify spending a fortune on the long runs I need for my full system.
If you want the best, then you'd pay it, but for me, I just didn't consider it worth it.
Some time ago I've experimented with all sorts of different stuff and they do make a difference, and it doesn't have to be expensive. For me I tended to find higher cross section (lower R) speaker cables with individually insulated conductors work best (aka braided CAT5e).
probedb said:
You really need to check this specs and tolerances when saying USB cables make a difference. The voltage variation is very forgiving on USB transfers.
You sell cables which make a tidy profit so of course you're going to sell expensive cables.
We do sell expensive cables but our driver is not profit. If a client asks us to deliver the best possible then we would be daft to install out of the box cables. In that scenario we normally work to about 10% of the project total.You sell cables which make a tidy profit so of course you're going to sell expensive cables.
Even on our multiroom systems (where you could argue music is generally background noise rather than hi fidelity) we ditch the standard cables for alternatives.
My apologies for the length of this post but it may be helpful to hear the views of an acknowledged expert; hopefully it might also help improve some posters' understanding of the subject.
The late and very great John Dunlavy ( Google him if you've not heard of him or don't know about the credentials he modestly refers to ) was moved to write the following letter about the subject of cables, cable manufacturers and the sometimes fraudulent claims used to market them.
"Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect - which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve - in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy "
The late and very great John Dunlavy ( Google him if you've not heard of him or don't know about the credentials he modestly refers to ) was moved to write the following letter about the subject of cables, cable manufacturers and the sometimes fraudulent claims used to market them.
"Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect - which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve - in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy "
Edited by Crackie on Thursday 3rd October 21:04
OP...
I have booked a demo at a local hifi shop this saturday . The shop assure me I will hear a difference between cables . I am a little doubtful after several of the comments on here .I am not going to waste money if they all do sound similar . watch this space I will post my findings..
I have booked a demo at a local hifi shop this saturday . The shop assure me I will hear a difference between cables . I am a little doubtful after several of the comments on here .I am not going to waste money if they all do sound similar . watch this space I will post my findings..
It's all a load of rubbish, any intelligent person can see that, but some people like to think they are 'special'
I mean in the studios where the music is made the cables are not special, they are just standard cables. And as others have mentioned, cables used in safety critical systems, where interference and degradation could be disastrous (planes, weapons systems etc) are certainly not of the same ridiculous cable that HiFi fools think they need.
I mean in the studios where the music is made the cables are not special, they are just standard cables. And as others have mentioned, cables used in safety critical systems, where interference and degradation could be disastrous (planes, weapons systems etc) are certainly not of the same ridiculous cable that HiFi fools think they need.
probedb said:
NorthDave said:
Even on our multiroom systems (where you could argue music is generally background noise rather than hi fidelity) we ditch the standard cables for alternatives.
Which still gives you extra sales. There's no need to ditch standard HDMI/USB cables etc.probedb said:
Which still gives you extra sales. There's no need to ditch standard HDMI/USB cables etc.
Manufacturers (generally) ship with the cheapest cables they can get away with. We dont necessarily upgrade for acoustic reasons but using out of the box cables causes service calls in the end. An element of this might also be that we can buy a 1m HDMI cable rather using the default 2m and cable tying the slack out of the way.If you are going through the volume we are then you need reliable cables.
Anyway it is a case of each to their own with this stuff - I'm just trying to show we don't just do these things to generate revenue.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff