Jump to content

Surround (RS-7) Placement


SteveB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Round and round we go...

<[b>Boa I was composing this response when you supplied your referee's post. So, I hit the edit button to include you in this post. Your 45° example is an important concept in assessing what speakers to use in a given listening area. If there is a series of monopoles that adequately cover the listening area then those monopoles is likely to provide both the ambient and localized sound intended by the mixer. WDST provides a way to envelop the entire listening area when the dispersion angle of the monopoles are insufficient. Thanks for chipping in... and now back to our regularly scheduled program Wink.gif... a Crash Course in Mutual Respect & Understanding.]

Of course I recognize that it is not the "purpose" of WDST speakers to not match in tone and timbre... but it is a characteristic grown out of the design... it was not meant as a slam but rather calling attention to the problem. And, yes, Crash I have thought about building a wide dispersion version of the KLF-30... even to the point of discussing it with Klipsch engineers.

As usual, I make no pretext about having all the answers but I do take some time to be proactive in researching the questions with my eight Legend HT system. Obviously, my theater gets some extra "ambient" benefit from the high mounted KLF-C7 Front Effects speakers. With three extra KLF-10's to experiment in the rear soundfield and extra amps, the opportunity to create wide dispersion effects in an A/B environment is at hand. The character of the current crop of WDST speakers has been sampled in the showroom AND at length in my HT.

Sadly, some people mistake my attempts at objectivity with an honest reflection of my conclusions as "not understanding the situation" or "lacking experience with the WDST." Maybe so, but, believe it or not, I sure am trying! Between hospital and relocation activities, experimenting with surrounds is just not the highest priority just now... but as things simmer down, I will be back at it.

I suspect that USparc's comment on the size of the room and your comment, Crash on the need for envelopment were essentially two ways to say the same thing. Bigger room means more monopoles are needed to cover the area. That is what I did to create surround sound in my showroom theaters which had 18' top-of-the-line screens and held 60 or more people.

My pre ProLogic "think tank" theater surround sound system certainly got the attention of the people who designed and installed the sound systems for Hard Rock Cafes (then a client of mine). So, while I don't claim to be an expert... I don't exactly feel like a rank amateur either.

I am not a fan of flaming posts... and I appreciate your attempts, Crash, to find middle ground, such as the Dolby preference for all the same speakers, which is echoed by other applications such as SACD and an increasing number of mixing pros of my acquaintance. And, I agree with you that if people are happier with using a WDST and monopole mix in their acoustics environment... they should continue.

After all, look at the market share that Bose has using their offset mini-cubes to create a room filling spatial ambient sound effect... I'm just glad they aren't filling my rooms! cwm34.gif

Of course, there was a time when the duty of surrounds was to create only ambient sound... put those days are passing as ProLogic passes from the scene. WDST speakers are fitted with woofers (however small) for the express purpose of supplying LOCALIZED sound required by 5.1 (and above) systems... and that's what sets WDST apart from KSP-S6's. Although KSP-S6's work quite well I am told if used in a way other than how they were originally designed.... which,of course, was an improvement over bipoles.

An honest difference of opinion is what tends to make the world better... it should not lead to an automatic presumption (hmmm, sound like prejudice in action!) that one person or the other is stupid... it should not be presumptive evidence that anyone is deliberately lying to confuse newbies (hmmm, can't find any reason to do that... they have enough to comprehend as it is!).

Crash, your a musician and I respect that... for I have tried but don't have the talent that takes... but I am definitely into an eclectic appreciation of music. I generally take in at least one live contemporary, Latin, jazz or classical performance every week... and I have long been privileged to enjoy and participate in theater. I like it live... and not all fuzzed up with extra echoes or deliberately out of phase (e.g., dipoles). Commercial sound theaters have audio challenges that I do not have at home... and I certainly do not want to have a sound system that emulates part of their problem, IMHO.

A rear array of three or four full-range monopoles equal to the mains can provide far more ambient sound ( particularly with intelligently mixed source material) than some radical "wide-dispersion heads" admit. Further, WDST supplies a greater amount of localized sound than conservative "monopole heads" tend to admit.

The issues should be more properly relegated to solving the problems which gave rise to the different speaker designs... and we should try to understand the merits of each other's approach in a universal attempt to help one another.

But, I also have to face the fact that I am an old warrior, coldly skilled in the arts of war and not yet given to running fearfully from a battlefield... but, with age came the courage and understanding to look my enemy in the eye and invite him to know the peace that passes understanding. -HornED

PS: I must admit, however, that I have received many emails from Forum folks who said that they were thankful because these spirited discussions had opened greater understanding of audio pitfalls and opportunities. So, I suppose that providing a viable alternative is a worthwhile thing to do. H.E.

PPS: Some of this reminds me when my Ivy League educated son sought to end a friendly argument with... "What part of NO do you not understand?" And I replied,"The 'NO' between the K and the W." He laughed... and together we began to KNOW more of each other's positions... and that led to both peace and prosperity.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-20-2002 at 02:52 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi guys,

Ok, I have got some news for you that will put into perspective why there is confusion and debate amongst us 'enlightened' enthusiasts and want you to think for a moment about how poor John Q. Public must feel.

Dolby Digital EX states your surrounds should be dipoles but regardless of what you do all surrounds should be the same. They also specify the back surrounds should be a minimum of 4 feet apart.

THX Ultra 2 (post-processing to EX and others) states your side surrounds should be dipoles but your back surrounds should be monopoles. They specify the two speakers should be spaced directly next to each other.

These are obvious contradictions in speaker type and placement. THX is supposed to be the Quality Assurance implementation of surround sound yet has moved away from the audio developers specifications and developed their own. Who is a newbie supposed to believe? How are they to make sense of this?

I think these debates do help. It has prompted me to perform far more research than I have previously done - hasn't caused a single change in my HT though - and last night, believe it or not, I read most of Bob Carver's patent application on subwoofers due to another debate over powered towers vs. separate subwoofers. This HAS become an obsession.

PS. HornEd - build the S-30's. THAT surround would be incredible. In your theater, with a KLF30 as center, anything less would be pedestrian. Let's see: KLF30's across the front, 2 KLF S-30's as side surrounds, and 2 KLF30's as rear surrounds. We are talking about basically 9 KL30's implemented in one room - we are talking major audio event. Probably need to talk about adding additional amplification.

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

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995 (Current)

Bryston 9BST (On the horizon)

Bryston SP1.7 (A little further on the horizon)

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

Ella PP EL-34 (Coming soon)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now that this thread has seemed to turn toward honest research, considered opinion and candid reflections... perhaps we can all benefit the unsure "newbies"... stuck-in-a-rut "oldbies"... and the "caught-in-the-middlebies". At best the variables inherent in sound reproduction are too complex for any one system to be all things to all people. Probably the safest "all things to all people" approach is to advocate the THX standard... not the best sound... but one that will hide a lot of mistakes. I prefer to build a sound system for the listening space eliminating as many mistakes as possible in an attempt to recreate the illusion of being there. In that light, I will try to go over some of the basics so that we may all find ourselves on the same page... if not the same conclusions.

Crash, I noted in your last post that you spoke of "dipole" speakers as referred to in various Dolby and THX standards. True bipole speakers are mechanically connected so that one side fires out-of-phase to the other side... most "bipole" offerings in today's market have their speakers firing in opposite directions but mechanically separate so they can be phase coherent. Dipole speakers fire in opposite directions, are mechanically separate, and wired out-of-phase. IMHO, out-of-phase speakers achieves a fantastic amount of forced uncorrelated (i.e., ambient) sound... but robs the fullness of the potential sound due to the cancellation that it invites as the diverse waves are reflected into one another.

Unfortunately, increased decorrelation forces decreased timbre and ambiguous tone characteristics in nearly every kind of acoustics set. The monaural quality of ProLogic surround tracks gave rise to increased decorrelation of surrounds in an attempt to create some acoustics differentiation in a less than full-range band. Why less than full-range... because the specification for Dolby-Surround® prescribes a frequency range from 100 Hz up to 7 kHz only for this monophonic channel which is fed to both left and right surround speakers. In this outmoded instance, a rear array of full-range speakers is decidedly underutilized.

Reflected sounds from mechanically separate "bipoles" have much the same affect, but to a lesser degree, in attempting to create an essential "null" enveloping the sweetspot. The Klipsch WDST approach lessens the decorrelation further by splaying the horn tweeters into the room at an angle (similar to the KSP-S6) and then adding a "localization" woofer in-between facing the sweetspot as an accommodation to 5.1's full-range audio potential and the ability for mixers to include purposeful localization to the sound mix.

It is my considered opinion that the critical early reflections that contribute to the brain's ability to shape a mental soundstage (e.g., psychoacoustics) and that only multiple monopoles (free-standing or in professionally bunched wide-dispersion cabinets) allow this defining phenomenon to occur. One of the most elegant, yet simple, professional sound rooms is discussed at http://www.moultonlabs.com/articles/99mannymix.htm ...and a good read to understanding a mixers point of view. Bear in mind, that this discussion took place in 1999 and that some would say that the trend is toward intentionally mixing the ambient and localized sound elements rather than depend upon speakers that mechanically force wide-dispersion and the resultant decorrelation that too often follows in many acoustics environments.

For those "hung up" on the manuals and standards designed to provide "the most help, in a simplified way, that can be understood and enacted by the most consumers." And that is a good thing... but it is not necessarily the path to the best sound quality in a specific set of circumstances. That takes more work by the consumer or a "true" expert in the field to do the hard part... something that I do not claim to be. But, Floyd Toole is... in fact, many look upon him as the "expert's expert." While Klipsch has a good presence in the commercial theater market (JBL is the runaway sales leader) where the "horn advantage" is clearly in evidence.

So for a "horn friendly" expert's view of Loudspeakers and Rooms for Multichannel Audio Reproduction with lots of simple diagrams to show speaker placement and Floyd Toole's commentary... got to: http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt1.pdf ...and if you are looking for the second part (which ventures more into subwoofers), go to: http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/acoustical_design.pdf . Understanding these basic and diverse concepts helps to understand the diversity of opinion found on this Forum... and potentially helps us all avoid the audio pitfalls and supposed authoritarian pronouncements that abound here. -HornED

PS: Crash, on the building of a KLF-30 surround, my latest design anticipates using an "acoustic lens" similar in construction to those used in the "Moulton Room" found in the professional sound room link given above. Clearly, I have never taken the position that everyone should follow what works for me. However, I do try to discern between the path to better (Klipsch) sound and the one that leads to cowpasture (Bose?) sound... and the added hazard of stepping in something for which PWK carried yellow buttons!

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-20-2002 at 12:50 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when the ? of rs-7's vs. ksps-6's came up for my ht room, i went against the advise of several people on this bb and got the s-6's, PRICE WAS COMPARABLE(i could get a deal on rs-7's).

the reason..the speakers would have to be placed behind my listening position, about 2 1/2 ft.above my head,and about 4ft behind me, about 2ft. in front of my rear wall. this places the front of the 'wedge' w/its 6.5" woofer and horn facing,rather directly,my sweet spot. i chose this design over the rs-7's because i wanted the woofer to face me,and not fire across my 12' wide room into each other,with only the front horn facing me.

so, i got the s-6's for THIS reason,for MY HT ROOM,and if yours is LIKE MINE, you may feel the same(or not)Smile.gif

avman.

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

1-pair klf 30's

c-7 center

ksps-6 surrounds

RSW-15

sony strda-777ES receiver upgraded to v.2.02 including virtual matrix 6.1

sony playstation 2

sony dvpnc 650-v 5-disc dvd/cd/SACD changer

dishnetwork model 6000 HD sat rcvr w/digital off-air tuner

sony kv36xbr450 high-definition 4:3 tv

sharp xv-z1u lcd projector w/84" 4:3 sharp screen

Bello'international Italian-made a/v furniture

panamax max dbs+5 surge protector/power conditioner

monster cable and nxg interconnects/12 gua.speaker wire

Natuzzi red leather furniture set

KLIPSCH-So Good It Hz!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avman, your well appointed HT is a great example of choosing KSP-S6 speakers because of how they could be used to solve the acoustics challenge of the space with which you had to work.

In your case, they work more as toed-in rear monopoles attached to two monopoles firing against the rear wall to create a phantom rear effects channel that increases the overall ambient sound.

One of the advantages of the KSP-S6 is that it provides both a horn tweeter and a cone woofer firing out of each end of its compact trapezoidal shape. No doubt about it... for your situation, it was a brilliant stroke on your part. -HornED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by boa12:

3) therefore opinions on which speaker is best will be,

past, present or future, a multiple of (all the dif speakers) X (the # of dif mixes) X (the # of different sounds in each mix).

don't ask me to do the math. Biggrin.gif doesn't matter how engineers mix in the future. the fundamentals stay the same. iow, the types of sound are pretty much finite. i'd agree to disagree just on this premise. Smile.gif

if you have a sweeping from front to back sound, a speaker that covers a wider area does it better. if you have a localized sound, a direct should do it better. unless you have a room the size of a movie theater, the dif should be subtle, so i wouldn't sweat it. again a reason to agree to disagee Wink.gif

boa, I was pretty much finished with this thread, but had to comment on your post. You are WAY AHEAD of a few people here.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boa, sorry to burst the bubble of your 1, 2, 3 points of "sound" logic but your premise does not hold... except perhaps that there are more variables than are worth counting. Mixing ambient and localized sound for properly placed monopole speakers is entirely reasonable... but trying to do both in a box with multiple monopoles, especially if they are out of phase (as in dipoles) takes away the potential precision of the mixer's art.

The problem with bipoles, dipoles, tripoles, and WDST is that they have different diffusing characteristics and some make no attempt at localizing sound. Properly located monopoles have the potential to hand mixed ambient and localized sound with much greater uniformity as a speaker concept than the various dispersion speakers have. Properly located monopoles in a listening area that allows near reflections then dissipates the sound (like that in a modern mixing studio) provides the opportunity for crisp localized sound and intentionally mixed ambient sounds broadcast from selected monopoles simultaneously.

This approach not only provides more control of back-to-front sweeps but also allows the potential for correct tone & timbre... which is not available under most wide-dispersion configurations. Frankly, Boa, it was the lack of proper tone & timbre in sweeps from the back-to-front that caused me to experiment with the rear array until it became obvious that nothing short of a speaker identical to the mains would provide the opportunity to make an explosion, engine noise, voice, etc. in the rear array as an equal to the explosion, engine noise, voice, etc. coming from the front array. That cannot be done with wide dispersion speakers at one end of the room and an array of monopoles in the front.

As the industry moves forward in its quest to have a sound environment that can replicate any audio scene... music, cosmic wars or the middle of a children's playground at recess... a sufficiently large installed base of predictable sound reproducers will have to be in place. Although there is some confusion in their respective EX instructions, Dolby and THX (LucasFilms, Inc.) are hoping that some degree of decorrelated sound will even the acoustics playing field and provide a base on which to build a less precise sound bridge in your living room... at the expense of tone, timbre and musicality in the minds of many experts and none experts alike.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a "new" standard emerging such as the one that first made stereo music available on a single FM frequency. An inaudible "follower" tagged the sound to be shunted to one speaker to create two channels from one source. The Dolby Digital and ProLogic configurations provide four channels (or more) from only two recorded channels. Admittedly the Dolby system was not as capable as the five discrete channels plus LFE that has largely replaced the older approaches.

As with any technological advance, everyone is overjoyed at the ability to have better, fuller, more magnificent sound... and then, someone comes up with an idea of how to make it better. Surround sound started as an anemic 100Hz - 7KHz monaural channel of essentially aural clues to associate with full range sounds coming from the front array... and perhaps a subwoofer. Dolby Digital upped the ante with a wider range with different program material going to the left and right modified "bipole" surrounds... then THX "standards" pushed for dipoles wired out-of-phase to further diffuse the sound from the surrounds. WDST, to the best of my knowledge, provided an opportunity for more direct sound, in-phase, sound to reach the sweetspot... but still had much of the horn tweeters' output sprayed fore and aft to reflect a diffused ambient sound.

Obviously, the trend is running from highly diffused sound to increasingly localized sound with the potential to project diffuse sound as needed. I believe the character and scope of rear channels will continue to improve by virtue of aggressive sound mixing and more predictable and versatile surround and rear effects speakers that can match tone & timbre with the mains. Klipsch has made great strides in making the RC-7 fit the RF-7's more closely... and I expect that trend to continue as well.

Learning and speculating more about acoustics, pyschoacoustics and the potential future of audio is fun... and I have been told that it is worth sharing on this Forum. In a way, I am thankful for the adamant nay-sayers for they have spurred me to dig deeper to find what audio "truism" or fact drives them to flaming posts instead of objective thinking that Crash, for example, has advanced.

I am thankful to Boa for being a peacemaker and providing new areas of inquiry. And I am certainly thankful for all the encouragement I have received from Forum and Klipsch staff members, by posts, email and telephone, to speak freely on my path to better Klipsching. -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-20-2002 at 09:02 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to prolong this post any further than it needs to be, but a little help from our most wonderful moderators would be good. Like a court of law I would like to keep the scope of my questioning acute. My question is, why WDST over Di-pole? I think I already know the answer, and it might shed some extra light on the reasoning Klipsch developed WDST. I know I would be avoiding this string if I were a moderator. The great thing about this for Klipsch is that the two sides are debating whether to use direct radiating Klipsch speakers or WDST multi-pole Klipsch speakers. Either way its Klipsch all the way. Klipsch needs to make a switchable speaker like M&K or Energy. They have surround speakers that switch between mono and mult-pole. Just an idea.

JT

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

Enjoy and Happy Listening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, from the Home Audio Section of this site,in FAQ:

What are the different types of surround speakers available and what are the differences?

There are three "common" types of surround speakers available today plus some unique types created by different speaker manufacturers.

"Monopole" speakers consist of a speaker or group of speakers all firing on the same plane in the same direction. This includes the vast majority of all speakers made. What people think of as "normal speakers" are termed Monopole. With regard to current surround sound formats, monopole speakers are the least desirable because they are the least effective in creating an "enveloping sound field" (ambience). They are good at localization, but that alone is not enough to produce the desired surround effect.

If you take a monopole speaker and add another speaker placed 180 degrees opposite of it (i.e. back to back) firing in the same phase, you have a "bipole" speaker. Firing in phase means all drivers on both sides are at the same excursion point at the same time. This creates the exact same sounds coming from both sides of the speaker at the same time. By design, Bipole speakers send no sound directly toward the listener. A bipole speaker will produce good "ambience" as all the sound is reflected off the walls of the room, but is not effective in producing "localized" sounds.

If you take the basic design of a bipole speaker with the rear facing drivers firing exactly opposite of the front, you have a "dipole" speaker. Dipole speakers produce a very diffuse sound, which is good for ambience, but, like bipoles, are not very effective at localization. Dipole design further reduces direct sound to the listening position.

Both bipole and dipole speakers should be mounted on the sides of the listening position and use reflected sound off of the walls to produce their effects. So if monopoles can offer localization but not enveloping ambience, and bi-pole/dipole speakers deliver ambience without localization, what can provide both important characteristics at the same time?

Klipsch produces a unique surround speaker that utilizes a technology called Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST). Each WDST enabled speaker contains two Tractrix® Horn drivers and a woofer. Each horn covers a 90-degree arc and the combination of the two covers a full 180 degrees. This coverage gives excellent ambiance without having to use the walls to reflect sound. The controlled pattern of each horn (what we call "controlled directivity") leads to excellent localization of sounds because there is sound directed at the listening position, regardless of where in the room you are seated. And because the WDST surround speaker does not rely on wall reflections, it can be mounted in many different places in a room, leading to greater flexibility with placement. It is rare to have perfect side-wall positions available due to the placement of doors, drapes, furniture and such. WDST design delivers enveloping ambience WITH localization for the ideal surround sound result AND gives you the flexibility of placement to solve room design problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Keith your borrowed explanation does not account for the ability for engineers to mix ambient sounds AND localized sounds in the recording process... rather than depend on aberrant speaker types to add unpredictable coloration in the name of ambience.

If a background or ambient sound is sent in low levels to all direct radiating speakers in the mix... the effect will be eight (in my HT) toed-in, vintage monopoles firing from the front, back and both sides... and, believe it or not, that can create all the warm and fuzzy ambience any DVD requires to tell its story... and keeps the tone & timbre intact for its critical role in multichannel music sources... INCLUDINGall the music found in HT movies!

Klipsch speakers tend to be very revealing... and poorly mixed DVD's that depend upon a pair of dipole crutches do get revealed... but it's no big deal and such recordings are rarely added to my DVD library. -HornED

PS: If you count all the drivers, I have 2 - 12" subwoofers, 12 - 12" woofers, 2 - 8" woofers, 8 midrange Tractrix horns and 8 horn tweeters firing into the sweetspot from all directions... and getting a proper shot at crucial first reflections in a psychoacoustically beneficial way. That's about 32 separate sound sources spraying my HT room in multidirectional terms... and all it takes is a savvy recording engineer and, lately, that seems to be in the mix!cwm32.gif

By comparison, Crash827 shows a well matched, vintage HT featuring a pair of KSP-400's, one KSP-C6, and a pair of KSP-S6's. That's 2 - 15" woofers, 10 - 6.5" woofers, and 7 horn tweeters... that's 19 separate sound sources spraying his room multidirectionally and keeping him happy. And that's good. Some may say that his 19 are better than my 32 because his surrounds are wedge shaped and don't necessarily fire toward the sweet spot. And if two KSP wedges trump eight Legends and a 7' foot sub tower... than I am happy for him.cwm38.gif

PPS: Right on Crash today just hasn't been my day health-wise. Your tweeter total was duly raised to 7! I hope your SVS brings you the joy that mine have brought me. Good thing you pulled back that double post or I might have added more tweeters Wink.gif -H.E.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-26-2002 at 11:21 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ed,

That is 7 tweeters enveloping me. Don't shortchange me pal. Smile.gif Oh, yeah, and I may add a SVS CS+ to that mix JUST to cover from 16 to 40hz.

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

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995 (Current)

Bryston 9BST (On the horizon)

Bryston SP1.7 (A little further on the horizon)

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

Ella PP EL-34 (Coming soon)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted due to double post.

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

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995 (Current)

Bryston 9BST (On the horizon)

Bryston SP1.7 (A little further on the horizon)

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

Ella PP EL-34 (Coming soon)

This message has been edited by crash827 on 05-21-2002 at 07:44 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boa, the M&K's are actually part of their THX line. They are very nice, but they don't say Klipsch on them. The sad part is that the M&K's are more readily available than Klipsch in the Cleveland market. For that matter so is every other speaker brand. There are more Krell Lat-1 dealers than Klipsch here. That is a whole other issue in and of itself.

Keith, thanks for the info. After being a BB member for a year and a half, I sometimes forget about the rest of the website. I have the forum bookmarked, so I don't come in the "main entrance" any more. Thanks agian.

Once again the pillow is calling me.

JT

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

Enjoy and Happy Listening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not MY explanation ED. That,again,is simply a cut and paste from this site. That is Klipsch's information and I take no credit for others work. You'll have to argue with Klipsch.

Glad to help decibal man!

Figured it out yet crash?

Keith

>Still EDit free!

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...