If the 552 DR is so good, why desire the Statement?

Richieroo posted:

Hi the DD10+ has been one of the best things I have ever purchased ..... it is so tuneful tight and responsive .... you don't know it's there its like your speakers have grown in size 10 fold.....

The DD10+ will go down to 20hz easily .... and will work into moderate size rooms.

{Don't expect massive spls from a small sub....in hi fi terms it's perfect.}

 

Not that good with hi-fi jargon, what does spls stand for???

Otherwise, thanks for the info., just as I thought, fast quick, and small in stature!

Yet can achieve sonic low frequencies down to 20 hz.

Thanks!

Allante93!

Interesting thread, in a way, being quite familiar with the 282, 252, 552 and S1 I do think they have different styles.. to my ears the 552 is more forward and in some ways is a natural successor to the 282, where as I find  the 252 less forward and natural to my ears and seems to have more similarities with the S1... so if you really enjoy the 252 you may find the S1 really feels like it's natural sonic successor where as if you are more the 282 type person, then the 552 might seem the more natural evolution. Yes there are absolute performance terms involved but I do find the sonic traits quite interesting. 

I really enjoy the 252, and the S1 is on my lottery win list.... I have passed up on a 552 as although good I don't prefer it sufficiently compared to the sonic traits of my 252DR unlike the S1 ... whether that's relevant or not I don't know .. we all hear things differently.

Ali, Naim believe the NAC lies at the heart of an audio replay system... and therefore perhaps not surprising they therefore introduce or even spot light the traits that one enjoys.. What I am less sure of is that Naim set out to define a particular preamp is forward, or this one is laid back.. I suspect this evolves through development and listening tuning.

analogmusic posted:

interesting, that preamps have character of their own, when in fact at 252 and 552 level they aren't supposed for that kind of money.

Sources, on the other hand, well to me these have very distinct sonic traits (Naim source sounds different than Chord Source and Linn sources)

 I always thought all preamps are "supposed to be" completely neutral and so not have a character of their own but the reality is they are imperfect and they do have characters. (Also, if the 252 had no Effect on the sound then there would be no difference in sound with the 552, let alone the Statement.

Also, the impression given on this forum is that Naim preamps which are the key to the "Naim sound" - is that not a form of audible character?

analogmusic posted:

interesting, that preamps have character of their own, when in fact at 252 and 552 level they aren't supposed for that kind of money.

Interesting indeed. I've found that any new device, regardless of cost, introduced into the listening chain will produce a detectable sonic change. For me these have included secondary contributors like power cables, interconnects, speaker cables, power strips and outlets. I'd expect the change from primary gear like the preamp would be readily be more profound, although I've only ever owned integrateds, so can't truly separate the abilities of the pre from the amp.

OTOH, I'd guess if the 252 and 552 had no supposed distinct character between them most rational people would opt for the cheaper box and the 552 would no longer persist. 

Darke Bear posted:
The DR upgrade to the 552 took it further along, but I'd not say it was as big an upgrade to the basic musical performance of the 552 as the DR upgrade was to the 500 Amp, which was staggering to me.

DB.

Yep, I'd go along with that DB. Having had my 500s DRd, I'm increasingly impressed with how good the system sounds. Anyway, the other day you asked me if I was going to try the S1. Well, I've heard yours and Signals' one but I'll not be trying one in my system unless I win the Lottery - a forlorn hope as I don't buy tickets. I've made the mistake of "Just giving X a try, out of curiosity" in the past. I've no doubt it'd sound wonderful in my system but then the system's really singing as it is. Best not to know...

Hungryhalibut posted:

I wasn't aligning the Casio watch with the 552, for the benefit of the more literal minded. The point was that if you have a Casio and it tells the time, why do you want a Rolex? It's like one's hifi - it plays music quite happily, so why do you want something better? There are many reasons of course and that's down to the individual. It's about deciding what's 'good enough', and that's different for different people. 

There is another question that the OP might like to ask - what's your hifi to house price ratio? What's you hifi to car price ratio? The list is endless, and all it reveals is that different people have different priorities. 

Well in 1984 my hifi at retail price, (I bought mine second hand, as a trade in and as a dealer so I was lucky), cost 85% of the value of my house in an inner city location, (2200m from the CBD). I actually sold the hifi to fund the house purchase. Today my hifi at retail is 4% of the value of my house. The real cost of hifi performance has plummeted, (I'm not saying my little toy is at the same level as my old glory days), and the real cost of housing in Australia has gone up by 2.5 times give or take.

I could buy a Statement/Some enormous loudspeaker here in Australia for say $500,000. My home today is worth about $650,000. And to be specific, both in 1984 and today I sit at about 110% of the average home cost.

I think a 252/300 based system with only slightly enormous speakers would blow away my old tri-amped Isobariks and in real terms be only 25% or so of what they cost back in the day. If I had my rathers, my next step if it happens is probably a 272/XPS/250 bolted onto my lowly S400's. I don't think I would go much further. Spend any extra spare cash on a holiday. As you say, different people have different priorities.

Allante93 posted:
Darke Bear posted:
MDS posted:

 

The S1 just does a better job than the 552 - it was significantly better in the context of the rest of my system that it made sense, if anything at this price-point can be said to make sense.

When I first had my home-demo of the 552 it was clear it was in a different league of performance to the 252 ........

DB.

S1>552>252>282

Naim's Marque Separates

Didn't know you had posted DB, but as you can see I was point on!

Funny thing, one will never know unless they pull the trigger!

I'm not talking, test driving a Ferrari, but owning a Ferrari!

Allante93!

PS. Reply was delayed, my Cousin just pulled up in his Brand new 2 Seater Mercedes Benz!

SL5502017

$110,800* MSRP

  • Engine4.7L V8 biturbo
  • Horsepower449
  • Acceleration4.3 sec0 to 60 †
 

Nice! Of course, I didn't ask him, how much!

S1 ~ 90K

 

Not Speaking from experience, but I am familiar with the 282, nice pre-amp!

But that doesn't surprise me, way back in 2007, Naim felt it was worthy enough to debut  it's reference CDP.

The same CDP, DB is sporting this very moment!

2007 CES SHOW:

CD 555>282>Snaxo>3 x 250>The Iconic DBLS

All this from you Guys, and a fine Bunch you are:

The 252 is more laid back less forward than the 282. A more mature version of the 282. Mr Richard Dane adds, the 252 may be a better pre-amp than the 282, but more revealing.

Hence, the set up can be problematic, whereas the 282 is less problematic!

Now if you like the 282, and the what the 252 brings to the party, more Cash!

Right you are Analog! Money!

552 type of Money!

Now if you have the Loot, and curious what it would be like, to wake up every morning with an $90K USD/Mercedes-Benz Pre amp in your primary System, pull the Trigger! 

Naim's Statement to it's Competitors!

Our Finest Work, in the field that we Pioneered!

Naim Amps, paired with are S1 pre-amp!

But hold on a 552 ain't cheap, Guessing, about $20K Pounds, along with the extra SL Cabling!

The beauty of the S1, no PS! Only 50K GBP

JMHO, based on feedback from the Forum!

Allante93!

PS. Voice Activated Texting Please excuse errors! 

Oh well, we've heard all that praise before...  Back in Vuks olive times the 52 was playing miles ahead in a different league than the 82, even SCed it would not come close to the level of  the awesome 52. Then came the black 252 being significanty better but not for long until the magic 552 became the holy grail and pinnecle for every true naim enthusiast...Edouard still around?  DR uprgade followed and now we hear the mighty S1 even leaves the 552 cold in comparison.  I have been off the forum for several  years and my hearing has deteriorated a bit while years were passing almost unnoticed...so nothing new under the sun..

Cheers

Franz

analogmusic posted:

But I remember on your thread, 552 over 282..... it took you some time to decide to get the 552?

You remember correctly, analogmusic.  The 552DR represents an almost eye-watering outlay and the 282/SCDR combination is very, very good.  The S1, well,  carries a price that is beyond eye-watering but I'd have to confess it has a performance to match.

As far as i intended from Mr. DB and other people  experienced with Statement amps, it's just the S1 pre that wins hands down over the 552, much more than Nap S1 over the 500. In fact my experience with 552DR is  that ,taking for granted its phenomenal dynamics, sometimes it sports a little aggressive presentation where the S1 is  more open and natural at the same time. Probably the next gen, of preamps will receive a trickle down technology from Statement ( new volume control in first instance).

Regards

Roberto

On the subject ... of a preamp sound .......... this does exist .... years ago my brother worked with Tim Paravicini on an amp for Heybrook ......... they tested loads of circuits including some very expensive selected IC's ......... they all sounded quite different even though the quoted frequency responses were ruler flat. The effect was not subtle - enough to effect perceived balance. In conclusion ... the whole thing is a series of design decisions regarding circuit layout, earthing, psu etc etc ......... and of course you finally have the interaction of the power amp with the pre amp. The 552 must have been an attempt at the time to push things as far as possible within certain perameters - to that end it is superb. The statement - largely removed the parameter/constraints on the designers - and not surprisingly things have moved on. 

Regarding naim sound  .... there is no doubt in my mind that Naim play with the circuit design to enhance sonic properties in alignment with their sonic trademark. fast leading edges, pacy sound etc etc. 

I believe that there is no such thing as a preamp or passive controller that does not influence the sonic outcome....there are advantages and disadvantages depending on approach. Never forget the preamp is not something in isolation it is part of a system - that interacts with the amp and source......we live in a largely imperfect world .... otherwise it would be flat..... (perhaps not...he he)

In my experience of designing and building HiFi amps, the preamp was much more difficult to get right.

With a power amp you could get about 70% of the way there on paper by applying the right set of principles in the right places (knowing which principles and where to use them is the trick here), and then doing the last bit by tweaking.

With preamps I could only get about 30% of the way on paper and never really managed to get the tweaking good enough for my objectives.  I settled on a star earthed passive controller using Alps 'blue' pots (the the same type that Naim use!) and carefully chosen wire and an approximately 'linear' internal layout.  I never managed to beat this with an active preamp, simply because I wasn't good enough at tweaking preamps.  Unlike power amps, with preamps I never really quite 'got it'.

analogmusic posted:

interesting, that preamps have character of their own, when in fact at 252 and 552 level they aren't supposed for that kind of money.

To my ears, they couldn't sound more different.

Naim sound? No such thing. 

More of the same? No.

I can only imagine what the S1 brings to a system.  We've all got our cut off points. The S1 is in territory which in my universe gets spent/invested elsewhere.

Huge posted:

In my experience of designing and building HiFi amps, the preamp was much more difficult to get right.

With a power amp you could get about 70% of the way there on paper by applying the right set of principles in the right places (knowing which principles and where to use them is the trick here), and then doing the last bit by tweaking.

With preamps I could only get about 30% of the way on paper and never really managed to get the tweaking good enough for my objectives.  I settled on a star earthed passive controller using Alps 'blue' pots (the the same type that Naim use!) and carefully chosen wire and an approximately 'linear' internal layout.  I never managed to beat this with an active preamp, simply because I wasn't good enough at tweaking preamps.  Unlike power amps, with preamps I never really quite 'got it'.

Going on my third year with Naim, Time flies when having fun!

As one Audio Reviewer put it:

There are two types of components worthy of owning, the best & very close to the best, for a whole lot less!

Clearly the 552, exemplifies the former.

@ Hugh, what's your take on the following thread, posted a few years ago???

"Ok, so it's a deliberately provocative thread title, but in idly considering upgrading my 252 to a 552, it got me thinking about the real-world absurdity of buying an £18k box simply to control volume. I'm only feeding it from my NDS so not using it for input switching.

I know there have been a few threads on here about using the volume control of a dac in place of the pre - the Hugo springs to mind, and with the new TT version having remote control, you wouldn't lose any functionality of a regular pre. I also know a hifi reviewer who runs a 300 amp has a passive pre rather than a Naim pre, so clearly others have also considered alternatives to a pre, but am I missing something?"

Allante93!

PS. Can one use a non-Naim Passive Pre Amp with Naim AMPS?

I'm a little confused, in any event I went with the latter, pre-loved 282, as opposed to an passive pre! 

I needed an Hub!

Why not Naim!

 

 

You can and it has been done ....some people claiming to good effect...... however, in my experience I have found that the naim preamp and amp must viewed almost as a single unit ...... I have head other preamps and some how it just does not sound quite right...... less life and energy.....  

Allante93 posted:
Huge posted:

In my experience of designing and building HiFi amps, the preamp was much more difficult to get right.

With a power amp you could get about 70% of the way there on paper by applying the right set of principles in the right places (knowing which principles and where to use them is the trick here), and then doing the last bit by tweaking.

With preamps I could only get about 30% of the way on paper and never really managed to get the tweaking good enough for my objectives.  I settled on a star earthed passive controller using Alps 'blue' pots (the the same type that Naim use!) and carefully chosen wire and an approximately 'linear' internal layout.  I never managed to beat this with an active preamp, simply because I wasn't good enough at tweaking preamps.  Unlike power amps, with preamps I never really quite 'got it'.

Going on my third year with Naim, Time flies when having fun!

As one Audio Reviewer put it:

There are two types of components worthy of owning, the best & very close to the best, for a whole lot less!

Clearly the 552, exemplifies the former.

@ Hugh, what's your take on the following thread, posted a few years ago???

"Ok, so it's a deliberately provocative thread title, but in idly considering upgrading my 252 to a 552, it got me thinking about the real-world absurdity of buying an £18k box simply to control volume. I'm only feeding it from my NDS so not using it for input switching.

I know there have been a few threads on here about using the volume control of a dac in place of the pre - the Hugo springs to mind, and with the new TT version having remote control, you wouldn't lose any functionality of a regular pre. I also know a hifi reviewer who runs a 300 amp has a passive pre rather than a Naim pre, so clearly others have also considered alternatives to a pre, but am I missing something?"

Allante93!

PS. Can one use a non-Naim Passive Pre Amp with Naim AMPS?

I'm a little confused, in any event I went with the latter, pre-loved 282, as opposed to an passive pre! 

I needed an Hub!

Why not Naim!

 

 

My understanding is that Naim preamps are the prime source of the voicing to produce the 'Naim sound', therefore obviating the NAC by feeding a DAC with volume control like Hugo or even Dave to the power amp, or by using a passive preamp between even a Naim source and power amp, you won't get the Naim sound, or it is likely at least to be much diminished even with the remainder of the system Naim.

Also, if the power amp is susceptible to instability or other adverse effect from ultrasonic frequencies, as I understand Naim power amps are, amongst others, then filtering out of such frequencies could be essential with some sources. Whilst some DACs with volume controls do do that (e.g Chord) and so aren't a problem, others may not, and passive preamps in particular may not.

Excellent thread.  As a non-engineer I have absolutely no knowledge or insight into the design of hi-fi components but the discussion vis-a-vis the Naim sound or otherwise has me wondering how much of the original design philosophy and DNA of the original Naim amps has endured into the most recent products like the new Unitis, Statement, 272 and even Muso?

Regards,

Lindsay 

Allante93,

There's a lot more to a pre than a volume control.

Functional:
Volume Control. Frequency response shaping (LF & HF filters)

System Interfaces:
Input Impedance control
(optional) Buffer amp
(optional) Gain stage
(optional) Buffer amp
Input Selector
Gain stage
Buffer amp
Volume Attenuator / Balance control / Mute circuit
Output Buffer amp / Gain stage
Line Driver

I may well have missed a few things - as I said I wasn't very good at pre amps!

Huge posted:

Allante93,

There's a lot more to a pre than a volume control.

Functional:
Volume Control. Frequency response shaping (LF & HF filters)

System Interfaces:
Input Impedance control
(optional) Buffer amp
Input Selector
Buffer amp
Volume Attenuator / Balance control / Mute circuit
Output Buffer amp
Line Driver

Those are there to cope with a wide variety of different source so the user can connect almost anything characteristics (within certain limits). Whether all of those stages are necessary -or even any - depends on the source and its output. Some sources may not require a preamp, e.g if it includes a volume control giving an appropriate voltage output range, with impedance and current capability matching the power amp's input requirements, together with any necessary frequency cutoff. The difference then is one of any 'voicing' or 'sound shaping' introduced by a preamp if used.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Excellent thread.  As a non-engineer I have absolutely no knowledge or insight into the design of hi-fi components but the discussion vis-a-vis the Naim sound or otherwise has me wondering how much of the original design philosophy and DNA of the original Naim amps has endured into the most recent products like the new Unitis, Statement, 272 and even Muso?

Regards,

Lindsay 

Indeed it is an excellent thread, I'm with you Lindsay, being a non- Engineer & clueless about pre amp design.

But having a break in a luckily busy week, I've tuned in an caught this thread which reminds me of an earlier thread last summer.

{Why Do I Need A Pre-Amp!}

As usual I got beat up, because of my lack of understanding. But the OP, came to my rescue, and explained that my understanding of his thread, was on point. 

Then HM, dropped the Bomb, and nobody said a word:

=================================

"Hence I’m still confused, Does the Hugo, fall into the Latter category, With it’s own internal pre-amp?

If this is the case, wouldn't it be better to utilize the internal pre-amp within the Hugo, as opposed to by-passing it, and using an 282, 252, or 552 active pre amp ?

Let's not mention an S1! 

Just trying to Understand!

Perhaps I'm missing something ! 

Thanks In advance! 

Allante93! 

 ()
Take Action

yes, the hugo has its own internal preamp\volume\voltage control. it cannot be bypassed. connecting it to a second preamp will degrade transparancy, even if it was the best preamp ever made."

===================================

Any comments?

Allante93!

james n posted:

You've got transparency vs character Allante - depends on how you like your playback 

It was an rather interesting thread!

To say the least!

""

You have to think of the Naim amplifier as separated into pre-amp and power amp only so as to give the sensitive pre-amp section the opportunity to live in its own enclosure away from power supplies and main amplification; the pre and power amps are two sides of the one amplifier.  Essentially what the pre-amp does is prepare the signal so that it is optimised for the power amp.  Naim's design relies to some extent on bandwidth limiting to achieve best performance where ultra high frequencies are steeply filtered beyond 40-50kHz.  This is achieved through both pre-amp and to a lesser extent the power amp. So it makes sense to provide the optimum signal for the power amp to make the best with.  For this a Naim pre-amp is ideal, because they were designed to be matched together.  With anything else fronting a Naim power amp, all bets are off.""

The same way HM, Simon, and Hugh, and the rest of the Forum like their playback!

Off Course, you need a Hub, for your LP 12, CD555, Ndac, etc...

Staying on Topic, would hate to loose this one to the Dreaded Padded Cell!

But which Hub!

282>252>552>S1

Allante93!

PS. If I recall, that thread got a little heated!

Allante93 posted:
The Strat (Fender) posted:

Excellent thread.  As a non-engineer I have absolutely no knowledge or insight into the design of hi-fi components but the discussion vis-a-vis the Naim sound or otherwise has me wondering how much of the original design philosophy and DNA of the original Naim amps has endured into the most recent products like the new Unitis, Statement, 272 and even Muso?

Regards,

Lindsay 

Indeed it is an excellent thread, I'm with you Lindsay, being a non- Engineer & clueless about pre amp design.

But having a break in a luckily busy week, I've tuned in an caught this thread which reminds me of an earlier thread last summer.

{Why Do I Need A Pre-Amp!}

As usual I got beat up, because of my lack of understanding. But the OP, came to my rescue, and explained that my understanding of his thread, was on point. 

Then HM, dropped the Bomb, and nobody said a word:

=================================

"Hence I’m still confused, Does the Hugo, fall into the Latter category, With it’s own internal pre-amp?

If this is the case, wouldn't it be better to utilize the internal pre-amp within the Hugo, as opposed to by-passing it, and using an 282, 252, or 552 active pre amp ?

Let's not mention an S1! 

Just trying to Understand!

Perhaps I'm missing something ! 

Thanks In advance! 

Allante93! 

 ()
Take Action

yes, the hugo has its own internal preamp\volume\voltage control. it cannot be bypassed. connecting it to a second preamp will degrade transparancy, even if it was the best preamp ever made."

===================================

Any comments?

Allante93!

I think that with the Chord DACs which do have ultrasonic filtering it is a matter of personal preference. Some people do not use a preamp with them, some do, and that is regardless of brand of either pre or power amp.

There was a thread early this year when someone directly compared Dave into a 300 or 500 (I can't remember for certain which), against through a 552 (IIRC), and in their case preferred the sound through the 552.

Innocent Bystander posted:
 
There was a thread early this year when someone directly compared Dave into a 300 or 500 (I can't remember for certain which), against through a 552 (IIRC), and in their case preferred the sound through the 552.

This is something that has always intrigued me really about audio from an engineers perspective. The simplest signal path should be the best (let's assume impedance matching etc is taken care of) and from a signal integrity perspective this should result in the cleanest, most transparent playback - end of story.

From a musical enjoyment perspective, this is not usually the case and we tend to like more character in the playback and why some like vinyl, valve amps and characterful speakers. Whilst i don't tend to like excessively coloured systems, i don't enjoy the sterile character of a monitoring system either so i'm in the camp of musical enjoyment over absolute 'accuracy'. 

To answer the OP -- why desire the statement pre over the 552?

Because the statement pro is significantly better value for money than the 552 pre.

By that, I mean it delivers more per thousand quid than the 552 pre does. This is not a law of diminishing returns - in fact quite the opposite here.

One problem with eliminating the preamp is that you can't then take care of matching the impedances presented at the input to the poweramp.  It becomes the complex sum of the output of the 3rd party preamp and any cables that are used to connect that to the power amp.  It will also be affected by the vagaries of how these vary across the audio (and low ultrasonic) frequency band.  If you then add the ultrasonic spuriae from DACs and digital volume controls into the mix, the result is, to say the least unpredictable.

When I designed my last power amp, it was specifically designed to be fronted by a passive preamp.  This necessitated quite a few changes to the circuit.  There were about 7 or 8 just for that one change as I recall, in addition to changing the 0V arrangement and the routing of the input cables.  As it happens, the intended position of the power amp circuit boards didn't need to be changed.

Huge posted:

One problem with eliminating the preamp is that you can't then take care of matching the impedances presented at the input to the poweramp.  It becomes the complex sum of the output of the 3rd party preamp and any cables that are used to connect that to the power amp.  It will also be affected by the vagaries of how these vary across the audio (and low ultrasonic) frequency band.  If you then add the ultrasonic spuriae from DACs and digital volume controls into the mix, the result is, to say the least unpredictable.

 

Agreed, though the vagaries of interconnects between pre and power apply in any non integrated amp. I assume you were primarily addressing passive preamps - but it of course applies to sources with volume control such as some DACs. And some sources with volume controls may be well matched to some power amps - the onus being on the person with disparate gear to check. (From its published spec, Dave as an example is likely to have no issues nor cause no issues feeding virtually any power amp with input characteristics in the  range normal to hifi products (including Naim ones - but other DACs may differ.)

IB, unfortunately the published 'specifications' for line and preamp outputs output are usually confined to:
Output Voltage (usually unspecified as to whether this is maximum RMS or some other reference voltage, and with unspecified headroom)
Output Impedance (usually at an unspecified frequency, often 1kHz, with no indication of how this varies with frequency)
and just sometimes, Bandwidth (sometimes even without specifying the attenuation at the specified frequency limits, but even then usually without information of the attenuation slopes of the filters, or of any phase changes present in in-band or out-of-band signals)

This type of published 'specification' aren't sufficient to ensure matching to any specific power amp (usually with input specifications that are equally inadequate for deriving a complete matching profile).

james n posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
 
There was a thread early this year when someone directly compared Dave into a 300 or 500 (I can't remember for certain which), against through a 552 (IIRC), and in their case preferred the sound through the 552.

This is something that has always intrigued me really about audio from an engineers perspective. The simplest signal path should be the best (let's assume impedance matching etc is taken care of) and from a signal integrity perspective this should result in the cleanest, most transparent playback - end of story.

From a musical enjoyment perspective, this is not usually the case and we tend to like more character in the playback and why some like vinyl, valve amps and characterful speakers. Whilst i don't tend to like excessively coloured systems, i don't enjoy the sterile character of a monitoring system either so i'm in the camp of musical enjoyment over absolute 'accuracy'. 

James, I recall HH running a thread last week, Musicians in the Living Room, I think!

Nice thread, my take on that thread, that the ultimate goal was to duplicate the live experience.

If one aspires to duplicate the Live Experience, would that fall under the category of Transparency, or Character?

Allante93!

@ Innocent & Hugh:

Now Gentleman, if we eliminated the Pre Amp, how would one switch between their LP 12, CD 555, and NDS!

But if we by-pass the Pre-Amp, how would that impact SQ?

Posted by HM:

 

"yes, the hugo has its own internal preamp\volume\voltage control. it cannot be bypassed. connecting it to a second preamp will degrade transparancy, even if it was the best preamp ever made."

Allante93!

 

Likes (2)
fathings catKacper
×
×
×
×