Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Scientific investigations of Stradivarius violins--an updated review article


Bruce Tai
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GeorgeH said:

He doesn't either, although he might pretend to. 

I am sure you are an expert on synchrotron X-ray small angle scattering. Because I am not. My collaborator knows all the math and physics behind it. But after many hours collecting data at the beam line, years of data analysis, and numerous discussions, I have learned to interpret the data for our specific system.  Would you mind telling us which synchrotron beamline you have used in the past?  

One of the leading materials science journals, Nature Materials, recently published an interesting article on the "wokeness" of Mozart's Klotz violin. When they asked for my advice, I thought I gave some pretty cool answers for a topic that I only pretend to know:   

---------------------------------------------------------------------    

News & Views
Published: 18 November 2020

Waking up old instruments
Philip Ball 
Nature Materials volume 19, page1256(2020)C

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a piano prodigy from early childhood, but he was also an accomplished violinist. The instrument that his father bought him still exists, kept by the Mozarteum Foundation in Salzburg. It’s a fine instrument, made by the Klotz family of Bavarian violin-makers. But when Christoph Koncz, violinist with the Vienna Philharmonic, was granted permission recently to perform with it, he found that after such a long time of disuse “its sound had fallen asleep.”

“At first its wood was stiff and it lacked resonance”, says Koncz. “Each time I played it, its sound opened up and the wood was in harmony again.” By the time Koncz was playing it in public and using it to record Mozart’s violin concertos, it had attained “a focused, very silky, silvery tone.”

But how? Koncz attributes the change of tone to the instrument’s material: the wood needed “loosening” somehow to make it sing. Yet although the need for a ‘playing in’ period for any violin new to the musician is well attested, no one seems to know what it entails.

“As yet no one has been able to explain what is involved in such a process”, says physicist Colin Gough of the University of Birmingham, an expert in violin acoustics. It’s likely to be at least partly a perceptual issue. “Top players often say that it can take them as long as a year to coax the kinds of sound they want out of instrument. Almost certainly this involves the brain becoming familiar with the sound of the instrument, and the development of the very subtle skills used by top performers in achieving the optimum sound.”

“The phenomenon is well-known in the sense of folklore among players and makers”, says Jim Woodhouse, a mechanical engineer at the University of Cambridge. “Whether it is a physical phenomenon is more tricky: evidence is divided.”

“Until now, there have never been any convincing physical measurements on instruments as they are being played in”, says Gough. Some violin-makers and restorers use mechanical shaking devices that claim to induce this playing-in effect artificially. Woodhouse says he and a student once made acoustic measurements with such a device — with mixed results. “We saw something change the first time we used it on our test instrument. But then we deliberately induced the kind of changes that are claimed to produce a need for further playing-in, and we never saw any change on subsequent occasions.”

There seems no doubt that the tone of an instrument improves as the player gets to know it — but is any of that due to changes in the acoustic properties of the materials? One study found decreased internal damping after mechanical excitation in samples of violin wood (spruce)1. But while some investigations of prolonged mechanical vibration produced improvements in violin tone as judged by listeners and players2,3 and measurable changes in vibro-acoustic properties2,4, others found no measurable mechanical change in violin wood after such treatment5. One particularly careful study looked at two instruments made from the same wood (with a spruce top-plate), conducting expert blind listening tests after one had been played regularly for three years and the other hardly at all6. No significant differences in tone were identified.

By what mechanism could playing cause material changes in the instrument anyway? That’s been little studied, but Woodhouse thinks it is possible that vigorous vibrations could relax residual stresses around important contact points that rely on friction: string notches, bridge feet, and the ends of the soundpost. Or — just possibly — traditional gelatine glue may creep a little to relieve stresses.

Chemist Hwan-Ching Tai of the National Taiwan University has another suggestion: that stress-induced deformations will redistribute water molecules in the wood. “Although precise measurements are difficult, it is not far-fetched to attribute the awakening of old instruments to these factors”, he says.

He believes there could also be age-related changes in the wood cellulose, which would be seen also in ancient Chinese stringed instruments called guqin. His team’s preliminary data show cellulose rearrangements in such instruments, probed by small-angle X-ray scattering with synchrotron radiation, caused either by age or by artificial treatment during manufacture.

Vibration-induced redistribution of water was proposed to explain earlier observations of a change in damping after vibration1 — interestingly, this seems to make the wood stiffer with playing, contra Koncz’s subjective impressions. Tai hopes it might be possible to use techniques such as neutron scattering to probe stress-induced microscopic redistribution of water explicitly.

That would be a worthy project. Whether anyone would consent to placing Mozart’s priceless instrument in a neutron beam is another matter.

References
1. Hunt, D. G. & Balsan, E. Nature 379, 681 (1996).

2. Hutchins, C. M. & Rodgers, O. E. Catgut Acoust. Soc. J. 2, 13–19 (1992).

3. Ling, D. & Killion, M. Catgut Acoust. Soc. J. 3, 42–44 (1997).

4. Hutchins, C. M. Catgut Acoust. Soc. J. 1, 10–19 (1989).

5. Grogan, J., Braunstein, M. & Piacsek, A. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 2315–2316 (2003).

6. Inta, R., Smith, J. & Wolfe, J. Acoust. Aust. 33, 25–29 (2005).

Edited by Bruce Tai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 564
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

I see. What is "think" ?

The idea that from the comfort of your computer and while lacking any experience you can "tell" what a genius of that caliber does wrong is ... in keeping with things we keep reading on MN. :)   

And Jeff picks on me.....  

 

I watch a few gocart winning series with them starting far behind. Nothing genius about that driving. Fairly calm and safe. Not smart trying to run pass at high speed without utilizing the help from the car in front. Cycling a little will teach that lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anders Buen said:

I watch a few gocart winning series with them starting far behind. Nothing genius about that driving. Fairly calm and safe. Not smart trying to run pass at high speed without utilizing the help from the car in front. Cycling a little will teach that lesson.

I see. 

Well, I have no expertise in this but maybe David Burgess will care to comment. I understand he's into racing stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Don Noon said:

I could send you some of my processed wood offcuts, if that would be of interest.  I do NOT expect them to look like 300 year old violin wood, as I don't see the "old Italian" spectral response in violins made with this wood (IMO just a more lively modern sound).

 

In some cases, we have been analyzing the same Strad sample for 7 years, after using a dozen techniques, and still trying to explore more methods. No simple and quick test can tell you the chemical and structural changes. If we are going to invest several years analyzing a specific sample, we want to know that it is a sample of value.

If you are convinced that you have found the magical treatment formula and used this kind of wood to create instruments sold to concert violinists, we will be curious to analyze it. Or if you have extensive acoustical/mechanical data associated with this wood treatment that can be shared with us, we will be curious to analyze it. Moreover, you need to provide a scientifically accurate description of how the treatment was done. If it is just a semi-random wood treatment experiment (baking, acid, base, UV, etc.), we have done plenty of those samples ourselves. And we know exactly how we treated our wood, which means we can properly interpret the data.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bruce Tai said:

Thanks for your "professional" advice. In return, please show me your published work involving proper statistics and I will give you courteous advices on how to improve the statistical methods being used, free of charge. 

You're welcome. But deflect when you can't defend. We're not discussing my work; we are discussing yours. 

19 minutes ago, Bruce Tai said:

I am sure you are an expert on synchrotron X-ray small angle scattering. Because I am not. My collaborator knows all the math and physics behind it. But after many hours collecting data at the beam line, years of data analysis, and numerous discussions, I have learned to interpret the data for our specific system.  Would you mind telling us which synchrotron beamline you have used in the past?  

One of the leading materials science journals, Nature Materials, recently published an interesting article on the "wokeness" of Mozart's Klotz violin. I thought I gave some pretty cool answers for a topic that I only pretend to know:   

This article is pure pseudoscientific nonsense. There is not a single objective measurable fact in the whole thing. All beliefs about some quack theory of "waking up" old instruments, which is something that can not be defined, measured, or even proven to exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

This article is pure pseudoscientific nonsense. There is not a single objective measurable fact in the whole thing. All beliefs about some quack theory of "waking up" old instruments, which is something that can not be defined, measured, or even proven to exist. 

Doesn't fiddles every now and then go through serious repair, sometimes taken fully apart and glued together again. Some may have less extensive restoration. Some get their arch corrected, or a bar replaced. I would suppose that a few of them do "wake up" after such treatment. 
My late player and maker uncle was an expert on getting an instrument in order. Maight take some moving of the soundpost, a new one, a new bridge, refitting things. Playing with different things like chinrest type and position. I guess a workshop does a bit of this too. And some are better at it.

E.g about the Titian Strad Sam Z writes something like it is one of the greatest insturments in the world when it is in shape. Something like that. Fiddles do live with the climate etc. And players go in and out of inspired periods.

In the hardanger fiddle community, "waking up" an instrument is when it has stabilized and no tuning is necessary any longer. You can play and it stays in tune. Everything is harmonic. The right words are not easy to translate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

You're welcome. But deflect when you can't defend. We're not discussing my work; we are discussing yours. 

It's good thing that we chose to publish in PNAS, twice. The editor is always a member of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. He finds reviewers who are reputable scientists. Peer review is not perfect, of course. But it ensures certain quality standards. In fact, very high standards for these top journals. The editors and reviewers are generally very critical.  

Our Cremonese spruce study, which will show definitive evidence of chemical manipulation by Stradivari, is under review at a leading chemistry journal, Angewandte Chemie (top three in the world). For the last two years it has been rejected by Nature, Science, Nature Communications, Science Advances, Nature Materials and PNAS, and we only got one peer review which was pretty disturbing. A manuscript usually needs three good reviews simultaneously to get published. This process of publishing in highly competitive journals is a whole lot tougher than what outsiders may think. We defend our work in front of working scientists who know the real-world application of statistics and its limitations. Sometimes we pass the test; other times we get beaten down and go back and revise and revise and revise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

You're welcome. But deflect when you can't defend. We're not discussing my work; we are discussing yours. 

This article is pure pseudoscientific nonsense. There is not a single objective measurable fact in the whole thing. All beliefs about some quack theory of "waking up" old instruments, which is something that can not be defined, measured, or even proven to exist. 

I'm not sure about the paper and research but a violin is not a "unique" object materials wise and it's composition follows the "rules" of materials just like everything else.

Playing in DOES have scientific "reality" but unfortunately most scientists are not building contractors and therefore get lost in the dynamics of the research 

If we focus on the top only and focus on "cross grain flexibility" and or think of the "reeding" or "corduroy"  , the "places in between" the "reeds" are the softer parts of the wood grain, when the violin is in motion the "in between" area of the grain is the "softer" part of the grain, this softer part is where the "motion" "pools" and or the weaker parts of the grain in between the reeds are where the wood is "hinging" or cycling/moving, or more movement than the stiffer "reed" area next to it

So think of when a violin is being played that its is like bending a coat hangar back and forth, the more we do this the hotter and thus more pliable these "in betyween areas become, the "in between areas are where the heat ends up , as this happens the "range of motion" increases , this tiny increase in range of vibratory motion is what we "hear" 

quite simply the top must be thought of as a collection of individual strips that once set in motion will generate heat energy {the 14 degree heat increase} once sufficiently warmed up, the materiel becomes more pliable at the "hinge points" {in between the reeding} and this local increase in elasticity via heat energy presents itself as a wider range of motion, as in 3d animations 

Wood fibers are like muscle fibers and they can become "stiff" "cold" "tight" and "playing" helps "loosen" the fibers up and makes them have a larger range of motion than they do when cold.

One can increase their range of motion via stretching and wood fibers are the same 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bruce Tai said:

For the last two years it has been rejected by Nature, Science, Nature Communications, Science Advances, Nature Materials and PNAS, and we only got one peer review which was pretty disturbing.

This is excellent news!

Perhaps they read how your last PNAS article and the accompanying bogus statistical analyses and grandiose claims were totally debunked in a Maestronet thread a few years back. The peer reviewers of that article must have been ashamed that they let that slip through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jezzupe, I don't prima facie disagree with anything you wrote (well, except "14 degree heat increase"), but I am simply saying "prove it." (Not to you, in particular)

Take, for example, the "Tonerite" a device for vibrating the bridge to simulate playing that claims to "accelerate the play-in process." It has been around for years, but I don't think that there is any quantitative scientific proof that it changes anything. (Surely someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

So if there really is some phenomena called "waking-up" an instrument, then that phenomena should be quantitatively measurable under controlled conditions. Otherwise, it is just folklore, and no amount of pseudoscientific gobbledygook is going to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

So if there really is some phenomena called "waking-up" an instrument, then that phenomena should be quantitatively measurable under controlled conditions. Otherwise, it is just folklore, and no amount of pseudoscientific gobbledygook is going to change that.

Why do some instruments, weather they be a fiddle or classical guitar, seem to be much more alive after let's say 50 min. of playing, for example?

I'm trying to put the phenomena meaning towards a guitar but I really can't say what makes them take off and go after a while of playing either.

It's gotta be called something and whatever it is going to be called is a great thing to be around - much better than just thuddy, boring sounding wood, whichever instrument it may be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

So if there really is some phenomena called "waking-up" an instrument, then that phenomena should be quantitatively measurable under controlled conditions. Otherwise, it is just folklore, and no amount of pseudoscientific gobbledygook is going to change that.

True.  If somebody presents it as scientific fact then must  be able to back it up with proper measurements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bruce Tai said:

If you are convinced that you have found the magical treatment formula and used this kind of wood to create instruments sold to concert violinists, we will be curious to analyze it. Or if you have extensive acoustical/mechanical data associated with this wood treatment that can be shared with us, we will be curious to analyze it. Moreover, you need to provide a scientifically accurate description of how the treatment was done. If it is just a semi-random wood treatment experiment (baking, acid, base, UV, etc.), we have done plenty of those samples ourselves. And we know exactly how we treated our wood, which means we can properly interpret the data.  

If you had been paying attention to my posts over many years, you would know that my processing is not semi-random, but researched hydrothermal processing with pressures, temperature, and time fine-tuned by many tests, the details I do not wish to give out as I have a lot of time and effort invested in this.  Some results were presented at VSA2016.  I don't claim any magic... just the science of hemicellulose hydrolysis and polymerization that results in lower EMC, lower density, higher speed of sound, and lower damping.

As I said, I do NOT claim that any of my instruments sound like a Strad, just a powerful modern with as balanced a tone as I can figure out.  One pretty good soloist plays one of mine, and I have mentioned the anecdote of this soloist rejecting the use of a borrowed Strad in favor of mine.  Maybe if I could make more and get them in circulation, more concert violinists would have them.  You can poke around on my lame website noonviolins.com for sound sample and videos if you feel so inclined.

I have instrument orders to fill, so I'm not interested in putting time into a research project, other than to provide samples or send information I already have.  Here's one...

Datapoints on Torrefied Wood.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

 I don't know anybody who drives GM or Chrysler - I'm not living in that sort of a suburb...  :)

Oh, so you are stuck in a Trabant neighborhood? Kinda sad, but it does have the potential to build character, and refine shade-tree-mechanic skills. Even knowing no more than how to remove the wheels from your car to take them into your apartment every night so they won't get stolen  can be a huge asset. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

You're welcome. But deflect when you can't defend. We're not discussing my work; we are discussing yours. 

This article is pure pseudoscientific nonsense. There is not a single objective measurable fact in the whole thing. All beliefs about some quack theory of "waking up" old instruments, which is something that can not be defined, measured, or even proven to exist. 

I don't think that the context from which one offers opinions is by any means unimportant. We have a lot of information about Bruce, but almost none about you.

If you were offered advice from Stradivari, and from some anonymous person, whose advice would you choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeffrey Holmes said:

I drive a 4 WD Chevy pickup, but I'm wondering what this all has to do with Bruce's paper?

Violin making is not a career, it's a disorder. Probably have a shortening too (like ADHD). If it hasn't I'm sure our fellow Americans can come up with something as they have shortening letters for everything.

BTW I have an SUV and an ATV they are both 4WD

--------------

Hi Jeff,

Difficulties quoting my own posts and linking them to this thread, but you can look them up...

Question for you: 

When are you going for FULL Diesel and admit that electric violins are a bad thing, (and that David B. should be banned from this forum, shouldn't he?)

Come on... I'll drag you into this emotional downhill (have to admit you are one h**l of a moderator). You almost gave yourself up here...

Got to say, you are smart!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

I don't think that the context from which one offers opinions is by any means unimportant. We have a lot of information about Bruce, but almost none about you.

If you were offered advice from Stradivari, and from some anonymous person, whose advice would you choose?

Depends on what the advice was about.

Science is science. Statistics are statistics. Facts are facts. My disagreements are not personal. I don't care what Tai's background is, only whether or not he can he support his rather grandiose claims with defensible experiments, experimental results, and statistical analyses. He cannot. And at least for the last 2 years, apparently the editors and peer reviewers of Nature, Science, Nature Communications, Science Advances, Nature Materials and PNAS agree with me. 

But since you asked, my background includes a BS in chemistry, MSE in Engineering, over 25 years in industrial research, numerous published papers in refereed journals, and 3 U.S. patents. I know that of which I speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case Don Noon vs.Bruce Tai on wood treatment it's hard to not follow Don! 

In the case of high tech, Bruce has some serious interesting  "stuff"  (still reading the publications and trying to understand), going on.

It's not a competition, findings might intersect one day?

I do "gently" heat treat wood as it evidently gets wood to stay lower in EMC than un treated. Thus maintain a lower EMC even if Humidity is higher (than tables showing what wood MC% should be ). On a layman level, the smell at the final stage of heat treatment should be when hemicellulose is degrading...

I do not however believe that Amati, Strad, Guarneri heat traeted wood. It's even hard to think that they did anything to the wood.

Especially if you think that treatment has anything to do with ""greatness" of the sound ( which is debatable)

Chemical treatment is another story, wood is prone to rot!

....

When making violins, the outcome in measurable carrying/db power is very much depending on the back plate wood properties.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

What are you talking about ????  Get brain in 1st, release clutch gently and read what I actually wrote.

It was a joke.

Can you please raise your hand, use one of VdA's emojis, or otherwise let us know when you are joking? With all the contretemps in which you engage, and "strong opinions," :P  (i.e., not liking Hilary's Vuillaume) it's hard for rational people to tell when or if you are joking. Someone told me you were a crusty old soul, but their friend, who may have been joking,  insisted you were just an out of work comedian who used to play fiddle. Still another said you were a retired violinist Which, if any, are true? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

@jezzupe, I don't prima facie disagree with anything you wrote (well, except "14 degree heat increase"), but I am simply saying "prove it." (Not to you, in particular)

Take, for example, the "Tonerite" a device for vibrating the bridge to simulate playing that claims to "accelerate the play-in process." It has been around for years, but I don't think that there is any quantitative scientific proof that it changes anything. (Surely someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

So if there really is some phenomena called "waking-up" an instrument, then that phenomena should be quantitatively measurable under controlled conditions. Otherwise, it is just folklore, and no amount of pseudoscientific gobbledygook is going to change that.

I would classify it as a mass delusion in your case where 90 out of 100% qualified players would agree that "it sounds better" after playing it for "awhile". This in itself could be considered "scientific" much like 4 out 5 dentists. Furthermore lets say we got 100 people together that like vanilla ice cream and we gave them 2 kinds, and 90 of the 100 liked ice cream A. better than B. when asked to describe "better" we would most likely get many flowery descriptors as to the ways to which the ice cream is better, none of which would be scientific per se' yet the mere fact that 90 out of 100 people prefer A. because it's "better" ,IS scientific within the plain statistics and DOES mean something within the scientific unscientific realms of humanity 

So lets remove science for a moment and just go with with the mob for a moment, in this case it's not too much like a cult where people are cohered or enticed into "thinking" warming up helps an instrument sounds better , there seems to be no "motivation" other than offering their honest opinion.

so do you think its a "Scientific fact" "statistically" that more people than not , attribute some increase in "better sounding" to "waking up" an instrument by "playing it in" ?

and generally with the combination of a persons proximity body heat wielding the instrument, in combination with hot breath and heat from bow friction I believe the average increase is abot 14degrees, I think it was Schleske I read that calculated that, might have been someone else, admittedly a "factoid" I remember reading, perhaps someone has more on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bruce Tai said:

Of course we have measured many flakes from many different boards and different instruments many times, at two different synchrotron facilities. The reader can't possibly handle all the data that we have collected, so we just show the summary resutls.

Have you heard of patient HM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison)? He is a special case with special brain damages and special memory deficits. He taught us so much about learning and memory. One of the most amazing N=1 in scientific history. Who says N=1 can't be real science :P The key is to find THE ONE. So when can I get my hands on Paganini's Canon violin to do some analyses?   

Or the one X-ray diffraction pattern from Rosalind Yarrow and Wilkins that Watson got his grimy* hands on: worth a 1 page paper in Nature that led to a Nobel prize. http://dosequis.colorado.edu/Courses/MethodsLogic/papers/WatsonCrick1953.pdf and https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/coldspring/printit.html  One can tell a lot from one *good* X-ray diffraction pattern, assuming the crystallization is adequate, and the heavy atom integrates properly. Now with Rietveld analysis and such, combining neutron and X-ray diffraction, one can tell more from less regular structures. So @GeorgeH, your screed makes little scientific sense. (Aside: OTOH, I agree with you about playing in. A few minutes - a few hours, maybe, if the violin hasn't been used in a long time, but after that it's likely all or mostly player adjustment.Also, most here aren't discussing the difference between the sound under ear and to the audience. Never mind the fact that as we age, our hearing changes, even those who don't suffer normal age-related hearing loss. I also note that many moons ago, David offered to sell me his Tone-rite or some such clone.  I was gonna do it, then thought: if it didn't work for the great and p̶o̶w̶e̶r̶f̶u̶l̶ wise DB, it certainly won't work for me. ) 

In some near future date, we may be able to tell what has changed in wood structure from relatively new to old Cremonese wood. Associating that change with sound and perceived quality is the pseudoscience perhaps, but the observed structural changes are real, and could be gleaned from few samples. 

grimy* because Wilkins turned over the results to W & C without really obtaining Yarrow's permission, and she received insufficient credit.  That X-ray result was everything. Had that X-ray result been given to Linus Pauling, he likely would have won another Nobel. Or even to a mentor, Max Delbrück.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jezzupe said:

And generally with the combination of a persons proximity body heat wielding the instrument, in combination with hot breath and heat from bow friction I believe the average increase is abot 14degrees, I think it was Schleske I read that calculated that, might have been someone else, admittedly a "factoid" I remember reading, perhaps someone has more on it.

I believe those were actual measurements taken when the Cannone Guarneri was used in performance, including the weight gain from the moist micro-climate of the player's body, furnished by Bruce Carlson. (I don't recall the exact numbers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...