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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2018, 10:53 AM   #1
Rangler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 569
Default What were some major milestones (gear or knowledge) in your mixing journey?

It took me so long to understand compression, but…to me…it's the single biggest thing that gives you that professional sound. And now I'm saving up for some hardware compressors.
__________________
MacBook Pro; Late 2016, 16 GB
Rangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 05:17 PM   #2
martifingers
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,694
Default

Good question. Although I have been on that "journey" for a while I think the two things that still cause me to think are:
1. A track isolated may sound great but not "work" in the context of the mix as a whole
2. How to optimise a mix so it sounds good on a number of platforms and formats (eg domestic hifi, Youtube etc.) as well as on the monitors.
martifingers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 08:31 PM   #3
RDBOIS
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: It changes
Posts: 1,425
Default

The realization that as an amateur using amateur gear, in an untreated room, I should be happy if I produce a very good amateurish sounding song. It is unrealistic to expect my songs to sound as good as professionally produced material. This realization means that I should spend more time writing better songs than time trying to find a magical combination of plugins. I just need to figure out what 'very good amateurish' sounds like as well as the meaning of 'better songs'.
RDBOIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 09:57 PM   #4
Rangler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDBOIS View Post
The realization that as an amateur using amateur gear, in an untreated room, I should be happy if I produce a very good amateurish sounding song. It is unrealistic to expect my songs to sound as good as professionally produced material. This realization means that I should spend more time writing better songs than time trying to find a magical combination of plugins. I just need to figure out what 'very good amateurish' sounds like as well as the meaning of 'better songs'.
I just wished my clients understood that, too. Everyone wants to sound like Taylor Swift. My own music is closer to what I consider lo-fi punk.
__________________
MacBook Pro; Late 2016, 16 GB
Rangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 11:52 PM   #5
Winfield
Human being with feelings
 
Winfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Underground Bunker
Posts: 705
Default

Referencing with (good mixed) songs and thus learning my monitors/room AND what actually goes on in the different (EQ-) areas of a mix.

I'm still amazed that this is free:
http://www.tb-software.com/TBProAudio/ISOL8.html
- I use it all the time in monitorfx in reaper when referencing with other material. Extremely useful to solo each band and listen to what exactly goes on. As in, is the ANY snare in the bottom end, what is loudest in the midrange etc.
Also reference the use of mid/side - another eye opener for me.

-W
__________________
"if DAWs are religions, REAPER is atheism" - The big J
__________________
Windows 10x64 | Asus Z170-a i7, 32GB ram | RME-Digiface USB
Winfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 07:31 AM   #6
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,561
Default

Understanding that the confusing "homogeneous" sound of 'behind a wool blanket' for vinyl and 'behind a glass window' for early (and some current) CD releases was damage in mastering or delivery formats.

The confusion coming from A/B'ing those damaged releases to mixing work in progress.

The confusion can come from hearing that damage but at the same time hearing a truly still good sounding mix. And one that may have elements (either mix-wise or performance) that are much better than the thing I'm working on and/or beyond my abilities even though it doesn't have the mastering or delivery format damage.

Audiophile fidelity is great but it's only part of the equation. Sometimes still an important part but only part. Another component to that is growing up listening to the likes of Pink Floyd (full avant-garde sound-play experimentation based stuff that requires some fidelity for that angle) and thinking most radio music was garbage.

In parallel with that, the first few times I reduced a mix from 24 bit to 16 bit as well as reducing 96k to 44.1k. It didn't automatically sound like a CD. So... 16 bit doesn't cause the damage I thought? (Can still hear it on a lot of program but not night/day.) Must be something else that happened to those chirpy sounding CD releases out there! So many mastering disasters out there...
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 08:48 AM   #7
RDBOIS
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: It changes
Posts: 1,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
Understanding that the confusing "homogeneous" sound of 'behind a wool blanket' for vinyl and 'behind a glass window' for early (and some current) CD releases was damage in mastering or delivery formats.

The confusion coming from A/B'ing those damaged releases to mixing work in progress.

The confusion can come from hearing that damage but at the same time hearing a truly still good sounding mix. And one that may have elements (either mix-wise or performance) that are much better than the thing I'm working on and/or beyond my abilities even though it doesn't have the mastering or delivery format damage.

Audiophile fidelity is great but it's only part of the equation. Sometimes still an important part but only part. Another component to that is growing up listening to the likes of Pink Floyd (full avant-garde sound-play experimentation based stuff that requires some fidelity for that angle) and thinking most radio music was garbage.

In parallel with that, the first few times I reduced a mix from 24 bit to 16 bit as well as reducing 96k to 44.1k. It didn't automatically sound like a CD. So... 16 bit doesn't cause the damage I thought? (Can still hear it on a lot of program but not night/day.) Must be something else that happened to those chirpy sounding CD releases out there! So many mastering disasters out there...
Yeah. When I reference my songs to commercial tracks I find myself asking: what about this version of the song I converted from Youtube-Mp3 - is it really what the studio produced? Do I even have the possibility (technology and hearing capacity) to hear what they produced? I was listening to Neil Young (Mr. "I'm a production of the military psyOp Laurel Canyon, I got the ticket and chosen to become a Handler, and have to pay back the system...") promoting this thing called PONO - portable digital media player for high-resolution audio (i.e. high-resolution" 24-bit 192 kHz), and thought to myself - what kind of ear buds should we use for this? That and how many times does a guy have to buy the "Ride the Lightning" album (paid for the vinyl, paid for the cassette, paid for the CD, paid for the Mp3, and now must pay for the 4-bit 192 kHz)? That right Mr. Lars Ulrich you greedy big Music Corp shill - "I'm going to sue my fans because they didn't pay for the Mp3 - boooo hooo". I no longer support the band...

Then I remind myself - how many people are actually going to listen to my mix anyway and what is their hearing/listening capacities?
RDBOIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 11:32 AM   #8
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,561
Default

Aside-

I'd love to remix the Master of Puppets album! Cliff fan here. You know why...

Promoting 192k as a release format aside. (Real quick, I agree 24/96 is a fine thing. Mid priced DA converters justify it. I agree that 192k can be useful in some processing work but 96k can contain a complete finished master no matter what happened upstream. All IMHO of course. And I convert any 24/192 download I get to 96k if anyone is looking to get upset about anything. )

Have you head Neil's remasters? They sound absolutely fantastic! (They'd still sound that even if you downsampled and bit reduced them to CD res too.) Just saying. The Pono probably has decent DA converters but an Apogee Duet would be more bang for the buck. Or 17 other choices for that matter. It's portable though I guess. Some glaring targets in all that but his remasters actually sound really good.

I don't know what Lars' trip is.
Love to remix the first two also of course.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 11:39 AM   #9
vdubreeze
Human being with feelings
 
vdubreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,613
Default

This happened in the pre-DAW era but it's still something I think about. That if you're wanting to make a mix sound powerful and big you simply cannot start with all powerful and big sounds. More big working across the tracks eventually stops equalling bigger and begins sliding down to smaller. Drums is usually the worst culprit. When I listen to some of what are, for me, the most big and powerful rock recordings of when I was immersed in it, from 1970 to 1990, the snare usually sounds like a snare, not a rocket in a canyon, and the kick not only sounds like a kick drum and not a synthesized boom but it's far from prominent in the mix. If you go across your tracks and give each one more "oomph" with the goal of a mix with "oomph" at some juncture you hit the point of diminishing returns, where the bigger you make a certain instrument the smaller your mix actually starts becoming. A major milestone for me was: pick the tracks which will deliver the oomph and give them oomph, and make the rest of the tracks fit in with what that resulted in.

If a punchy mix is desired, decide which elements will carry that and make them punchier. Don't make every track punchy.
__________________
The reason rain dances work is because they don't stop dancing until it rains.

Last edited by vdubreeze; 05-02-2018 at 12:02 PM.
vdubreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 01:04 PM   #10
L_Grizzle
Human being with feelings
 
L_Grizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 165
Default

My answer might be a little more abstract than what the OP is really asking, but the biggest recent thing for me is just having the confidence to make bold choices with my mix. In the past, I think that my mixes/songs suffered because I would try to hide everything behind everything else, and make it all fit together perfectly without anything really sticking out. I think getting out of that state of mind allowed me to make much bolder decisions with my mix.

Does that snare sound perfectly like I intended? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean it can't still smack you in the face a little bit (in a good way, as opposed to hiding it in the mix to the point where it loses the intended impact.)

I still need to work on it, sure ... but it's what I've been trying to work on lately, and having some success with it.
L_Grizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2018, 01:37 PM   #11
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

^^^ that's a good one. Too many people chasing "perfect balance", which leads to "perfectly boring".

For me, I keep coming across the same milestones. Like I'm walking in circles. You think you get something and then you find that you can refine it further.

It's a journey of constantly revisiting and refining a few basic understandings and skills. Mixing isn't really a broad subject, but it goes as deep as you like.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 10:01 AM   #12
MikComposer
Human being with feelings
 
MikComposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,989
Default

Importance of good tools
Importance of reference tracks
Importance of ear training
Importance of balance

Importance of being cool and dry
__________________
My Royalty Free Music library
MikComposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 02:23 PM   #13
Greedy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: A mile high
Posts: 736
Default

Good gain-staging
Judicious hi/lo passing
Keeping plug-in choices to a minimum
Learning to use the plug-ins I have (work in progress)
Learning to make faster decisions
Learning to live with faster decisions
Buying a Fairchild 670
Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 02:55 PM   #14
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,551
Default

- Learning to stop putting compressors on everything just for the hell of it.

- Learning how much you can turn the gain on a guitar amp down and still have it sound heavy without mushing up as soon as you quad track with it.

- Learning that you can low-pass a distorted guitar a LOT without it really being noticeable in the full mix.

- Learning to level match the input and output from each plugin so you can A/B accurately.
__________________
I'm no longer using Reaper or working on scripts for it. Sorry. :(
Default 5.0 Nitpicky Edition / GUI library for Lua scripts / Theory Helper / Radial Menu / Donate
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 03:11 PM   #15
cyrano
Human being with feelings
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 5,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangler View Post
It took me so long to understand compression, but…to me…it's the single biggest thing that gives you that professional sound. And now I'm saving up for some hardware compressors.
That took me a while, too. I still think compression is overused, though.

But I need to understand how that works on the level of electronics. So I've "acquired" an old Behringer with one busted channel, to repair. It's the only way to really understand, for me.

A few things I picked up here:

- sound isn't intrinsically symmetrical by nature. It's probably very obvious to most people who have ever looked at a waveform. Not for me. I think it was Karbo who enlightened me.

- a reason why you would want to mess around with phase, through an all-pass filter. That one came from AshcatIT and I wasn't the only one who had a lightbulb moment.

- adding noise can hide noise. Don't remember when and from whom I picked that one up. Again, simple, as it's used in dithering, but I never made the jump.

- related: the noise floor is not your worst enemy. Stop looking for the blackest black. Very dark grey is more pleasing to the ear, usually.
__________________
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
cyrano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 06:12 PM   #16
RDBOIS
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: It changes
Posts: 1,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna View Post
- Learning to stop putting compressors on everything just for the hell of it.
I guess that goes with learning not to compete with commercial loudness? Unless there is something I'm not aware of?

My last production I tried mixing with very little compression - and while the song sounded good - it was very quite compared to commercial songs. In the end, I just could live with it - so I compressed and limited. That forced me to deal with all sorts of new issues that popped up (e.g. sibilance, harshness, etc.).

The crazy things is that I don't like the song as much and feel like I failed by succeeding. It's not just the sounds that I compressed - I normalized myself into impaired cultural rules. One day I'll break free by not caring if it fits, including myself.
RDBOIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 06:25 PM   #17
Rangler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
That took me a while, too. I still think compression is overused, though.

But I need to understand how that works on the level of electronics. So I've "acquired" an old Behringer with one busted channel, to repair. It's the only way to really understand, for me.

A few things I picked up here:

- sound isn't intrinsically symmetrical by nature. It's probably very obvious to most people who have ever looked at a waveform. Not for me. I think it was Karbo who enlightened me.

- a reason why you would want to mess around with phase, through an all-pass filter. That one came from AshcatIT and I wasn't the only one who had a lightbulb moment.

- adding noise can hide noise. Don't remember when and from whom I picked that one up. Again, simple, as it's used in dithering, but I never made the jump.

- related: the noise floor is not your worst enemy. Stop looking for the blackest black. Very dark grey is more pleasing to the ear, usually.
My fear is mostly from clients' expectations. They all want that clean, overly compressed sound because that's all they listen to.
__________________
MacBook Pro; Late 2016, 16 GB
Rangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2018, 07:25 AM   #18
dug dog
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDBOIS View Post
It's not just the sounds that I compressed - I normalized myself into impaired cultural rules.
LOL. Zen mastering?
dug dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2018, 02:02 PM   #19
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
- a reason why you would want to mess around with phase, through an all-pass filter. That one came from AshcatIT and I wasn't the only one who had a lightbulb moment.
I didn't make that up. It's an intrinsic part of preparing a signal for radio broadcast. Those people hammer things hard in order to make the most of the relatively limited headroom that they have. If one side of your waveform clips before the other, you're wasting precious space.

I may also have said something about noise here and there, too.

TBH I still don't really understand how other people use compression. I control dynamics in my own ways and don't really get what other people think they're doing.


The number one biggest breakthrough I ever had was when I realized that all my favorite records sound like complete ass from a technical standpoint and that I'm just glad I get to hear it at all. Whether you're talking about Robert Johnson or Minor Threat or early JAMC, it works out the same. A compelling performance of interesting material can take a lot of sonic abuse. We do the best we can, but sometimes instead of trying to fix it we need to just help it be what it is.
ashcat_lt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 01:04 AM   #20
Valle
Human being with feelings
 
Valle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 808
Default

I did my first “mix” on a Tascam Porta One ... back in the mid 80s ... I was sooo, green ... So young ...

AAAARGH! I’m getting emotional here!

Anyway! I’ve had a hand full of, what you would call, mentors on my path to become a sound mixer/producer on my own. And they’ve all learned me a lot. But the first and biggest milestone, which really gave my creativity a blast in the right direction, was reached in the early 2000s – when I stopped follow “mixing rules” set by book writing self-proclaimed professionals (real professionals never do/did that). Man, did I blossom! Mixing is not always about doing what others (tell you to) do, it’s also about doing what others don’t do. And last but not least: you have to make mistakes!

My latest milestone came just a few years ago when I FINALLY got rid of my bad habit to always trying to reinvent the wheel. If I heard something I liked, let’s say a certain result caused by certain plugin, I would do everything in my power to “copy” that sound with one or with a combination of plugins in my arsenal – rather than spend the few $ on that certain plugin. Nowadays I consider myself too lazy (too old, actually) for that stupid kind of stubbornness. Today I can dial in in two seconds with, let’s say, a Waves CLA-76 what would take me up to hundreds of times longer to (almost) replicate with ReaComp in combo with some random “warmifier” plugin. One could say I have become a full blown Waves converter (pun intended).

I do realize that those two milestones contradict one another in a sense. It’s about finding the perfect balance.
__________________
Valenzia Vision
Valle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 02:02 AM   #21
G-Sun
Human being with feelings
 
G-Sun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Norway
Posts: 7,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangler View Post
What were some major milestones (gear or knowledge) in your mixing journey?
There is so much,
and then, so little.

It's about the listening and having fun expressing myself musically.
Then, having a break. Then doing things I yet don't know to do,
and being foolish enough to do it anyway

Gear-wise: Monitoring and room-treatment.
__________________
Reaper x64, win 11
Composer, text-writer, producer
Bandcamp
G-Sun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 03:41 AM   #22
Eliseat
Human being with feelings
 
Eliseat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Cologne
Posts: 1,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDBOIS View Post
The realization that as an amateur using amateur gear, in an untreated room, I should be happy if I produce a very good amateurish sounding song. It is unrealistic to expect my songs to sound as good as professionally produced material. This realization means that I should spend more time writing better songs than time trying to find a magical combination of plugins. I just need to figure out what 'very good amateurish' sounds like as well as the meaning of 'better songs'.
I already read about your opinion not being professional enough. Of course there are a lot more possibilities in a high end studio, but most amateurs spend to much time looking for better plugins instead of investing time and have patience to get better in recording and producing. And as you said already, its not all about the last tiny bit of production quality.

When Roxette in 1989 crashed the charts with "The Look", they started their career with one of the worst produced Song of all times.

If you really think, your music is all amateurish because of your bad conditions, just test it by sharing a bunch of tracks for a song you have recorded to the Reaper community. This could give you the answer you are looking for.
Eliseat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 03:46 AM   #23
OPI
Human being with feelings
 
OPI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,900
Default

A scarce mix can use less eq than a busy mix
OPI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 08:39 AM   #24
Meo-Ada Mespotine
Human being with feelings
 
Meo-Ada Mespotine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Leipzig
Posts: 6,621
Default

When mixing with headphones, mix mono.
And, if you want to get an idea, if a certain track is too loud or too silent, turn the volume down to be almost inaudible. The stuff, that's still in the foreground may be too loud. And if there's stuff, you want be listeneable, but can't hear in that silent volume, it's probably too silent.
And, while mixing in mono, you can easily spot unwanted phase changes in your script.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_phase_change

And getting all the stuff about Auditory Masking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
improved the clarity and transparency of my mixes massively, as I was able to create more "air" in frequencies for tracks. I would redommend to study the Auditory-Masking stuff insenively, as that give you a lot ways of influencing the volume of a recording by just eq-ing properly.
Much more powerful than the control just the volume-faders give you..
Meo-Ada Mespotine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 08:41 AM   #25
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mespotine View Post
When mixing with headphones, mix mono.
And, if you want to get an idea, if a certain track is too loud or too silent, turn the volume down to be almost inaudible. The stuff, that's still in the foreground may be too loud. And if there's stuff, you want be listeneable, but can't hear in that silent volume, it's probably too silent.

And getting all the stuff about Auditory Masking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
improved the clarity and transparency of my mixes massively, as I was able to create more "air" in frequencies for tracks. I would redommend to study the Auditory-Masking stuff insenively, as that give you a lot ways of influencing the volume of a recording by just eq-ing properly.
Much more powerful than the control just the volume-faders give you..
You could see EQ as just frequency-specific faders...
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2018, 06:29 PM   #26
RDBOIS
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: It changes
Posts: 1,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
You could see EQ as just frequency-specific faders...
With the caveat that when you fade somewhere, some invisible fader up pushing up somewhere else
RDBOIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2018, 02:19 AM   #27
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDBOIS View Post
With the caveat that when you fade somewhere, some invisible fader up pushing up somewhere else
Still exactly the same as faders...

When I turn bring the fader down on the guitars it sounds like I pushed the fader up on the keys and vocals.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2018, 03:19 AM   #28
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

eyyo-
with so many miles to be reached or covered,i can speak of some steps.. there's been a few.. =)
baby steps-- learning how to manipulate my own voice and any object to lay hands on!
finding rhythm+ that the world is full of sound..
realizing it is incredibly easy/hard to find inner silence..
realizing there have been thousands of greats before me-but i could still bring something unique or personal to a musical table..
learning how to monitor and mix and syncronize multiple sources 'realtime'..
buying technic decks..
learning recording,sampling + synthesis techniques by practical discovery+'hands on 'experiences..
copy of reason..
copy of reaper..
realizing there are no hard facts or rules-the possibilities are truly limitless [given a certain set of conditions!!]
practice..

+about 20gajillion other tiny details..
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 03:39 PM   #29
ringing phone
Human being with feelings
 
ringing phone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 169
Default

1. Don't get carried away with eq'ing out 'trouble frequencies' by sweeping with a sharp q. The more you sweep around the more you think you will find...which leads into #2...

2. Don't remove large sections of low mids from every track thinking that you are getting rid of boominess and mud. You'll wind up with a somewhat hollow mix where lows and highs seem overly represented and quite disjointed in level...highs in particular will stick out at all kinds of random sounding levels.

In summary...eq is easy to use...don't go crazy cutting because the bad stuff you think you are removing is often vital mid-range for a balanced mix that translates on a range of playback scenarios.
__________________
nothing to see here
ringing phone 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 04:52 PM.


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