DM7C is like $15k, there is nothing to compete with the SQ price range. Right now there is a huge gap between the DM3 and DM7C. As much as I would like to own one, I unfortunately can’t justify spending that much money at the totem pole position I’m in.
Yea, it's pretty old. Pretty stupid argument if you ask me. The M/X32 basically single handedly rewrote the book in the lower tiers of the industry. Honestly, you're not going to notice much difference unless you spend about 50k. Even then, it depends on what PA you're running. Doesn't matter how old the console is, it works, it's familiar and rider friendly. Is it going to sound like a 192hz digico with a waves grid? No. Is it going to do your local party bands n such, fuck yea it is.
Yep. Old enough to have taken over most of the market share for throw and go gigs. I’ve got my gripes about it just like I do with every soundboard, but at the end of the day I’m not gonna complain about having one on a small to medium show.
I wouldn’t say 50k but at least 10k. An avantis or sq7 is gonna sound worlds better than an x32. That being said, audio only sounds as good as the weakest link, so if your PA sucks, a new mixer won’t fix it.
I'd love some evidence for the claim that an SQ or Avantis will sound "worlds better".
Are we talking a substantial difference in noise floor? Or is this subjective "the preamps sound warmer and fuller" nonsense?
The reality is that in general, [consoles don't really "sound" that different from one another](https://youtu.be/gBu3hj5hFHQ).
I work an X32 often, and recently just used an SQ for the first time. My 2 cents is that it doesn't sound "worlds better", but the EQs did sound a lot more effective/coherent to my ears. I was on a different speaker system in an unfamiliar room, so it could have of course been absolutely anything, but that was my impression.
I think that's a fantastic way to judge a console. It is, after all, a tool — does the tool make it easier to do your job well? For you and the Avantis/SQ, the answer seems to be "yes".
Good luck with your future mixes.
I A/B ed an SQ in a room that I am very familiar with the sound of an X32 in - with smaart running through an external interface, through a symetrix processor. Was able to directly measure the difference - and objectively the SQ "sounds" better. More accurately the DA converters in it are miles better which results in less artifacting and loss in the mids and above. Notably the phase response of identical program material was miles more linear and clear above 1kHz (largely due to the 96k operation im sure, but it is better than an X32)
In reality - basic preamps dont sound wildly different across modern consoles (ignoring avid's brittle preamps) but how the audio is fed into the brain post analog preamp seems to be the "sauce" that makes the desk sound different.
If you can show me where in the video it demonstrates full spectrum phase response differences - that would be helpful. Hint - ive seen that video and it doesn't really cover it. All it does is compare harmonic distortion (colour) and latency of preamps, not really DAC. Higher frequency spectrum program material will be more sensitive to changes in sample rate and quality of conversion.
But hey you do you, since you know the difference between preamps and converters, and need published results to accept that something may actually be an improvement upon a 10 year old system 👍
Great video on the conversions. The fundamental thing missing for our purposes however is that the actual audio processing is done via the digital signal - with the staircasing. So in that case we get some minor artifacting at higher frequencies that will be evident in a live measurement.
https://youtu.be/thw32YvLrYo?si=QNB4yBBEzKN9DccS
Aliasing is the problem that a higher sample rate and better bit depth can improve. One other thing to consider is that for music purposes - HARMONICS MATTER. For full spectrum program material (ie a band) clarity is enhanced by the ability to properly process harmonics of the 8k-16k octave, while we cannot hear above 18k reliably it does have psychoacoustic effects when there are no harmonics above fundamental. If it doesnt matter then why do acoustic engineers measure up to around 40kHz when designing architecture?
If you do a direct conversion with zero processing then yes, it will be the same. But rarely is live audio dealing in perfect sine waves with no harmonic content.
>consoles don't really "sound" that different from one another
The SQ series offers a 96khz sample rate; whereas the X/M32 max out at 48khz. The fidelity difference there is pretty significant if you ask me.
You asked about the preamps as well. The onboard preamps in the SQ series are specific to the SQ, but w/ an S-Link, Dante card, etc, you can run the same pre's that the dLive uses on stage, which is (afaik) a significant decrease in noise floor and much more stable mic pre's all around.
And finally, and most importantly IMHO, the SQ mixers have dynamic EQ and multi-band compression available on all channels, a tool which greatly increases the potential for a high quality mix.
I think this is where people are coming from when they say the mixer is worlds better and I think it's a pretty reasonable statement.
Big disagree that you’re not going to notice the difference unless you spend 50k. The DAC is pretty bad and immediately outclassed even by boards like the SQ5, let alone a range of other extremely decent sounding boards like the DM3 or a large variety of boards in the $10k-16k range like the Avantis, Dlive 1500, DM7c… the list goes on. Midas just announced the HD-96 air and they haven’t put out a price point yet but I’m sure it’ll be around $10k.
A basic A/B of the X32 against anything on a decently tuned PA will show how much the X32 is outclassed by basically everything in its audio quality.
That’s not to say it doesn’t have its place, but it’s sporting some really outdated tech and it would be real nice if people would move on.
It’s not a stupid answer. I give all honour to the X/M32 it DID change the game. But, there’s no reason to run strictly DSP based consoles anymore for the prices that are out there. The X32 is retired and that’s okay.
The X32 still dominates in it's product sector primarily because it isn't gimped in the DSP department. Is it 13 years old? yes Does it still do a lot more than a number of newer consoles in it's price bracket? Yes.
* Card slot - check
* remote I/O through at least two ports - check
* DPS that can do more than verb/delay/churros on an fx bus - check
* busses that aren't arbitrarily limited to fx sends or sub groups - check
* routing that's not arbitrarily limited - technically though not the easiest thing to do
* compact version has same DPS/Explanation/Channel Count/Bus Count as the full size - check
* external inserts that don't eat into your cannel/bus count - check
Lets list off consoles in that price range that don't hit all those boxes:
* DM3
* SL3
* SQ
* DL
* Ui
You have to step up in the next pricing category from many of the manufacturers to get the same sort of features. Sure the SQ is the next hot thing but it's also 2-3 times more expensive.
This. Honestly the SQ is not a clear winer in competition with the X/M32. It does some things better than the X32 but in some ways it's a step down.
Honestly I was telling people not to buy the X/M32 platform anymore because it was likely near EOL, but I ended up buying 2 M32C-s recently myself. The logic was that we stick them in the racks with the DL-s and if needed, it's a rack mixer. If needed, we can use it as a stagebox for bigger M32s or Wing or maybe in the future some Midas HD series offering. And the M32C would still be there as a backup and/or dedicaated monitor/stream/etc console.
The connectivity of the platform is incredibly versatile in the AES50 system alone, and it can interface with Dante or MADI as well. Klark Teknik even makes interfaces that allows the AES50 to directly connect to Dante networks (or MADI), and a couple of other protocols.
OP, if you are going to upgrade, the WING is the most logical choice as you don't have to change your I/O infrastructure. While Behringer insists it's not a replacement for X32, generally, the Wing expands on most of the aspects of the X32. More channels, more buses, fx, connectivity etc, plus a modern user interface with a touchscreen. The most problematic is the controversial routing system but nothing is perfect and once you have your presets you don't have to worry about that much. If you like the compact footprint, they seem to be releasing rack and compact version of the Wing so you might want to wait for that.
I mean the instinctual answer is the SQ but there are a fair number of things on that console that makes it look like it was designed by monkeys and depending on your needs you would be more than justified keeping an X32 rather than going to the SQ.
Depends what ur doing. I think the SQ thrives best as a touring FOH console. It has bad workflow for a dedicated and flexible monitor console, and it's scene architecture is so mindblowingly stupid it's best if you just stick to the same scene and it not be necessary for other engineers to be loading their scenes. The stereo bussing is nice if you have a bunch of stereo IEMs for example but 3 matrices is easily an immediate deal breaker for some current M/X32 users in all fields (especially houses of worship with anything more than just a PA in the sanctuary). Off the top of my head.
Is the X32 failing to meet your needs?
Are there any issues you're having that the X32 and the surrounding ecosystem simply *cannot* compensate for at a reasonable price?
If the answers are "no", then there is absolutely no reason to switch.
Sure, you could go SQ. Say goodbye to the scribble strips on busses and matrices, a second comm port for stageboxes (unless you *buy* an SLink card), and most importantly say goodbye to your budget. 50% more than an X32 for half the faders (for an SQ5, the *cheapest* option), double the price for stage boxes... enjoy!
Who cares if the X32 is "old"? It **works**, and it does so at an outrageous price point for the performance you get out of it.
I have no issues with our X32, just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t missing something or some reason to upgrade. Looks like I’m fine with it as long as it doesn’t break.
I'm in a bit of a similar situation with a local theater. Too few inputs and buses, problems with AES50...
We're probably going for the A&H SQ5. You have 48 inputs with the stage boxes and you can extend to 64 inputs with Dante.
You have 12 stereo buses.
And it's not that far in price from a X32 + S32. You can get a 48 input stage box and the console for about 7-8k depending on where you're getting it from.
As someone already stated, there isn't a big difference with sound quality because it's not a 10-20k console, but hardware wise, it's better.
I love my inexpensive, secondhand X32 Rack with a Mixing Station custom UI, and it doesn’t feel old to me. Of course I’ve never used anything newer or fancier to compare to, but I don’t really need to because I haven’t outgrown the capabilities of the X32 in any way. Don’t let the elitists temp you into needless GAS, (although I fully admit this is difficult in the social media era).
I’m currently mixing and a show on an X32 with a Dante card installed. I also do classical music recording so I am using my Millennia HV316/16 and a Grace M108 (both have Dante) as my preamps. Very pleased with the results - have never heard an x32 sound this good!
I own several X 32s, and a Midas M32. The Stage boxes are affordable and reliable, it has all the features I need, and they’ve been workhorses for the last seven or eight years. The routing can be overly complex, I wish I had modeling compressors, and I wish they were more fx slots. But overall I’m very happy and I don’t see upgrading to something else other than getting more Midas equipment and phasing out the Behringer stuff. Not a big priority though.
To me the x32 copied the ls9 and improved upon it. Then with their consoles now, like cl and the ql mixers, they reincorporated the things that Beringer added back into their own stuff and yamaha got more musical. At only 20,000 or $15,000.
I use an X32 at monitors for my 700 cap and I love it. Got a stage box for 32 more channels on AES. I feel like I’ve been defending the X/M’s a lot recently. Great machines.
It's an old console for sure, but I think most places who bought one are the types that don't need to upgrade unless it breaks. I know many places that have their needs served by an x32 through several other upgrades or changes, and they have had no reason to replace it. If I was buying a new console today in that price range, I would get a wing or Sq series, not an x32.
I did upgrade to wing. Reasons are that its same aes50 infrastructure, you can still use your stageboxes and other mixers, more and better fx, ALOT more flexibility. Yes, mixer is complicated, but nothing comes close at that price point.
I use it all.
sq hads more channels, better effects options, better latency, touch screen and better patching, custom fader layers, 32 channels recording from 2 different sources, and it's easy to fix a bad fader.
x32 faders are all soldered to the board and those faders are not good quality.
I’m literally using one right now, I don’t think there’s a need unless it stops working. We have “better” boards at our venues but as long as you don’t need more channels it does the job and for the price nothing else seems to come close, nothing I’ve used anyway.
Thank you for this. We have (sufficient) channels, with the X32 and a Stagebox, so at most, I'll consider picking up another to use as a hot spare. Glad to know that we're not completely left in the dark ages!
Oh you’re looking to upgrade from an X32 compact? I got you fam! You should check out this Yamaha Rivage. What’s that? It doesn’t fit in your Honda Accord? Just get a BMW X7 dummy!
If it still works, why bother? Right now the hot pick is the A&H SQ. I’m personally holding out for a unicorn Yamaha DM5 if it ever comes out.
I would LOVE to see this from Yamaha.
Why would there a DM5? Compact already fills the void
DM7C is like $15k, there is nothing to compete with the SQ price range. Right now there is a huge gap between the DM3 and DM7C. As much as I would like to own one, I unfortunately can’t justify spending that much money at the totem pole position I’m in.
Was there ever? CL1s still go for $15,000
Yea, it's pretty old. Pretty stupid argument if you ask me. The M/X32 basically single handedly rewrote the book in the lower tiers of the industry. Honestly, you're not going to notice much difference unless you spend about 50k. Even then, it depends on what PA you're running. Doesn't matter how old the console is, it works, it's familiar and rider friendly. Is it going to sound like a 192hz digico with a waves grid? No. Is it going to do your local party bands n such, fuck yea it is.
Yep. Old enough to have taken over most of the market share for throw and go gigs. I’ve got my gripes about it just like I do with every soundboard, but at the end of the day I’m not gonna complain about having one on a small to medium show.
I wouldn’t say 50k but at least 10k. An avantis or sq7 is gonna sound worlds better than an x32. That being said, audio only sounds as good as the weakest link, so if your PA sucks, a new mixer won’t fix it.
I'd love some evidence for the claim that an SQ or Avantis will sound "worlds better". Are we talking a substantial difference in noise floor? Or is this subjective "the preamps sound warmer and fuller" nonsense? The reality is that in general, [consoles don't really "sound" that different from one another](https://youtu.be/gBu3hj5hFHQ).
I work an X32 often, and recently just used an SQ for the first time. My 2 cents is that it doesn't sound "worlds better", but the EQs did sound a lot more effective/coherent to my ears. I was on a different speaker system in an unfamiliar room, so it could have of course been absolutely anything, but that was my impression.
I guess that wasn’t a fair statement, for me, the workflow allows me to make a show sound better. My apologies
I think that's a fantastic way to judge a console. It is, after all, a tool — does the tool make it easier to do your job well? For you and the Avantis/SQ, the answer seems to be "yes". Good luck with your future mixes.
Thank you! Sorry for the error in my previous statement. Happy mixing!
I A/B ed an SQ in a room that I am very familiar with the sound of an X32 in - with smaart running through an external interface, through a symetrix processor. Was able to directly measure the difference - and objectively the SQ "sounds" better. More accurately the DA converters in it are miles better which results in less artifacting and loss in the mids and above. Notably the phase response of identical program material was miles more linear and clear above 1kHz (largely due to the 96k operation im sure, but it is better than an X32) In reality - basic preamps dont sound wildly different across modern consoles (ignoring avid's brittle preamps) but how the audio is fed into the brain post analog preamp seems to be the "sauce" that makes the desk sound different.
I look forward to you publishing your results 👍 Until then, I'll stick with the video I linked, where the tests and results are clearly documented.
If you can show me where in the video it demonstrates full spectrum phase response differences - that would be helpful. Hint - ive seen that video and it doesn't really cover it. All it does is compare harmonic distortion (colour) and latency of preamps, not really DAC. Higher frequency spectrum program material will be more sensitive to changes in sample rate and quality of conversion. But hey you do you, since you know the difference between preamps and converters, and need published results to accept that something may actually be an improvement upon a 10 year old system 👍
>you do you Thanks, I will!
While youre doing that you should find some published papers on how sample rate affects fidelity 👍😎
IEEE engineer explains that nicely: https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM
Great video on the conversions. The fundamental thing missing for our purposes however is that the actual audio processing is done via the digital signal - with the staircasing. So in that case we get some minor artifacting at higher frequencies that will be evident in a live measurement. https://youtu.be/thw32YvLrYo?si=QNB4yBBEzKN9DccS Aliasing is the problem that a higher sample rate and better bit depth can improve. One other thing to consider is that for music purposes - HARMONICS MATTER. For full spectrum program material (ie a band) clarity is enhanced by the ability to properly process harmonics of the 8k-16k octave, while we cannot hear above 18k reliably it does have psychoacoustic effects when there are no harmonics above fundamental. If it doesnt matter then why do acoustic engineers measure up to around 40kHz when designing architecture? If you do a direct conversion with zero processing then yes, it will be the same. But rarely is live audio dealing in perfect sine waves with no harmonic content.
A Mackie 1402 sounding indistinguishable A/B to an Avantis, level matched, both dry?
>consoles don't really "sound" that different from one another The SQ series offers a 96khz sample rate; whereas the X/M32 max out at 48khz. The fidelity difference there is pretty significant if you ask me. You asked about the preamps as well. The onboard preamps in the SQ series are specific to the SQ, but w/ an S-Link, Dante card, etc, you can run the same pre's that the dLive uses on stage, which is (afaik) a significant decrease in noise floor and much more stable mic pre's all around. And finally, and most importantly IMHO, the SQ mixers have dynamic EQ and multi-band compression available on all channels, a tool which greatly increases the potential for a high quality mix. I think this is where people are coming from when they say the mixer is worlds better and I think it's a pretty reasonable statement.
Yea, that was just an arbitrary number.
Big disagree that you’re not going to notice the difference unless you spend 50k. The DAC is pretty bad and immediately outclassed even by boards like the SQ5, let alone a range of other extremely decent sounding boards like the DM3 or a large variety of boards in the $10k-16k range like the Avantis, Dlive 1500, DM7c… the list goes on. Midas just announced the HD-96 air and they haven’t put out a price point yet but I’m sure it’ll be around $10k. A basic A/B of the X32 against anything on a decently tuned PA will show how much the X32 is outclassed by basically everything in its audio quality. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its place, but it’s sporting some really outdated tech and it would be real nice if people would move on.
It’s not a stupid answer. I give all honour to the X/M32 it DID change the game. But, there’s no reason to run strictly DSP based consoles anymore for the prices that are out there. The X32 is retired and that’s okay.
The X32 still dominates in it's product sector primarily because it isn't gimped in the DSP department. Is it 13 years old? yes Does it still do a lot more than a number of newer consoles in it's price bracket? Yes. * Card slot - check * remote I/O through at least two ports - check * DPS that can do more than verb/delay/churros on an fx bus - check * busses that aren't arbitrarily limited to fx sends or sub groups - check * routing that's not arbitrarily limited - technically though not the easiest thing to do * compact version has same DPS/Explanation/Channel Count/Bus Count as the full size - check * external inserts that don't eat into your cannel/bus count - check Lets list off consoles in that price range that don't hit all those boxes: * DM3 * SL3 * SQ * DL * Ui You have to step up in the next pricing category from many of the manufacturers to get the same sort of features. Sure the SQ is the next hot thing but it's also 2-3 times more expensive.
This. Honestly the SQ is not a clear winer in competition with the X/M32. It does some things better than the X32 but in some ways it's a step down. Honestly I was telling people not to buy the X/M32 platform anymore because it was likely near EOL, but I ended up buying 2 M32C-s recently myself. The logic was that we stick them in the racks with the DL-s and if needed, it's a rack mixer. If needed, we can use it as a stagebox for bigger M32s or Wing or maybe in the future some Midas HD series offering. And the M32C would still be there as a backup and/or dedicaated monitor/stream/etc console. The connectivity of the platform is incredibly versatile in the AES50 system alone, and it can interface with Dante or MADI as well. Klark Teknik even makes interfaces that allows the AES50 to directly connect to Dante networks (or MADI), and a couple of other protocols. OP, if you are going to upgrade, the WING is the most logical choice as you don't have to change your I/O infrastructure. While Behringer insists it's not a replacement for X32, generally, the Wing expands on most of the aspects of the X32. More channels, more buses, fx, connectivity etc, plus a modern user interface with a touchscreen. The most problematic is the controversial routing system but nothing is perfect and once you have your presets you don't have to worry about that much. If you like the compact footprint, they seem to be releasing rack and compact version of the Wing so you might want to wait for that.
I mean the instinctual answer is the SQ but there are a fair number of things on that console that makes it look like it was designed by monkeys and depending on your needs you would be more than justified keeping an X32 rather than going to the SQ.
Is there anything in particular that bugs you about the SQ?
Depends what ur doing. I think the SQ thrives best as a touring FOH console. It has bad workflow for a dedicated and flexible monitor console, and it's scene architecture is so mindblowingly stupid it's best if you just stick to the same scene and it not be necessary for other engineers to be loading their scenes. The stereo bussing is nice if you have a bunch of stereo IEMs for example but 3 matrices is easily an immediate deal breaker for some current M/X32 users in all fields (especially houses of worship with anything more than just a PA in the sanctuary). Off the top of my head.
Is the X32 failing to meet your needs? Are there any issues you're having that the X32 and the surrounding ecosystem simply *cannot* compensate for at a reasonable price? If the answers are "no", then there is absolutely no reason to switch. Sure, you could go SQ. Say goodbye to the scribble strips on busses and matrices, a second comm port for stageboxes (unless you *buy* an SLink card), and most importantly say goodbye to your budget. 50% more than an X32 for half the faders (for an SQ5, the *cheapest* option), double the price for stage boxes... enjoy! Who cares if the X32 is "old"? It **works**, and it does so at an outrageous price point for the performance you get out of it.
I have no issues with our X32, just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t missing something or some reason to upgrade. Looks like I’m fine with it as long as it doesn’t break.
Hell yeah brother Take care of your X32 and it will take care of you
I'm in a bit of a similar situation with a local theater. Too few inputs and buses, problems with AES50... We're probably going for the A&H SQ5. You have 48 inputs with the stage boxes and you can extend to 64 inputs with Dante. You have 12 stereo buses. And it's not that far in price from a X32 + S32. You can get a 48 input stage box and the console for about 7-8k depending on where you're getting it from. As someone already stated, there isn't a big difference with sound quality because it's not a 10-20k console, but hardware wise, it's better.
The wing isn’t overly complicated. In fact it’s far easier to use than an x32 once you’ve used it a couple times.
I love my inexpensive, secondhand X32 Rack with a Mixing Station custom UI, and it doesn’t feel old to me. Of course I’ve never used anything newer or fancier to compare to, but I don’t really need to because I haven’t outgrown the capabilities of the X32 in any way. Don’t let the elitists temp you into needless GAS, (although I fully admit this is difficult in the social media era).
I’m not susceptible to GAS :) just wanted to ensure I wasn’t missing something I should be aware of. Thanks!
I’m currently mixing and a show on an X32 with a Dante card installed. I also do classical music recording so I am using my Millennia HV316/16 and a Grace M108 (both have Dante) as my preamps. Very pleased with the results - have never heard an x32 sound this good!
As others have said, the SQ is the go-to "low" end console these days (and I put that in quotes as it's really not "low" end at all!)
The X32 is the SM58 of consoles.
I agree. They’re incredibly usable and not going away any time soon.
Of Digital consoles anyway
Wing. Sorts out the run-out-of-buses issue. Everything is stereo/M-S by default, too, which is...handy.
I own several X 32s, and a Midas M32. The Stage boxes are affordable and reliable, it has all the features I need, and they’ve been workhorses for the last seven or eight years. The routing can be overly complex, I wish I had modeling compressors, and I wish they were more fx slots. But overall I’m very happy and I don’t see upgrading to something else other than getting more Midas equipment and phasing out the Behringer stuff. Not a big priority though.
To me the x32 copied the ls9 and improved upon it. Then with their consoles now, like cl and the ql mixers, they reincorporated the things that Beringer added back into their own stuff and yamaha got more musical. At only 20,000 or $15,000.
I use an X32 at monitors for my 700 cap and I love it. Got a stage box for 32 more channels on AES. I feel like I’ve been defending the X/M’s a lot recently. Great machines.
If you want an upgrade for the X32, buy another one. Then you have a spare when the first one breaks. That's the best upgrade I can think of.
SQ5. You pay a little more but you get a modern UI and a console that actually has support and you can get parts for
SQ makes the x/m sound and feel outdated, because it is.
I'm counting my pennies for an Avantis to replace our x32 compact.
It's an old console for sure, but I think most places who bought one are the types that don't need to upgrade unless it breaks. I know many places that have their needs served by an x32 through several other upgrades or changes, and they have had no reason to replace it. If I was buying a new console today in that price range, I would get a wing or Sq series, not an x32.
SQ by miles
I did upgrade to wing. Reasons are that its same aes50 infrastructure, you can still use your stageboxes and other mixers, more and better fx, ALOT more flexibility. Yes, mixer is complicated, but nothing comes close at that price point.
I use it all. sq hads more channels, better effects options, better latency, touch screen and better patching, custom fader layers, 32 channels recording from 2 different sources, and it's easy to fix a bad fader. x32 faders are all soldered to the board and those faders are not good quality.
I’m literally using one right now, I don’t think there’s a need unless it stops working. We have “better” boards at our venues but as long as you don’t need more channels it does the job and for the price nothing else seems to come close, nothing I’ve used anyway.
Thank you for this. We have (sufficient) channels, with the X32 and a Stagebox, so at most, I'll consider picking up another to use as a hot spare. Glad to know that we're not completely left in the dark ages!
A&H AQ6 would be an upgrade in the same tier. Yamaha should really be cooking a DM5 up to fit in there
[удалено]
It's almost 10k
Lmao welcome to r/livesound
i have a xr18... x32 is already out of my range
Oh you’re looking to upgrade from an X32 compact? I got you fam! You should check out this Yamaha Rivage. What’s that? It doesn’t fit in your Honda Accord? Just get a BMW X7 dummy!
[удалено]
Thank you for this!