Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > Recording Technologies and Techniques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-26-2014, 04:14 PM   #1
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default Question for old Tape Machine Pros - Compression

I have a question about tape compression, specifically, how many db of compression could you get out of tape? I'm not talking about saturation, or the addition of harmonics, although I'm sure they are tied to one another.

I'm just wondering if you can simulate tape compression with a compressor plugin.

I'm playing with adding a compressor right after a tape saturation plugin. Using about a 1.1:1 ratio (or less) with a DEEP threshold, and getting a maximum of about 2-3db compression on peaks. Not sure of attack and release, but I've been using 20ms attack, and release around 100ms.

The sound I get is interesting on drums and percussion, bass and anything with a lot of dynamics. But I wonder if this in any way acts like the subtle compression you get with tape.

I'd sure enjoy your input on this topic.

Saddle
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1

Last edited by saddle; 08-26-2014 at 09:01 PM.
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2014, 09:17 PM   #2
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

I'm using ReaComp for this. Works well. Usually about -45db thresh hold. That varies with material.

5ms RMS size, and AA set to 4x. I'll post a screen snippit.
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 12:46 AM   #3
Garrick
Human being with feelings
 
Garrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wellington
Posts: 4,622
Default

I good results with pretty much the same settings except I have a fast attack and I do the threshold to taste, around -35db with ratio at 1:1.04 or 05.

Then I might turn the mix knob to about 70-80%
Garrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 06:28 AM   #4
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrick View Post
I good results with pretty much the same settings except I have a fast attack and I do the threshold to taste, around -35db with ratio at 1:1.04 or 05.

Then I might turn the mix knob to about 70-80%
How fast 1-3ms?

Do you notice any real change by moving the Highpass/Lowpass controls? They don't seem to have much of an effect unless I get extreme with them...

Very subtle to say the least!

Thanks
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 06:29 AM   #5
Magicbuss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddle View Post
I have a question about tape compression, specifically, how many db of compression could you get out of tape? I'm not talking about saturation, or the addition of harmonics, although I'm sure they are tied to one another.

I'm just wondering if you can simulate tape compression with a compressor plugin.

I'm playing with adding a compressor right after a tape saturation plugin. Using about a 1.1:1 ratio (or less) with a DEEP threshold, and getting a maximum of about 2-3db compression on peaks. Not sure of attack and release, but I've been using 20ms attack, and release around 100ms.

The sound I get is interesting on drums and percussion, bass and anything with a lot of dynamics. But I wonder if this in any way acts like the subtle compression you get with tape.

I'd sure enjoy your input on this topic.

Saddle
I'm not sure how many db of compression tape gave. Its probably completely variable depending on the tape formulation and how hard you hit it.

If i was trying to simulate that with non-tape plugins then you'd need more than just a compressor. I would also add a soft clipper or some kind of saturation plug because saturated tape tends to compress AND distort the transients.

Or... you could spend $26 and get toneboosters reelbus or $30 for SKnotes roundtone.
Magicbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 06:52 AM   #6
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I'm not sure how many db of compression tape gave. Its probably completely variable depending on the tape formulation and how hard you hit it.

If i was trying to simulate that with non-tape plugins then you'd need more than just a compressor. I would also add a soft clipper or some kind of saturation plug because saturated tape tends to compress AND distort the transients.

Or... you could spend $26 and get toneboosters reelbus or $30 for SKnotes roundtone.
I actually have roundtone, reelbus, stripbus, and others. More of a learning process here, and figuring out more of the basics rather than slapping a Tape plugin on. Been trying the loser/saturation plug in Reaper along with ReaComp and getting a nice basic sound.

As far as compression of tape, still wondering about that, but it seems that using a compressor as above, 1.5 to 3db(max) works. Any more and it's an obvious effect rather than a subtle change.

Thanks
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 06:58 AM   #7
Garrick
Human being with feelings
 
Garrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wellington
Posts: 4,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddle View Post
How fast 1-3ms?

Do you notice any real change by moving the Highpass/Lowpass controls? They don't seem to have much of an effect unless I get extreme with them...

Very subtle to say the least!

Thanks
I have about that, 1 to 5ms

No I don't think the high pass/low pass would have that much of an effect with the threshold being so low.

Coupled with a nebula tape program. Is good times.
Garrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 07:01 AM   #8
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrick View Post
I have about that, 1 to 5ms

No I don't think the high pass/low pass would have that much of an effect with the threshold being so low.

Coupled with a nebula tape program. Is good times.
That's what I'm working on. A nebula chain for rendering tracks. Love it, but I can't just buy every new program. Rather figure out how to use more of what I already have.

Thanks again...
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 07:05 AM   #9
whiteaxxxe
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
Default

you cant say what rate compression you get out of tape.

depends on many factors: the tape, the frequency (tape "compression" is not really compression, it compresses, yes, but in very non-linear fashion), the input- and output-circuit of the tape-machine (even too they are non-linear acting depending on frequency, slew-rate, level), the slew-rate of the incoming signal (not to be confused with transients).

so there are way too many factors that determine the behaviour of a "tape-sound". you cant break it down to one number of compression-ratio.

Bob Katz said, that a well driven tape (whatever that means) gives you the average of 6db gain reduction, but the attack and release is with tape not that attack and release we know from compressors.

btw: why do people believe in "tape-compression" or other "tape-mojo"? if want it lo-fi, make it lo-fi. there is no need of "tape-emulation". we should be glad to got rid of all the analog bullshit. where does the longing for old-sounding gear coming from? it sounded awful ... that why digital was invented. because digital is way superior to everything analog. we are in 2014, noone, except for the marketing idiots who want us to think that in former times things were better, wants to sound like 70ish tape-mess.

thats my 2 cent ... most of the times old rubbish is just old rubbish, nothing more.
whiteaxxxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 07:21 AM   #10
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
you cant say what rate compression you get out of tape.

depends on many factors: the tape, the frequency (tape "compression" is not really compression, it compresses, yes, but in very non-linear fashion), the input- and output-circuit of the tape-machine (even too they are non-linear acting depending on frequency, slew-rate, level), the slew-rate of the incoming signal (not to be confused with transients).

so there are way too many factors that determine the behaviour of a "tape-sound". you cant break it down to one number of compression-ratio.

Bob Katz said, that a well driven tape (whatever that means) gives you the average of 6db gain reduction, but the attack and release is with tape not that attack and release we know from compressors.

btw: why do people believe in "tape-compression" or other "tape-mojo"? if want it lo-fi, make it lo-fi. there is no need of "tape-emulation". we should be glad to got rid of all the analog bullshit. where does the longing for old-sounding gear coming from? it sounded awful ... that why digital was invented. because digital is way superior to everything analog. we are in 2014, noone, except for the marketing idiots who want us to think that in former times things were better, wants to sound like 70ish tape-mess.

thats my 2 cent ... most of the times old rubbish is just old rubbish, nothing more.
For me it's just fun! I'm learning techniques to add to my mixing bag of tools...

When I was younger a Guy told me, "You become the sum total of everything you learn." So, I'm still learning. And of course, straight digital ITB as well. It's that flexibility I enjoy. Not being stuck with Tape, but having, and knowing how to use the option. (or sound)

Thanks, Great point.
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 07:26 AM   #11
Magicbuss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
you cant say what rate compression you get out of tape.

depends on many factors: the tape, the frequency (tape "compression" is not really compression, it compresses, yes, but in very non-linear fashion), the input- and output-circuit of the tape-machine (even too they are non-linear acting depending on frequency, slew-rate, level), the slew-rate of the incoming signal (not to be confused with transients).

so there are way too many factors that determine the behaviour of a "tape-sound". you cant break it down to one number of compression-ratio.

Bob Katz said, that a well driven tape (whatever that means) gives you the average of 6db gain reduction, but the attack and release is with tape not that attack and release we know from compressors.

btw: why do people believe in "tape-compression" or other "tape-mojo"? if want it lo-fi, make it lo-fi. there is no need of "tape-emulation". we should be glad to got rid of all the analog bullshit. where does the longing for old-sounding gear coming from? it sounded awful ... that why digital was invented. because digital is way superior to everything analog. we are in 2014, noone, except for the marketing idiots who want us to think that in former times things were better, wants to sound like 70ish tape-mess.

thats my 2 cent ... most of the times old rubbish is just old rubbish, nothing more.
I couldnt disagree more. Most of the recordings we grew up listening to were recorded in the analog domain to tape and mixed that way as well. Are ALL of those recordings "old rubbish"??? Of course not, they run the gamut from (intentionally) grungey/lo-fi to extremely hi fidelity recordings. "ALL digital" recording/mixing is a fairly new phenomenon.

Its not like all of sudden digital allowed for hi fidelity recording where it didnt exist before.

Now I'm not a luddite and I'm not taking an analog > digital stance. I love digital recording and mix soley ITB like probably most of the people on this forum. But to ignore the musical aspects of analog recording that are difficult to reproduce in the digital domain is a mistake. Recording to tape has a quantifiable effect on transients that has proven to be pleasing in loud, drum/transient heavy music (i.e. rock, pop ,hip hop country, etc) and hard to reproduce ITB.

Don't take my word for it. Check out these 2 posts by professional mix engineer Kendal Osborne on Gearslutz. He likes to actually test things and get, you know, like actual results you can hear and in this case see.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/9006107-post221.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/9323566-post247.html
Magicbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 07:28 AM   #12
drtedtan
Human being with feelings
 
drtedtan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddle View Post
As far as compression of tape, still wondering about that, but it seems that using a compressor as above, 1.5 to 3db(max) works.
Compressors bring down the volume of those parts of the song that exceed the threshold setting and do this based on the various settings available (ratio, attack, release, etc.).

What tape does is different. It stores a magnetic signal along a strip of the tape. And since there is only so many iron particles on that section of tape, it can only store a signal within a specific range. Once the signal was too hot for the tape, simply couldn't hold that part of the signal, so it was lost. There was no attack time, this was immediate. So what we refer to as tape compression is actually the reduced dynamic range achieved through mild saturation/clipping rather than proper compression. And the hotter the signal you sent to the tape, the more distorted it got. In fact, it's possible to hit the tape hard enough that it sounds like running your mix through a fuzz pedal (a really muddy fuzz pedal), it just sounds bad so most people don't do it.

So if I were trying to simulate tape compression, I would look at the various tape saturation or soft clipping type of effects first and foremost and adjust to taste (the more saturation you dial in, the more reduced your dynamic range becomes, even though it comes from throwing away the peaks rather than lowering their volume like true compression would).
drtedtan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 08:00 AM   #13
DVDdoug
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,779
Default

Quote:
I'm not sure how many db of compression tape gave. Its probably completely variable depending on the tape formulation and how hard you hit it.
Right!

It's like a limiter that starts to kick-in somewhere around 0dB and then depending a bunch of factors it may be fully saturated (hard limited) somewhere around +3dB to maybe over +6dB. i.e. Higher quality tape on a good pro machine at 15 IPS is going to have more headroom and will probably go well above +6dB. A cassette recorder might fully saturate at +2dB or +3dB.

Then, there's NAB equalization. The highs are boosted (and lows are cut) during recording. This means high frequencies will saturate at lower levels than low frequencies. The reverse EQ is applied during playback. The playback EQ tends to "soften" the distortion caused by saturation/limiting. I believe it's the tape equalization that makes tape saturation sound different (and sometimes preferable) compared to normal compression.


Of course in the digital world, our ADCs, DACs, and "normal" integer WAV files can't go over 0dB, so you have to scale-down the levels and your tape saturation effects might need to start kicking-in at around -3 to -6dB or so.
DVDdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 08:21 AM   #14
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
I'm not sure how many db of compression tape gave
It doesn't give any until you saturate "something". We may use the term saturated when more and more of the content is hitting the DR ceiling but if a transient get's rounded, that is a result of going past the tape's DR boundary. IOW, if you recorded 100% within that tape's specs, there would be basically zero compression. You don't automatically get compression at any particular ratio just because it is tape but by exceeding the tape's specs meaning there is nothing such as a "default amount of tape compression" just an overall idea to emulate it with assumptions.

Remember, tape machines, tape and gear had published specs, people enjoyed the sound they heard when exceeding those specs as in the failure of said gear sounded nice to ears. That being said, tape, due to certain shortcomings, made things "sound" better than they actually were, they never captured something digital doesn't. Also don't forget there was nearly as much if not more involved in pushing the electronics during playback as there was hitting the tape hard when recording.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-27-2014 at 08:26 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 08:35 AM   #15
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

And although I'm still pretty young, there are some albums from the past that if you have never heard, on a decent vinyl system, they are truly inspiring. These tend to help give me a balance point between old and what we have now.

So many people think of 'Old' as 'Lo-Fi'. But give these albums a listen if you want to hear what the big boys were doing. Gives one a whole new respect for the technology, and expertise of the musicians, arrangers and engineers. I suppose they are available on CD as well, which should till demonstrate what they captured.

Chuck E's In Love - Rickie Lee Jones 1979
Blood Sweat and Tears - Self Titled Album - 1968
Frank Sinatra - Count Basie - Arranged by Quincy Jones 'It might as well be Swing' 1964
Lincoln Mayorga Direct to Disk series. I - III any of them. 70's Sheffield Labs

Lot's of others.

You may not like the style of music, but it's easy to appreciate, especially looking back, what they did and were able to capture in the day.

Not Lo-Fi, noisy, or junk. Some of the best...

As I mentioned earlier, I love to learn, and to be more rounded in my ability and appreciation of the art of recording and mixing.
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 08:37 AM   #16
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVDdoug View Post
Right!

It's like a limiter that starts to kick-in somewhere around 0dB and then depending a bunch of factors it may be fully saturated (hard limited) somewhere around +3dB to maybe over +6dB. i.e. Higher quality tape on a good pro machine at 15 IPS is going to have more headroom and will probably go well above +6dB. A cassette recorder might fully saturate at +2dB or +3dB.

Then, there's NAB equalization. The highs are boosted (and lows are cut) during recording. This means high frequencies will saturate at lower levels than low frequencies. The reverse EQ is applied during playback. The playback EQ tends to "soften" the distortion caused by saturation/limiting. I believe it's the tape equalization that makes tape saturation sound different (and sometimes preferable) compared to normal compression.


Of course in the digital world, our ADCs, DACs, and "normal" integer WAV files can't go over 0dB, so you have to scale-down the levels and your tape saturation effects might need to start kicking-in at around -3 to -6dB or so.
Thank you! Good idea for me to try. Might see what my T-Racks Soft clipper might add...
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 08:39 AM   #17
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
It doesn't give any until you saturate "something". We may use the term saturated when more and more of the content is hitting the DR ceiling but if a transient get's rounded, that is a result of going past the tape's DR boundary. IOW, if you recorded 100% within that tape's specs, there would be basically zero compression. You don't automatically get compression at any particular ratio just because it is tape but by exceeding the tape's specs meaning there is nothing such as a "default amount of tape compression" just an overall idea to emulate it with assumptions.

Remember, tape machines, tape and gear had published specs, people enjoyed the sound they heard when exceeding those specs as in the failure of said gear sounded nice to ears. That being said, tape, due to certain shortcomings, made things "sound" better than they actually were, they never captured something digital doesn't. Also don't forget there was nearly as much if not more involved in pushing the electronics during playback as there was hitting the tape hard when recording.
Thanks for the info. This is information that I've been looking for. I didn't really think tape compressed as a whole, but it helps to realize that it is really only at the upper limit when saturation happens, and then distortion from pushing the electronics.

Got to open Reaper and try a few things...
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 08:58 AM   #18
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
btw: why do people believe in "tape-compression" or other "tape-mojo"? if want it lo-fi, make it lo-fi. there is no need of "tape-emulation". we should be glad to got rid of all the analog bullshit. where does the longing for old-sounding gear coming from? it sounded awful ... that why digital was invented. because digital is way superior to everything analog. we are in 2014, noone, except for the marketing idiots who want us to think that in former times things were better, wants to sound like 70ish tape-mess.

thats my 2 cent ... most of the times old rubbish is just old rubbish, nothing more.
Yea, all of that old gear is rubbish. Tape machines, mixers, tube amps, mics...all of it. Seriously though, I use digital because it's cheap, portable, and flexible. It sure isn't because of the 'superior sound'.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 09:44 AM   #19
Magicbuss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Remember, tape machines, tape and gear had published specs, people enjoyed the sound they heard when exceeding those specs as in the failure of said gear sounded nice to ears. That being said, tape, due to certain shortcomings, made things "sound" better than they actually were, they never captured something digital doesn't. Also don't forget there was nearly as much if not more involved in pushing the electronics during playback as there was hitting the tape hard when recording.
Yup and THAT's why all these tape and analog saturation plugs/ modes exist in the digital realm. Its also why you will see racks of analog gear in pro tracking and mixing sessions.

Strip away all the stuff we hated about analog and tape (noise floor, cross talk, print though, generation loss) and your left with the stuff that was INDISPENSIBLE.

In pop/rock production that meant abusing the analog gear to get the sound right. I was TOUGHT to print things like drums hot otherwise they would sound thin and spikey (there was also S/N to contend with). IMO Thats what drums sound like when you record them with close mics and keep everything in the linear range... Whether the medium is tape or digital. The magic happens when you push the tape and/or push the mic pres or compressors - thats when the drums get fat. For rock almost nothing was ever truly clean but it was rarely audibly distorted except as an effect. Remove that distortion and everything starts sounding sterile at best or wimpy and spiky at worst.

Its not an analog versus digital issue per se. Its more about ultra clean (which is fairly easy to do in the digital realm assuming you dont abuse the analog front end) vs pleasantly/usefully/musically distorted... or in marketing terms "colored".
Magicbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:20 AM   #20
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Maybe in the 2020's we'll get to step up to 1970's audio quality in the digital domain.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:27 AM   #21
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Maybe in the 2020's we'll get to step up to 1970's audio quality in the digital domain.
Except it's not a question of fidelity/quality, it's a question of what your ears like, not accuracy of the reproduction. We shouldn't conflate fidelity with distortion where the definition of distortion is anything that wasn't in the original signal and what made 1970s recordings sound good was anything but the original signal. There are no magical odd/even harmonics that don't make the trip with digital that did with analog and that doesn't suddenly change when the waveform get's complex because it is the shape of the waveform that creates the harmonics. I love that sound but it isn't how it actually happened when the sound was made.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-27-2014 at 10:41 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:40 AM   #22
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Except it's not a question of fidelity/quality, it's a question of what your years like, not accuracy of the reproduction. We shouldn't conflate fidelity with distortion where the definition of distortion is anything that wasn't in the original signal and what made 1970s recordings sound good was anything but the original signal. There are no magical odd/even harmonics that don't make the trip with digital that did with analog and that doesn't suddenly change when the waveform get's complex. I love that sound but it isn't how it actually happened when the sound was made.
Fidelity != quality for me. Quality to me is whatever is good. Pleasant distortions/compressions/smearing is quality, subjectively.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:55 AM   #23
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Fidelity != quality for me. Quality to me is whatever is good. Pleasant distortions/compressions/smearing is quality, subjectively.
As long as it is a subjective quality I see absolutely nothing wrong with that desire.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-27-2014 at 11:29 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 11:22 AM   #24
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,561
Default

Reproducing sound and creating sound are 2 different things. Both are needed in the studio. Anything can create sound - good or bad. Accurately reproducing something when needed is where you need the more refined equipment (analog or digital). Both are equally important.

There was an art to coaxing the highest fidelity out of older analog gear. 24 bit high sample rate digital with quality AD converters just works. Maybe you could have some 'money no object' shootout between analog vs digital and still see a slight edge (that you would never be able to discern without Unobtainium brand gear in a perfect listening space).

Lower res digital (and especially early 16 bit gear) can be trumped by reasonably priced analog gear. And there are vinyl records that are more faithful reproductions of the studio master than early CD reissues of them.

More often the vinyl edition had such bad distortions that any 320k mp3 sounds light years better. And it's all a moot point with 24 bit 96k digital.

Back to being creative with sound, certain analog devices had a unique character that just isn't within the range designed into the digital tools we use.

This all gets confused and generalizations start being made. That's my experience anyway.

Guitar amps and compressors especially fall into that 'unique analog device' category. And 'tape compression' via exceeding it's operating range.

Sometimes the focus isn't the quality of the distortion sound either. Sometimes the reason for turning up the sound into tape compression levels was because it wasn't loud enough and doing it the "right" way with the compressor sounded muddy so screw it. Then looking back... "Oh, that edge sounds kind of cool."
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 03:48 PM   #25
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

I love whiteaxxxe's main post comment in this thread, even though I disagree with most of it.

I don't know if I have the energy or desire to cover all the many details, but will just answer haphazardly I guess:

Tape compression and saturation varies quite a lot between the best tape machines and the era/decades they were made. Even more -- and more importantly -- the tape quality itself varied a lot. You bought brands and tape types you knew well and had your machine calibrated for properly. There's plenty written in books and manuals still to be got, and around the net as well, of course, and I would suggest doing a bit of reading up if it interests.

Beyond that, I'll agree with Mr. Axxxe that much of this recent marketing of all these saturation and tape sim plugins is just full of a lot of BS and excess and plain stupid. Every plugin has the stupid stuff added to it now, and so many are complete stink in quality. Many don't sound anything like my favourite (discontinued/extinct) tapes of choice or anybody's machine.

On the other hand, I've been using ToneBoosters' Ferox and ReelBus a good deal lately, and they sound very close to real analog process if tuned right. That u-he Satin VST gets it, too, but I don't have it. Some notable others.

In the end, let me just say that tape sat is one of the sweetest sounds and ways to warm up the sometimes cold and clinical recordings some artists end up with all too easily. Tape compression will never get you the unmerciful crushing of Metallica's DeathMetalMagnetic (and who wants that!), and to do real, controlled compression we have so many better tools available today anyway. But it had its place and its natural occurrence could save steps and knob twiddling down the line at times.

Some analog process music from the decades past does indeed sound a little too lo-fi and abused to me when I hear it today. My favourite sounds came during the early eighties when the technology had vastly improved but had not yet taken that fateful step into the sterile world of the new digital process.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 04:44 PM   #26
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

I've certainly enjoyed everyone's comments. I had a four track portastudio 244, or 644. Can't remember. With a fair amount of outboard gear to get by. I have no desire to go back. I love ITB, and no real interest in lo-fi so to speak, but learning how to duplicate some of the sounds is fun, and may have a place.

Telenator, I agree with your comment about using tape saturation to add that 'sweet' sound. That's my goal. I use Nebula, SKNote Roundtone, Strip, stripBus, Reelbus and others. I've been trying to simulate that slight compression effect of tape, and realize now that you can't really seperate the saturation and compression. They are the 'effect' as a package. But knowing that helps as well. At least as far as getting closer to a sound I like.

Thanks to all for the input. It's great to get other ideas.
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 07:22 PM   #27
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

I don't know if I'm qualified to answer this post or not. I come from the mid to late 60s as a studio owner and recording engineer as well as a musician myself. As a studio owner I worked very hard to keep my tape machines at the ultimate that they could be. I aligned all of them on a weekly basis to make sure they were performing to their absolute best. All my decks were Otari which wasn't Studer but they were still very good. I was set up as an ampex dealer so I got all my tape at dealer cost direct from the factory which saved a bunch, and I recorded all my multi tapes at 30 ips. I even rebuilt the record amplifiers in my tape deck to record at 30 ips.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that the recordings I made with tape had a sheen or a shine that I can't get with digital. Even though I know, and am convinced, we have better quality with the digital today than we had with the analog, I am also convinced that there is an edgyness that comes with digital that we didn't have with tape.

I think in those days we all pushed the tape to get the most out of it and during the mix we all pushed 0.0db which is what the mixer and tape decks were calibrated for. Of course +3.0db was hit many times and who knows how far beyond, it actually was.

At any rate, I do not think that Tape Sims are the answer at all and I'd have a very hard time being convinced that they are any where near the same thing.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 09:57 PM   #28
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
I don't know if I'm qualified to answer this post or not. I come from the mid to late 60s as a studio owner and recording engineer as well as a musician myself. As a studio owner I worked very hard to keep my tape machines at the ultimate that they could be. I aligned all of them on a weekly basis to make sure they were performing to their absolute best. All my decks were Otari which wasn't Studer but they were still very good. I was set up as an ampex dealer so I got all my tape at dealer cost direct from the factory which saved a bunch, and I recorded all my multi tapes at 30 ips. I even rebuilt the record amplifiers in my tape deck to record at 30 ips.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that the recordings I made with tape had a sheen or a shine that I can't get with digital. Even though I know, and am convinced, we have better quality with the digital today than we had with the analog, I am also convinced that there is an edgyness that comes with digital that we didn't have with tape.

I think in those days we all pushed the tape to get the most out of it and during the mix we all pushed 0.0db which is what the mixer and tape decks were calibrated for. Of course +3.0db was hit many times and who knows how far beyond, it actually was.

At any rate, I do not think that Tape Sims are the answer at all and I'd have a very hard time being convinced that they are any where near the same thing.

I'm not sure how to ask this question without sounding stupid... I wonder if digital is too accurate? Records more high end than we like.? Or it changes the high end and adds an edginess to it. Or I've wondered if there's just too much high end in a mix when you combine a number of tracks.

I sure don't know But I have been looking at duplicating the way sound rolls off in natural air, over a distance, and thinking that rolling off the extreme high end on all tracks might help. Just don't know. More testing...

But I sure do know and love that 'sheen' you're talking about. Like a transparent wrap around the song that makes it have that subtle glow.
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 02:57 AM   #29
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

I bought an otari 2 track a couple of years ago, restored it and slated it for use as my magic bullet on the 2bus.

It was a ton of fun, the effect was very nice and I learned an enormous amount about signal processing and recording. But in the end I sold it and replaced it with some portico 542 500 series modules which I can use for tracking as well as bus duties without constant calibration, biasing and tape purchase needs.
It's not a perfect tape emulation but it's better than any VST I ever heard plus doesn't require much of the hard work. And now I also know what the target sound is which is perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle

As to emulating tape "compression" as has already bee stated, it's not exactly compressor type compression but soft clipping into full on failure distortion

The problem I see with most plugins is that they have to make a "night and day difference" or why buy them. also very few people mixing ITB have ever used tape so they have no idea what it's supposed to sound like. so Slate, waves, UAD can pretty much pack up any old snake oil as "analog Emulation"

The goal with tape (or high headroom consoles) is not to clip and saturate the living hell out of everything and raise crosstalk/noise to invasively audible levels. At least as a general rule

As far as hardware, even my lowly Otari had a lot of headroom. You could pin the meters and really not hear a whole lot of "Tape effect" that VST makers would try to sell you as necessity

It's also hard in my mind to separate saturation, tape formulation, clipping, headbump, high end rolloff, pre EQ, post EQ, Bias levels, Wow & flutter, electronics etc etc etc into separate buckets.
Tape recording is tape recording and you have to be aware of how all of it fits together. How different sources will need different treatment ahead of the tape machine, in the tape machine and post tape machine (if you are using for tracking)

I can't see the need for just tape saturation, or just tape "compression" without the rest of the sound.
To me that's like trying to sell sugar as an "Ice cream Emulation". Sure, ice cream has sugar in it but it's the sum of it's parts rather than a loose collection of unconnected individual ingredients that you can pull apart.


As to better or worse, to my mind it's a question of yardsticks. If you grew up listening to recordings made by bands playing together, recorded to tape and limited to the amount of analog processing available, that's your personal yardstick

If you grew up listening to quantized, one at a time tracks, tuned and aligned to grid with lots of comps and processing then that's your personal yardstick

I personally try to look for the good in the music rather than the medium it was recorded to

YMMV

Last edited by Bristol Posse; 08-30-2014 at 03:04 AM.
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 10:29 AM   #30
DVDdoug
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,779
Default

By the end of the analog area, studio quality was getting very good. It was the vinyl or cassettes on the consumer side that had big limitations. Specifically, You can always hear the analog background noise during quiet passages and between tracks. And, there were frequency response variations... If you change the phono cartridge in your turntable, you'll probably hear a difference and most of that difference is frequency response.

Quote:
One thing I've noticed over the years is that the recordings I made with tape had a sheen or a shine that I can't get with digital. Even though I know, and am convinced, we have better quality with the digital today than we had with the analog, I am also convinced that there is an edgyness that comes with digital that we didn't have with tape.
But, the digitization is not adding edginess... It's the tape doing something to make it sound less-edgy... i.e. If you properly digitize the analog signal and do a good scientific blind ABX test, the you won't hear a difference between the digital copy and analog original.

However if you go the other way around and convert digital to analog, you generally will hear the difference. Usually, the 1st thing you'll hear is the analog background noise. (Although at 30 ips on a good machine without saturation, the analog copy may sound identical to the digital original.)

Of course, with tape simulation it's possible to simulate tape saturation without simulating the noise (if that's what you want).

Quote:
I think in those days we all pushed the tape to get the most out of it and during the mix we all pushed 0.0db which is what the mixer and tape decks were calibrated for. Of course +3.0db was hit many times and who knows how far beyond, it actually was.
Remember, VU meters are not peak meters. If the VU meter was hitting 0dB, you might have peaks hitting +3 or +6, or as you say "who knows".
DVDdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 12:25 PM   #31
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
I don't know if I'm qualified to answer this post or not. I come from the mid to late 60s as a studio owner and recording engineer as well as a musician myself. As a studio owner I worked very hard to keep my tape machines at the ultimate that they could be. I aligned all of them on a weekly basis to make sure they were performing to their absolute best. All my decks were Otari which wasn't Studer but they were still very good. I was set up as an ampex dealer so I got all my tape at dealer cost direct from the factory which saved a bunch, and I recorded all my multi tapes at 30 ips. I even rebuilt the record amplifiers in my tape deck to record at 30 ips.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that the recordings I made with tape had a sheen or a shine that I can't get with digital. Even though I know, and am convinced, we have better quality with the digital today than we had with the analog, I am also convinced that there is an edgyness that comes with digital that we didn't have with tape.

I think in those days we all pushed the tape to get the most out of it and during the mix we all pushed 0.0db which is what the mixer and tape decks were calibrated for. Of course +3.0db was hit many times and who knows how far beyond, it actually was.

At any rate, I do not think that Tape Sims are the answer at all and I'd have a very hard time being convinced that they are any where near the same thing.

"... tape had a sheen or a shine that I can't get with digital." Spot on!

"... we all pushed the tape to get the most out of it and during the mix we all pushed 0.0db ..." The best pro tape types/brands had a headroom of almost exactly 14 dB -- lots of room! Interesting and great to use, if you are moving to K-system metering at the end process is that using the K-14 comes out very similar to the way we approached tape. I like that.

To the others stating their first tape machines, my very first was the Dokorder 1140, a 4-track reel with decent overdub quality. In my huge county where I lived I was the only one for the first half of the '70s with more than 2 tracks. Word spread. Was a great way to meet new musicians and bands, coming out of the woodwork to get a free or cheap 'professional' recording made on a 4-track. (Well, we pretended it was truly 'pro'. Ha ha!) Anyhow, being able to overdub 'at home' totally blew our minds back then. The only real, other studio was a pro one, always overbooked and too expensive, in our one major city a good hour's travel.

And saddle's: "I wonder if digital is too accurate?" Almost the right way to put it. Properly done digital is 100% accurate. The first disks made from these recording were not EQed correctly to account for it. Thus, the first CDs sounded horrible cold and crispy! Took about 2 years to straighten that mess.

Also, if you are counting on the warmth tape does/can add, or the warmth of highs reduction from the vinyl it would be pressed on (even 3 plays on a great turntable can carve away a good 3 dB of ultra highs), then when you have none of those known and expected benefits it's like playing live completely naked or something. And so, today, we have groovy plugins to put back all that ERROR. These features are actual errors if you think about it.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 02:21 PM   #32
partonkevin
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: McMinnville, TN
Posts: 395
Default

I was coming of age when the 16-bit ADAT blackface was coming out. It was 4 grand and gave 8 tracks of recording. I knew several guys that took their record advance money and built studios around these units. There were lots of tricks you could do when it came to editing and the portability was great.

That said...they didn't sound good. They were too precise, brittle, sterile...whatever. It was hard to record rock drums and make them sound right. I had a friend that racked up a bunch of compressors and tracked drums through those. It worked fairly well.

I was working in a small studio with a 16 track tape deck. We had to send it out for service, but we still needed to keep working. We picked up a new 20-bit ADAT. I initially hated it. I had to worry too much with levels and such...there wasn't as much room for error as the tape deck. At that time the studio also picked up our first nice tube powered mic. I powered it up and let it warm up for about 20 minutes and started tracking some vocals and acoustic guitar to that ADAT. I couldn't believe my ears when I hit playback. It was the first time that I thought "digital" sounded good.

It turned out that "digital" was just very accurate and our equipment had some unpleasant sounds. I love that with REAPER, a laptop, and a cheap interface that I can have a very capable studio for cheap money. Personally, I use compression on nearly every track and I fight harshness by rolling off high end. My tape machine kinda did that automatically.
__________________
Latest recording setup: 2.2Ghz, 1gig RAM, Tascam US-1641, Reaper!
It's reliable for at least 10 simultaneous tracks up to 45 minutes.
partonkevin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 08:11 AM   #33
drtedtan
Human being with feelings
 
drtedtan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddle View Post
I'm not sure how to ask this question without sounding stupid... I wonder if digital is too accurate?
I think that's an accurate way of putting it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DVDdoug View Post
But, the digitization is not adding edginess... It's the tape doing something to make it sound less-edgy... i.e. If you properly digitize the analog signal and do a good scientific blind ABX test, the you won't hear a difference between the digital copy and analog original.
I agree with DVDdoug on this. We have to take extra steps with a digital recording if we want to "warm it up" because its not doing that for us automatically like tape did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telenator View Post
it's like playing live completely naked or something.
Unfortunately, I've played a few shows with band who's drummer did exactly that.
drtedtan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 08:36 AM   #34
saddle
Human being with feelings
 
saddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 155
Default

<Quote> "We have to take extra steps with a digital recording if we want to "warm it up" because its not doing that for us automatically like tape did."

That is the phrase I was searching for. Like the difference of noon day sun, and sitting in a warm room with an incandescent light, reading a book by a fire.

Same book, different feel.
__________________
74 Takamine F-450s (Pre-litigation) 62 Martin D-28 : 2004 Fender Squier Tele
Rouge Acoustic Electric (work guitar.) Various other guitars and toys.
Reaper x64. Pro Tools 11.3.1

Last edited by saddle; 08-31-2014 at 04:34 PM.
saddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 11:55 AM   #35
ProfRhino
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 370
Default

Thw UA tape machines are quite convincing emus imho, most of the competition aims to please the lo-fi expectations many people seem to have nowadays. The post about those great sounding '70s records was spot on, as well as the one about 6dB GR (absolute) maximum ...

The trick is to put "barely noticeable" on every track (Studer), this will make a substantial difference in the end result. These high end multi track machines were designed and serviced with enormous effort to get the cleanest possible recording quality back then, we are mostly talking about the final 2% they couldn't achieve back then.
Try this method with Bootsie's FerricTDS to achieve very similar, convincing results, concentrate on the left side (and keep it subtle). For a start just go for 1 to 3 dBs GR by adjusting the Dynamics knob ...
Pretty foolproof, better than many commercial offerings, and it's even free !
Depending on style you might try to hit the master (Ampex) a bit harder to emulate that "mix has grown too hot" effect, FerricTDS can do this, too.
Better suited to rock'n'roll than Rickie Lee Jones though, mind you.
ymmv,
Rhino
ProfRhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 12:28 PM   #36
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfRhino View Post
Thw UA tape machines are quite convincing emus imho, most of the competition aims to please the lo-fi expectations many people seem to have nowadays. The post about those great sounding '70s records was spot on, as well as the one about 6dB GR (absolute) maximum ...

The trick is to put "barely noticeable" on every track (Studer), this will make a substantial difference in the end result. These high end multi track machines were designed and serviced with enormous effort to get the cleanest possible recording quality back then, we are mostly talking about the final 2% they couldn't achieve back then.
Try this method with Bootsie's FerricTDS to achieve very similar, convincing results, concentrate on the left side (and keep it subtle). For a start just go for 1 to 3 dBs GR by adjusting the Dynamics knob ...
Pretty foolproof, better than many commercial offerings, and it's even free !
Depending on style you might try to hit the master (Ampex) a bit harder to emulate that "mix has grown too hot" effect, FerricTDS can do this, too.
Better suited to rock'n'roll than Rickie Lee Jones though, mind you.
ymmv,
Rhino
I'm curious to hear a recording (preferably some dirty rock n roll) which used the UA tape emus, not real tape involved. Happen to know of anything?

I have been using Ferric since it came about. It does add a little something, but to me, it never fully gets there.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 01:20 PM   #37
ProfRhino
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
I'm curious to hear a recording (preferably some dirty rock n roll) which used the UA tape emus, not real tape involved. Happen to know of anything?

I have been using Ferric since it came about. It does add a little something, but to me, it never fully gets there.
where ?
like always, a matter of expectations and taste.
for UA demos, search their forums and GS, iirc there were quite a few when the tapes came out.
UA also have a few decent "how to" videos for most of their plugs at their channel.

Rhino
ProfRhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 01:29 PM   #38
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfRhino View Post
where ?
like always, a matter of expectations and taste.
for UA demos, search their forums and GS, iirc there were quite a few when the tapes came out.
UA also have a few decent "how to" videos for most of their plugs at their channel.

Rhino
I have been through lots of UA vidoes on their tape plugins, and I didn't hear anything that convinced me that their plugins can get convincing tape sounds.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 02:28 AM   #39
ProfRhino
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
I have been through lots of UA vidoes on their tape plugins, and I didn't hear anything that convinced me that their plugins can get convincing tape sounds.
that essentially leaves you with two choices, I guess :
- either accept that you don't like them
- actually demo them hands-on at a store or studio near you, shouldn't be hard to find, they are a de-facto standard
I know my search is over, I got back what I missed ever since I traded my TSR16 for Adats back then, in a much more convenient package and arguably (haven't done blind tests, obviously) even soundng better.
That includes both UA tapes and FerricTDS, not identical, but they all get the tape warming job done nicely for me.
but ymmv,
Rhino
ProfRhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 12:52 PM   #40
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

Unless it's been changed both FerricTDS and TesslaProII want to see input signal at nearly 0 dB. This has been an issue with some of the VOS plugins since the beginning. Notice that the newer ThrillseekerXTC has a switch or something to take -18dB, the comp ThrillseekerLA accepts -18, too.

So, the problem with sometimes getting crappy results with one such as Ferric is in part because it only works properly with that hot near-0 dB signal, as in final mixdown. You won't get the same results if you are tracking at -18 or even -12.


UA products? Cool ... it's getting very rare that I run into anyone using these anymore. Is the whole external soundcard/hardware thing with them still the deal, or have they changed to be more like other VST? That served a purpose back when many machines needed 'help' and were anemic, but I wonder about the virtues of using this setup today.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.