Jump to content
IGNORED

What was Atari's reason for launching the STE?


Recommended Posts

there are a lot of potential noise sources for the vanilla ST sampled output, and you sort of nibbled around the edges, but there's really a lot more to it than what you've researched

 

Oh, I've no doubt about that. I don't claim that what I said was the be all and end all.

 

Tricks like- e.g.- adding together the "volume level" (i.e. 4-bit ersatz PCM position) for multiple channels to get better than 4-bit resolution are quite clever, and I'm sure there are other sneaky tricks and exploitation of the chip's characteristics.

 

The distortions you have identified are definitely there, but not for the reasons you might think.

 

If I'm wrong that the "jagginess" one would expect from unsmoothable bit-bashing was at least partially the cause of the "tinniness" of ST sample playback Zip referred to (or other artifacts) then fair enough, but I'd be surprised if it didn't have an effect, even if there are other factors in play too.

 

That said, I was starting to bog myself down in technical sidetracking in that last post, so I think I'll leave that for now. :)

Edited by Mostro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK, I'll bite ;)

 

You really are conflating a bunch of different things and painting a worse picture than reality (not that the vanilla ST sample playback is stellar....)

 

4 bits of amplitude is certainly more coarse than 8 bits, but, given good samples and a decent sample rate, it could still sound fairly good. For instance, although CD's are indeed composed of 16 bit samples (well almost always, but that's another day), those samples are often played through a 1 bit DAC. Yes, much higher sample rate than our lowly ST sound chip, but by the same argument you present, 4 bits is WAY more than 1, so the ST is obviously better than CD quality? :-o

 

 

I'm no expert in digital audio, but I do remember that "1-bit DAC" was used as a feature on many of the more expensive CD players at one point. (as opposed to whatever the cheap CD players were doing, I have no idea)

 

Anyway, given that it was a premium feature on a medium that had always used 16-bit samples, I don't think it means what it sounds like. I guess I should google it and learn what it was all about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I remember correctly, the Falcon was mentioned in one of the Amiga magazines the same month they announced the A4000 (i.e. the first AGA Amiga).

 

I'll admit that I do remember thinking some of the specifications looked pretty nice. (Bear in mind that- IIRC- the affordably-priced A1200 hadn't been announced yet). Unfortunately, I also remember knowing- even at the time, and without the benefit of hindsight- that it didn't stand a cat's chance in hell.

 

Firstly, it was clear that Atari couldn't market their way out of a paper bag.

 

Secondly, the ST line- of which the Falcon was still effectively a descendant- had been in decline in the face of the Amiga since the end of the 1980s, even on the UK market. By this point was practically yesterday's news. At a time when it was starting to become clear that the tide was turning against even the Amiga and in favour of the PC.... Well, if there was any company that could achieve the miracle of persuading the mass market to move back to the ST, it sure as heck wasn't going to be Atari.

 

So, interesting looking machine. Not remotely surprised that it didn't go anywhere, or that they (apparently) ditched it a year later.

 

I was at an Amiga user group meeting when an Atarian brought in one of the first Atari Falcon computer and showed it to the group.

 

It was very much appreciated and we were really impressed with it. It was neat to see a bunch of Amiga people crowded around the Falcon and asking questions.

 

From what I can tell, the Falcon was a significant machine for its time. Putting it into context, the PC didn't really start to see a 'revolution' in audio until very late in 1998. Prior to that, it was anyone's guess who would dominate the audio market. And the Falcon's graphics specs were pretty much on par with the Mac Performas and PCs of the time. PCs were still talking about high color (as opposed to true color) and typically were displaying 256 colors on-screen at a time.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=AoKUhNoOys4C&pg=PP25&lpg=PP25&dq=pc+magazine+1992+archive.org&source=bl&ots=YNlYGNKOOC&sig=xG4JnlpPbOkAKp4Y_bumnRkQinA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvkZr8q_fSAhXC5oMKHcCqBgwQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=pc%20magazine%201992%20archive.org&f=false

 

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_performa/specs/mac_performa_400.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of on topic but off a bit....

 

The one single thing (okay, I would have loved to have seen the '040 Falcon

see the light of day), that I would die for was an STe based version of the STacy.

 

Or maybe even a Mega STe based version.

 

/sigh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, the Falcon was a significant machine for its time. Putting it into context, the PC didn't really start to see a 'revolution' in audio until very late in 1998. Prior to that, it was anyone's guess who would dominate the audio market. And the Falcon's graphics specs were pretty much on par with the Mac Performas and PCs of the time. PCs were still talking about high color (as opposed to true color) and typically were displaying 256 colors on-screen at a time.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=AoKUhNoOys4C&pg=PP25&lpg=PP25&dq=pc+magazine+1992+archive.org&source=bl&ots=YNlYGNKOOC&sig=xG4JnlpPbOkAKp4Y_bumnRkQinA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvkZr8q_fSAhXC5oMKHcCqBgwQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=pc%20magazine%201992%20archive.org&f=false

 

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_performa/specs/mac_performa_400.html

 

That's not quite my recollection. As much as I wanted a Falcon, I recall the PC having 24-bit true color (16 million colors) vs the 16-bit (262,000 colors of the Falcon), I think they were doing high res too around that time. For sound, there were a bunch of great options then. And the 486's ran circles around a 16mhz 68030. But yes, the 256-color modes were still commonly used for speed and memory. I ended up building my first PC instead of getting a Falcon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm no expert in digital audio, but I do remember that "1-bit DAC" was used as a feature on many of the more expensive CD players at one point. (as opposed to whatever the cheap CD players were doing, I have no idea)

 

Anyway, given that it was a premium feature on a medium that had always used 16-bit samples, I don't think it means what it sounds like. I guess I should google it and learn what it was all about

 

The basic principle- as far as I'm aware- is that the 16-bit input sample is re-rendered with "dithering" as 1-bit sample at a much higher frequency (somewhat akin to converting a low-res greyscale image to a much higher res two-colour one). This is then fed to a literal 1-bit (on/off) DAC, and the output from this is filtered to merge adjacent samples. (#)

 

This should- as far as I can tell- give output equivalent to a regular 16-bit DAC. As far as I'm aware, the reason is that this makes the DAC much simpler, as well as having other advantages in design terms.

 

I'll go no further than that- Wikipedia is probably a more reliable source than me. :-)

 

(#) Which- since it takes the output of the DAC- is presumably in the analogue domain?, and uses a low-pass filter or something similar to "average" the samples (analogous to slightly blurring the high-res two colour image to restore the lower-resolution greyscale).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Putting it into context, the PC didn't really start to see a 'revolution' in audio until very late in 1998. Prior to that, it was anyone's guess who would dominate the audio market.

 

If you're talking about internal audio, I think it had happened long before then. My first PC, which I bought in spring 1998, was a bland upper-entry-level model with a conservative (albeit not stingy) spec, and even that came with a generic 16-bit soundcard with no obvious limitations I remember.

 

 

 

As much as I wanted a Falcon, I recall the PC having 24-bit true color (16 million colors) vs the 16-bit (262,000 colors of the Falcon)

 

 

Was that common on almost all models, though, or just the higher-end ones at that time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Was that common on almost all models, though, or just the higher-end ones at that time?

 

When I built my PC in about 1994, my video card did have 24-bit true-color modes, and it wasn't a high-end card by any means. I think it was also capable of 1024x768. Now I know the Falcon came out in 1992, so I don't know the exact situation of PC in 1992 (turns out SVGA was a very loosely-defined standard), but I doubt it was far behind the Falcon, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you're talking about internal audio, I think it had happened long before then. My first PC, which I bought in spring 1998, was a bland upper-entry-level model with a conservative (albeit not stingy) spec, and even that came with a generic 16-bit soundcard with no obvious limitations I remember.

 

 

 

 

Was that common on almost all models, though, or just the higher-end ones at that time?

Regarding PCs and sound, I'm talking about 1992/3 and you're talking about 1998.

 

As mentioned in my post, they're those two time periods for PC audio are completely different scenarios.

 

The key word is context. The PC's audio was no match for the Falcon until the SoundBlaster Live card arrived on the scene.

 

I sold every sound card that was ever released for the PC and I followed their specs very closely.

Edited by Nebulon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding PCs and sound, I'm talking about 1992/3 and you're talking about 1998.

 

As mentioned in my post, they're those two time periods for PC audio are completely different scenarios.

 

The key word is context. The PC's audio was no match for the Falcon until the SoundBlaster Live card arrived on the scene.

 

I sold every sound card that was ever released for the PC and I followed their specs very closely.

correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding PCs and sound, I'm talking about 1992/3 and you're talking about 1998.

 

Er... I mentioned 1998 because you did!....

 

 

Putting it into context, the PC didn't really start to see a 'revolution' in audio until very late in 1998.

 

My point- in response to this- was that since even the lower-end PC I'd bought earlier that same year already included a generic soundcard with support for 16-bit sampled audio, I'd assume this sort of thing had been available on (at least) more state-of-the-art PC soundcards for years by this point.

 

I don't know how many channels it had or what the limitations were. I doubt it was anything other than an anonymous manufacturer gluing together a bunch of chips designed for mass-market, playback-oriented use (ESS ES1869F, ES689F and ES981P- IIRC the first was the important one), but the fact that even a cheap, plain PC's, cheap generic ISA(!) card nominally supported CD-resolution sampled sound suggested that the "revolution" had already taken place.

 

From what I can see on its Wikipedia page, the Soundblaster Live does appear to have been a step forward, and I suspect you're judging on different criteria than I am- I'm going to assume the SB Live's DSP made it more powerful and flexible- and may be what you're comparing to the Falcon.

 

But, as I said, that's where 1998 came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Er... I mentioned 1998 because you did!....

 

 

My point- in response to this- was that since even the lower-end PC I'd bought earlier that same year already included a generic soundcard with support for 16-bit sampled audio, I'd assume this sort of thing had been available on (at least) more state-of-the-art PC soundcards for years by this point.

 

I don't know how many channels it had or what the limitations were. I doubt it was anything other than an anonymous manufacturer gluing together a bunch of chips designed for mass-market, playback-oriented use (ESS ES1869F, ES689F and ES981P- IIRC the first was the important one), but the fact that even a cheap, plain PC's, cheap generic ISA(!) card nominally supported CD-resolution sampled sound suggested that the "revolution" had already taken place.

 

From what I can see on its Wikipedia page, the Soundblaster Live does appear to have been a step forward, and I suspect you're judging on different criteria than I am- I'm going to assume the SB Live's DSP made it more powerful and flexible- and may be what you're comparing to the Falcon.

 

But, as I said, that's where 1998 came from.

 

I had a Gravis Ultrasound in my PC in like 94 or 95. It was able to do 32-channels of sound. It had a DSP of some sort, maybe not as powerful as the Falcon's. Actually lots of soundcards advertised DSPs, but the thing was, they did not get used by end-user applications. They seemed limited to digital sound effects processing by the driver.

 

I did eventually get a SB live, but the only difference I noticed as an end-user was higher quality instrument samples for Midi playback, and the fact that it was PCI instead of ISA meant less bottleneck.

 

I guess what I'm saying was PC sound was "good enough" from the early 90s. Sure the Falcon's DSP looked great on paper, but it didn't change the fact that Falcon was hampered by a slow main CPU even by 1992 standards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I had a Gravis Ultrasound in my PC in like 94 or 95. It was able to do 32-channels of sound. It had a DSP of some sort, maybe not as powerful as the Falcon's. Actually lots of soundcards advertised DSPs, but the thing was, they did not get used by end-user applications. They seemed limited to digital sound effects processing by the driver.

 

I did eventually get a SB live, but the only difference I noticed as an end-user was higher quality instrument samples for Midi playback, and the fact that it was PCI instead of ISA meant less bottleneck.

 

I guess what I'm saying was PC sound was "good enough" from the early 90s. Sure the Falcon's DSP looked great on paper, but it didn't change the fact that Falcon was hampered by a slow main CPU even by 1992 standards.

 

Holy smokes dudes!

 

Prior to the SoundBlaster Live card, PC sound cards were awful! I think what you guys are thinking of as "good sound" are the sets of sounds that came with the cards. Now try putting those sounds through sample record and playback tests and you'll quickly find out why the Live card was light-years ahead of the previous generations of cards. When Creative purchase Emu and Ensoniq, everything changed for desktop audio.

 

The original SoundBlaster was monophonic.

 

The later models leading up to the SB Live were stereo and gradually made their way to 16-bit. However, their digital to analog converters were garbage and their noise floor was crap.

 

Even a notch up to the Gravis Ultrasound was being utilized primarily as a device to play back pre-recorded samples from a built-in sample set. Anyone could have done the same (and did) using MIDI and any of the available sound modules. Furthermore, the original Gravis Ultrasound could only record in 8-bit, unless you added a daughterboard to bring its street price to $350.00. Even at that, the pro-audio reviews were not favorable. Games yes; pro-audio no.

 

If you had money to burn, you could run out and get a Turtle Beach sound card. However, they too were relying heavily on built-in sounds (the Proteus set for example).

 

And even if you had a card like the best that Turtle Beach offered, what about software support? It wasn't until IQS and Sonic Foundry appeared on the scene that good PC audio software became available (and that took a few versions to refine it). It was highly unlikely that a home user would be able to shell out the money for Saw (you'd be looking at around $1000.00 back in the mid-90s for just the software itself with the first utilities rack included). So that leaves Forge and its contemporaries. Again though, what kind of real sampling and effects performance would you get from the pre-SB Live cards?

 

For professional-level audio, the PC came into its own with three things:

1) The processing power of the Pentium Pro (not an affordable general consumer option until 1997)

2) The SoundBlaster Live card (1998/9)

3) Acid Music 1.0 (1998)

 

Prior to that, pro audio on the PC platform was a lot of stumbling around in the dark and only a glimmer of hope for people with massive budgets. As for 1992 and 1993, pro audio on a PC was still a pipe dream with the raw elements still cooking on the stovetop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Holy smokes dudes!

 

Prior to the SoundBlaster Live card, PC sound cards were awful! I think what you guys are thinking of as "good sound" are the sets of sounds that came with the cards. Now try putting those sounds through sample record and playback tests and you'll quickly find out why the Live card was light-years ahead of the previous generations of cards. When Creative purchase Emu and Ensoniq, everything changed for desktop audio.

 

The original SoundBlaster was monophonic.

 

The later models leading up to the SB Live were stereo and gradually made their way to 16-bit. However, their digital to analog converters were garbage and their noise floor was crap.

 

Even a notch up to the Gravis Ultrasound was being utilized primarily as a device to play back pre-recorded samples from a built-in sample set. Anyone could have done the same (and did) using MIDI and any of the available sound modules. Furthermore, the original Gravis Ultrasound could only record in 8-bit, unless you added a daughterboard to bring its street price to $350.00. Even at that, the pro-audio reviews were not favorable. Games yes; pro-audio no.

 

If you had money to burn, you could run out and get a Turtle Beach sound card. However, they too were relying heavily on built-in sounds (the Proteus set for example).

 

And even if you had a card like the best that Turtle Beach offered, what about software support? It wasn't until IQS and Sonic Foundry appeared on the scene that good PC audio software became available (and that took a few versions to refine it). It was highly unlikely that a home user would be able to shell out the money for Saw (you'd be looking at around $1000.00 back in the mid-90s for just the software itself with the first utilities rack included). So that leaves Forge and its contemporaries. Again though, what kind of real sampling and effects performance would you get from the pre-SB Live cards?

 

For professional-level audio, the PC came into its own with three things:

1) The processing power of the Pentium Pro (not an affordable general consumer option until 1997)

2) The SoundBlaster Live card (1998/9)

3) Acid Music 1.0 (1998)

 

Prior to that, pro audio on the PC platform was a lot of stumbling around in the dark and only a glimmer of hope for people with massive budgets. As for 1992 and 1993, pro audio on a PC was still a pipe dream with the raw elements still cooking on the stovetop.

 

The gravis was not just limited to the included sounds, it could play any digital audio. But when it came to midi music, it sounded miles ahead of the OPL2/3 chips that Ad-lib/SoundBlaster was using at the time, as did all wavetable cards. Gravis was also proactive with developers, ensuring their cards got widely supported-- no point in buying an expensive soundcard if software support for it is hit and miss.

 

Yes you could play Midi through an actual midi device, if 1) you had one 2) didn't mind cords running everywhere.

 

But I was an end user, gamer, multimedia user. I am not an "audio professional", I didn't have much use for audio recording. This rig was fine for my needs. As much as I loved Atari, the Falcon CPU was too weak and support was almost non-existent by that point.

Edited by zzip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The gravis was not just limited to the included sounds, it could play any digital audio. But when it came to midi music, it sounded miles ahead of the OPL2/3 chips that Ad-lib/SoundBlaster was using at the time, as did all wavetable cards. Gravis was also proactive with developers, ensuring their cards got widely supported-- no point in buying an expensive soundcard if software support for it is hit and miss.

 

Yes you could play Midi through an actual midi device, if 1) you had one 2) didn't mind cords running everywhere.

 

But I was an end user, gamer, multimedia user. I am not an "audio professional", I didn't have much use for audio recording. This rig was fine for my needs. As much as I loved Atari, the Falcon CPU was too weak and support was almost non-existent by that point.

Again, it depends on what you're doing with the machine. The audio recording quality of the Gravis Ultrasound wasn't up to the task of pro audio work.

 

You'd be hard-pressed to find a PC in 1993 that could do this (especially at the price point):

http://atarimusic.exxoshost.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:cubase-audio-falcon-206-and-studio-module-107a&catid=78:falcon-music-software&Itemid=343

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But I was an end user, gamer, multimedia user. I am not an "audio professional", I didn't have much use for audio recording. This rig was fine for my needs. As much as I loved Atari, the Falcon CPU was too weak and support was almost non-existent by that point.

 

Yes, that's what I touched upon in my post- we're probably arguing more from an "end user" point of view, whereas Nebulon appears to be discussing it in the more demanding terms of being a production tool.

 

I wouldn't have tried to use my no-name ISA soundcard in a professional recording studio, regardless. :grin:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it depends on what you're doing with the machine. The audio recording quality of the Gravis Ultrasound wasn't up to the task of pro audio work.

 

You'd be hard-pressed to find a PC in 1993 that could do this (especially at the price point):

http://atarimusic.exxoshost.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:cubase-audio-falcon-206-and-studio-module-107a&catid=78:falcon-music-software&Itemid=343

 

I totally understand why professional musicians/audio people hung onto Atari longer than the others, it wasn't just the hardware but the software too.

 

But for someone like me, everything I needed from a PC to make the jump was available by 1992-93

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from.

 

In my own case, I was cutting my teeth using Amigas for audio and waiting for the day the PC would be ready to go "prime time" in that arena (I could see that the Amiga was on the way out by around 1995).

 

I was working at a PC store at the time -- keeping a close eye on audio technology developments.

 

The Falcon was a nice example of a system that was well-suited to certain tasks. In this case, audio recording was used as an example. The Amiga would usually be cited as video. People got quite a bit of mileage out of those platforms for their specific needs. Up until the early to mid-90s, you could get away with systems that treated the CPU as an adjunct rather than the core of the hardware design as long as you provided a good surrounding infrastructure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the STE : Atari did themselves no favours by not promoting or exploiting the hardware enhancements themselves. I got the Discovery Xtra pack in 1991 and NONE of the bundled software used the expanded colour palette, DMA sound or the blitter except the Neocrome art package that did allow you to choose 16 colours from 4096 (I think).

 

The STE was miles ahead of the STFM if you look at what UDS did with the games Obsession and Substation - incredible games that pushed the hardware beyond what I thought was possible. Admittedly they came out late in the systems life and were sadly overlooked by many. The fact you could upgrade the RAM using plug in SIMMs rather than soldering was also a huge bonus.

 

Game developers failed to used the STE hardware as well. I was shocked at how poor the ST port of Cannon Fodder was (min requirements 1MB STFM). The colours and scrolling were shocking. The STE could have run a version much closer to the Amiga original but I guess it wasn't worth developers time coding an extra STE version when sales were already low.

 

The STE was much closer to the spec of the Amiga 500 but by the time the A600 and A1200 came out it was obsolete.

 

The Falcon was a great audio and MIDI machine but by the time it was released PCs and MACs especially were more capable.

 

I still use a Falcon for MIDI sequencing to this day. It's rock solid synced to a 24-bit digital audio workstation for recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I totally understand why professional musicians/audio people hung onto Atari longer than the others, it wasn't just the hardware but the software too.

 

But for someone like me, everything I needed from a PC to make the jump was available by 1992-93

 

Of course, seeing something like this on the Atari in 1993 would have had quite the impact:

 

I'm pretty sure this falls under the category of creative use of the Falcon's DSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the [sTE] Discovery Xtra pack in 1991 and NONE of the bundled software used the expanded colour palette [..] except the Neocrome art package that did allow you to choose 16 colours from 4096

 

I thought the STE's increased palette was pointless even at the time- it still had the same 16 colour onscreen limit (in regular use) as my STFM, which was always the main limiting factor by far. So why bother? (IIRC even the ST magazines themselves thought this.)

 

Pretty sure that if anyone had been offered the choice, they'd much rather have had 32+ colours even from 512, rather than 16 from 4096. (Yes, I know the former would likely have been harder, which probably explains why Atari went for the easy "enhancement").

 

I've no doubt if you wanted to create true 16-level greyscale images in Neochrome it might have offered a minor improvement- as well as marginally smoother gradients on games and possible other niche uses- but in general it appears to have been a "looks nice on paper until you think about it, useless in practice" improvement.

 

 

Game developers failed to used the STE hardware as well. I was shocked at how poor the ST port of Cannon Fodder was (min requirements 1MB STFM). The colours and scrolling were shocking. The STE could have run a version much closer to the Amiga original but I guess it wasn't worth developers time coding an extra STE version when sales were already low.

 

The lack of support "vicious circle" I mentioned in my original post. The only way they could have made it worth commercially supporting- and extended the ST range's lifespan- would have been to sell it for £299 at launch in late 1989, replacing the STFM and ensuring a respectably-sized STE user base by default.

 

No-one was going to buy a slightly improved ST with hobbled improvements and no support when they could get an already-supported Amiga 500 at the same price (£399). So the declining number of people still buying STs then (e.g. myself) did so- I assume- on price and got the rapidly-dating STFM. Atari reduced the STE to £299 in mid-1991... too late for anyone to care.

Edited by Mostro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to that, pro audio on the PC platform was a lot of stumbling around in the dark and only a glimmer of hope for people with massive budgets. As for 1992 and 1993, pro audio on a PC was still a pipe dream with the raw elements still cooking on the stovetop.

 

 

The RAP-10's list price was $600.00 and its performance level is a notch below the Turtle Beach card that I mentioned.

 

The RAP-10 was essentially a Sound Canvas on a PC card. It wasn't meant (nor did it provide much support) for PC gaming. Serious musicians used them. I'm pretty sure the RAP part stood for "Roland Audio Producer." The Turtle Beach Multi-sound was an excellent card, but the RAP-10 had a better SNR. (For context, "back in the day", a good friend of mine used the RAP-10 & Cakewalk for professional music gigs.)

So yeah, expensive as all heck, but a good bit past "a pipe dream".

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...