Login / Register
 
'Mastered For iTunes' guidlines from Apple
New Reply
Subscribe
TER
#61
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #61
TER
Gear maniac
 
TER's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Newburyport, MA, USA
Posts: 183

TER is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey View Post
Don't you wonder why Apple has made no investment at all in upstream music production? The genious of Apple is riding the trends, not investing in them.

IMO the trend is moving strongly away from low res material used for background amusement and towards music that is bought for the pleasure of listening to.

It is far more likely that Apple will fixate on the next great toy. Not the enrichment of our aesthetic selves. Hence, irrelevent yes.



-Casey
I can't recall Tower Records, HMV, Newbury Comics, Strawberries, etc. ever making a stand on an issue that would IMPROVE the listening situation of the consumer.

I would agree that there is a trend towards higher fidelity... but I think that Apple is actually participating in that trend... and in this case specifically driving at a better listening experience.

I'm unclear what "upstream music production" means? They do manufacture a leading DAW.

t
__________________
tom eaton • producer / engineer type

me thomas eaton recording
my place universal noise storage
and will ackerman's imaginary road studios
#62
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #62
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,997

12ax7 is offline
#63
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #63
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 8

musiciscool is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
Wow, after reading that I'm surprised my grocery store can still sell Apples, or do they have to pay the Beatles a licensing fee for each apple sold? Maybe that's why they cost so much.....
#64
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #64
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 549

UncleBubba is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey View Post
Don't you wonder why Apple has made no investment at all in upstream music production? The genious of Apple is riding the trends, not investing in them.

IMO the trend is moving strongly away from low res material used for background amusement and towards music that is bought for the pleasure of listening to.

It is far more likely that Apple will fixate on the next great toy. Not the enrichment of our aesthetic selves. Hence, irrelevent yes.



-Casey
exactly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
JJ invented AAC and the technology behind MP3 at Bell Labs. He also taught me most of what I know about digital audio. Relatively speaking, I am stupid!
sheete!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twerk View Post
damn!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
My advice is to find out who this so-called "jj" is, then come back and apologize. Maybe even ask him some nice, respectful questions.

Because Googling can be hard, here's a start:

James D. (jj) Johnston Home Page


DC
doh!




Got me.
#65
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #65
Gear maniac
 
bassguy6's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Yooperville USA
Posts: 164

bassguy6 is offline
Hi Res audio from Apple

#66
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,395

Cheebs Goat is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
That is 100% testable, certifiable, falsifyiable....horse dung

but I guess if you wrote a paper in 1989...you must be an expert...

he format sounds like garbage...you deal with it...what did you design it or something? is that why you are defending it to the death...it;s garbage man...everyone knows it
Dude! A little respect! We are damn lucky to have the people who actually make this stuff post here. Come on. Yes, he is an expert!


That being said I still don't like ACC. But I don't like MP3 either so...
__________________
- Mike Tate
Live sound guy
Wilmington De
#67
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #67
Gear Head
 
Garrett's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 30

Garrett is offline
Guardian Reports possible hi-res files on way for iTunes

__________________
Chief Mastering Engineer, Treelady Studios www.treelady.com
Senior Contributor, Tape Op Magazine http://www.tapeop.com
j_j
Verified Member
#68
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #68
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs Goat View Post
Dude! A little respect! We are damn lucky to have the people who actually make this stuff post here. Come on. Yes, he is an expert!


That being said I still don't like ACC. But I don't like MP3 either so...
Well you DID notice I said I use lossless if I use encoding at all nowdays, didn't you?

Perceptual coding is for WHEN YOU HAVE TO USE IT and no other time.
__________________
Fourier and Shannon were right!
Masterer
Verified Member
#69
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #69
Don't start
 
Masterer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,355

Verified Member
Masterer is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
My advice is to find out who this so-called "jj" is, then come back and apologize. Maybe even ask him some nice, respectful questions.

Because Googling can be hard, here's a start:

James D. (jj) Johnston Home Page


DC
They'll let anyone into Carnegie-Mellon these days.
j_j
Verified Member
#70
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #70
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
Nice try aggressive Apple plant.
This is sad. It's typical of the audio industry, and of the general USA's anti-science political climate in general.

But I have to say that the audio production community went anti-science rather before the republicans.

For the record, my comments were based on MPEG tests run with good encoders, on difficult material, and the results are very, very hard to argue with, at least from a factual basis.

I did notice somebody else said something about m4a having smaller files, they did notice, I hope, that I said "at the same bit rate" which would give you the SAME sized file, give or take a tiny bit.

Finally, people use AAC (and MP3, and WMA-pro, and most other compression algorithms) at rates they should simply not use them at.

That quite aside from there being some rather unpleasant encoders out there. With any of the perceptual coders, the encoder decides all, and if it's wrong, you're scrawed.
j_j
Verified Member
#71
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #71
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
They'll let anyone into Carnegie-Mellon these days.
I think you meant "in 1970", yes? :p
#72
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #72
Gear Head
 
mellow's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 74

mellow is offline
jj - since you are here, maybe you could shed some light on variable bit rate encoding. I noticed the new Apple AAC is variable bit rate. In my own experience with mp3 VBR, I find it lacking in low midrange detail - particularly in the "body" of bass guitar tones. I have actually surprised myself several times; noticing this phenomenon while listening, only to find out later that it was a VBR encoded mp3. Of course, it could be just the encoder used or just not a high enough rate. But, can you speak to the comparative quality of VBR as opposed to constant bit rate?
j_j
Verified Member
#73
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #73
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellow View Post
jj - since you are here, maybe you could shed some light on variable bit rate encoding. I noticed the new Apple AAC is variable bit rate. In my own experience with mp3 VBR, I find it lacking in low midrange detail - particularly in the "body" of bass guitar tones. I have actually surprised myself several times; noticing this phenomenon while listening, only to find out later that it was a VBR encoded mp3. Of course, it could be just the encoder used or just not a high enough rate. But, can you speak to the comparative quality of VBR as opposed to constant bit rate?
If the VBR is doign this, it means that the threshold calculation in the encoder isn't providing the right masking thresholds, or that something that impliments them is fubar.
#74
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #74
Gear nut
 
SweetLossy's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: Basque Country, Spain
Posts: 116

SweetLossy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
The worst problem SHOULD BE keeping some 2dB or so of headroom to avoid clipping of the decoded audio. This holds for both MP3 and AAC, bearing in mind that some encoders enforce this by reducing input levels.
Hi JJ, I have learned and learn a lot from you, THANKS!

I think, in this case, the problem comes from the decoder and not the encoder.
For example, iTunes (the computer software), reconstruct audio clipping at 0 dBFS.
This is wrong. It would be much better to reconstruct to 32 float, normalize to 0 dBFS (maybe taking into account ISP's), and then going to 24 bit for the DA converter.
I have tested the new iTunes Mastering suite (except afclip because it does not work in my computer) and you can encode AAC files up to +12 dBFS without distortion (AAC from 32 bit float, file reconstructed with Wave Editor). A 1 kHz sine wave starts to distort at +14 dBFS (realtime @ 44.1 kHz).
So the problem, at least with the iTunes AAC encoder, is not on the input.

Clipping is fatal for lossy audio. But clipping is not 0 dBFS. Many masters clip at -0.1 dBFS or -0.3 dBFS. So the solution, in my opinion, is not in the final level of the master but in the absence of "square wave" clipping. Clipping is not bad for linear PCM but it's mortal for lossy audio, so I think it's necessary to do a different master for lossy.
If you go to 0dBFS without clipping you will have better sound than clipping at -1 dBFS and encoding to lossy.
The ideal scenario will be if all decoders, and lossy audio players, reconstruct to 32 float with ISP normalization to 0 dBFS.
I think it's time to update the iTunes software... IMHO, of course.



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

A side note from my iTunes Mastering suite testing.

afclip: it does not work in my computer. The wave picture in the manual looks very dangerous for the speakers. Maybe it needs a WARNING!: don't play this file.

afconvert: works OK.

Droplet: fast and easy. Great.

RoundTripAAC: absolutely fantastic!
It works very well as intended and it could be used also for creative purposes in a mixing environment:
1. Put the same soundfile in two tracks.
2. First track Dry, channel fader -1 dB.
3. Second track plugin order: Volume plugin #1--> RoundTrippAAC (with delay compensation) --> Volume plugin#2. Channel fader about -15 dB.
Params:
Volume #1: +30 dB (from normalized 0dBFS audio). (AAC input distorts).
RoundTrippAAC: test different encoder type and bitrate (each one needs its own delay compensation). The AAC-HE is really funny at very low bitrates...
Volume #2: -30 dB.
Name for this processing chain: Warmaac (AAC Spectral "Warmifier").
Introducing lossy audio as an effect...?
sorry...


SRC is phase linear.
At 96 kHz I have discovered some non linearities. At +18 dBFS 3rd harmonic predominant... tape/console emulation prior to SRC at 96 kHz?
...mystery...

__________________
Cognitive Audio Processing
http://www.sweetlossy.com/
#75
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #75
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 549

UncleBubba is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
This is sad. It's typical of the audio industry, and of the general USA's anti-science political climate in general.

But I have to say that the audio production community went anti-science rather before the republicans.

For the record, my comments were based on MPEG tests run with good encoders, on difficult material, and the results are very, very hard to argue with, at least from a factual basis.

I did notice somebody else said something about m4a having smaller files, they did notice, I hope, that I said "at the same bit rate" which would give you the SAME sized file, give or take a tiny bit.

Finally, people use AAC (and MP3, and WMA-pro, and most other compression algorithms) at rates they should simply not use them at.

That quite aside from there being some rather unpleasant encoders out there. With any of the perceptual coders, the encoder decides all, and if it's wrong, you're scrawed.

JJ...OK so you're not an Apple plant...I think anyway...but seriously now...the only thing sad is how a multi billion dollar company stood on the backs of creative folks and their support systems (free content) to sell their gadgets...now is that on topic?..nope? does that have anything to do with AAC at all?...nope...

so yeah a bit of a winge...but very realistic.

Now AAC...have to still say...even though I have my foot in my mouth regarding your expertise....

it simply is not good sounding...sorry man...but it doesn't handle transients well...from my experience...Logic mostly for AAC...and downloads from iTunes...soft soft softy soft...changes the shape of mixes too much for my liking...decent 256 MP3s are just fine...and much better than how cassettes represented...I might add.
j_j
Verified Member
#76
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #76
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetLossy View Post
Hi JJ, I have learned and learn a lot from you, THANKS!

I think, in this case, the problem comes from the decoder and not the encoder.
yes/no/both

The problem is that any perceptual coder is going to toss the parts it thinks are inaudible. This means a lot of upper harmonics that are masked. This means that the waveforms are going to acquire ringing. So the damage is done in the encoder, but won't manifest until the decoder.

And of course, clipping below fs is going to create a (I*(**&(&U load of harmonics, many of whicha re going to get removed, and there you go, EWWWWW.

The 3rd harmonic is, um, 'interesting' in that second thing. Dunno offhand.
arf
#77
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #77
arf
Gear addict
 
arf's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 431

arf is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post

Now AAC...have to still say...even though I have my foot in my mouth regarding your expertise....

it simply is not good sounding...
Nulling an mp3 or AAC against the original wav can be very informative as to what is actually being eliminated from the signal to achieve data reduction. With the better encoders and their highest rates, it's not all that much.
j_j
Verified Member
#78
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #78
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
JJ...OK so you're not an Apple plant...I think anyway...but seriously now...the only thing sad is how a multi billion dollar company stood on the backs of creative folks and their support systems (free content) to sell their gadgets...now is that on topic?..nope? does that have anything to do with AAC at all?...nope...
Hmm, lemme think, how much did Steve make on AAC and itunes?

Now, how much did I make on AAC?

Yeah, on the backs of the inventors, you bet your not too sorry ***.
Quote:

it simply is not good sounding...sorry man...but it doesn't handle transients well...from my experience...Logic mostly for AAC...and downloads from iTunes...soft soft softy soft...changes the shape of mixes too much for my liking...decent 256 MP3s are just fine...and much better than how cassettes represented...I might add.
Sounds like a bad encoder. A good encoder at 256kb/s with AAC is pretty much bulletproof. Most people fall off the ability to detect it (meaning trained listeners, not people off the street) circa 160kb/s. You can see the results on the old CRC test for the US DAR project.

But, yes, that was my research encoder, which remained with Lucent/AT&T and that was not picked up by anyone else, because Fraunhofer disagrees with how to make encoders, mostly.

But what you said suggests a real problem in the block switching detection to me, or maybe a faulty TNS implimentation. I'd have to look, and I'm not likely to, since the companies that make money from it don't give any to me.
OKB
#79
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #79
OKB
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 66

OKB is offline
How does "figuring out" what is the least possible quality that you can slip by most humans [without them noticing the degradation in the moment], so that you can surreptitiously remove the other true, original information [information that the conscious, subconscious, and / or superconscious mind may have perceived, or worked toward perceiving], help the humans to become more highly evolved with respect to perception and / or otherwise?

Think about what you do.

When, if at all, is it truly appropriate and beneficial, not just expedient, to employ such methods? When are they anything more than simple deception?

Who determines that the few who are perhaps capable of identifying the degradation in the moment are unimportant?
#80
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #80
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 549

UncleBubba is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by arf View Post
Nulling an mp3 or AAC against the original wav can be very informative as to what is actually being eliminated from the signal to achieve data reduction. With the better encoders and their highest rates, it's not all that much.
nonsense...it's a lot

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Hmm, lemme think, how much did Steve make on AAC and itunes?

Now, how much did I make on AAC?

Yeah, on the backs of the inventors, you bet your not too sorry ***.


Sounds like a bad encoder. A good encoder at 256kb/s with AAC is pretty much bulletproof. Most people fall off the ability to detect it (meaning trained listeners, not people off the street) circa 160kb/s. You can see the results on the old CRC test for the US DAR project.

But, yes, that was my research encoder, which remained with Lucent/AT&T and that was not picked up by anyone else, because Fraunhofer disagrees with how to make encoders, mostly.

But what you said suggests a real problem in the block switching detection to me, or maybe a faulty TNS implimentation. I'd have to look, and I'm not likely to, since the companies that make money from it don't give any to me.
Apple made Billions of the music industry...make no mistake about that...what you got paid for developing AAC...well that is none of my business.

AAC? I don't like it.
#81
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #81
Gear Head
 
mellow's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 74

mellow is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
If the VBR is doign this, it means that the threshold calculation in the encoder isn't providing the right masking thresholds, or that something that impliments them is fubar.
Thanks for the info. I didn't encode them, so no telling really. A few of them were actually from Amazon.com.

Of course there could be something other than VBR causing this, but then it' a strange coincidence that each time I detect it, the file is VBR.
arf
#82
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #82
arf
Gear addict
 
arf's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 431

arf is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKB View Post
How does "figuring out" what is the least possible quality that you can slip by most humans [without them noticing the degradation in the moment], so that you can surreptitiously remove the other true, original information [information that the conscious, subconscious, and / or superconscious mind may have perceived, or worked toward perceiving], help the humans to become more highly evolved with respect to perception and / or otherwise?

Think about what you do.

When, if at all, is it truly appropriate and beneficial, not just expedient, to employ such methods? When are they anything more than simple deception?

Who determines that the few who are perhaps capable of identifying the degradation in the moment are unimportant?
The same idealist criticism could be applied to any audio release medium from the wax cylinder on down.
dcollins
Verified Member
#83
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #83
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Hollywood CA
Posts: 3,168

Verified Member
dcollins is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
nonsense...it's a lot
Have you tried it? What was left?

Quote:
AAC? I don't like it.
Maybe you should use something else.


DC
j_j
Verified Member
#84
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #84
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKB View Post
When, if at all, is it truly appropriate and beneficial, not just expedient, to employ such methods? When are they anything more than simple deception?

Oh, come on, not another one of those luddite rants.

At any give frequency (inside of a critical band around it, as well) your ear has at most a 30dB signal to noise ratio.

That's a simple fact. If you do, in fact, always keep everything below that, taking into account the time-domain issues of a varying bandwidth with frequency, the stimulii on your auditory nerve will be equivalent.

That's a simple fact.

If you want to know how that 30dB gets mapped over 90+db, pick up my hearing tutorial at www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm and study it.

Perceptual coding is for when you MUST use it. How is this hard to understand?
j_j
Verified Member
#85
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #85
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
Apple made Billions of the music industry...make no mistake about that...what you got paid for developing AAC...well that is none of my business.

AAC? I don't like it.
Straight salary, like if I hadn't done it.
j_j
Verified Member
#86
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #86
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Oh, and Bubba, as someone who has spent a lot of time analyzing the difference between AAC and PAC signals and the original in my time, they don't have to be very different.

The whole key is in HOW they are different, or not.

If you ever find yourself at an AES meeting that I'm at, I have a couple of files to play for you.
#87
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #87
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 82

duke89061 is offline
How does one go about uploading 24 bit masters to iTunes?

Major labels tend to use the 16 bit masters ripped from a disc for iTunes uploading in my experience. Tunecore and ReverbNation don't seem to accept 24 bit wavs.

How does a mastering engineer go about getting his clients' 24 bit masters to Apple?

How does an artist go about getting the "Mastered for iTunes" designation on their album once it's uploaded?
OKB
#88
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #88
OKB
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 66

OKB is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by arf View Post
The same idealist criticism could be applied to any audio release medium from the wax cylinder on down.
Not by me, man. Because I would find it ridiculous.

Striving to reproduce sound with the best possible fidelity, given current technology, and an attempt to devise, or to determine, a means of "fooling" people with carefully disguised sub-optimal fidelity, are different things, in my view.

I can't believe you think the two different things would somehow be indicted by the same argument.

I can't believe someone like you would say something like what you did, quoted above.

Also, I don't understand why you speak of idealism as if it were something bad. Idealism is good, imo.
j_j
Verified Member
#89
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #89
j_j
Retired old guy
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 535

Verified Member
j_j is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKB View Post
That's what's objectionable, the misuse.

Now I don't know what, if any, control you have over all that, or whether or not you feel any duty or obligation to promote the proper use of what you claim you "invented". You probably have some pull there.
I have absolutely no control NOR do I have any pull in this area, other than to ridicule people who use ridiculous bit rates, in which case I'm just another voice in the crowd.

But why would you suppose I've been saying that since 1989? Here, need a clue-by-four?
Quote:

So, while I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with your semi-comprehensible "explanation" / theory about how hearing works, or how you apparently feel that it justifies something [which something you unfortunately fail to specify], I can tell you this much in plain English:

Dumbing down the listening public, just for the sake of profit, is no good.
Since nobody is "dumbing down the public" with a PROPER application of the science of hearing, I'm not sure where you got that. There is no insult to anyone's intellegence, unless you want to get into the clipped, hypercompressed (in the level sense) crap that is all that seems to get turned out these days. I mean, what maroon decided to clip the remaster of the Tremelo's "Silence is Golden?" Geemany dogs allbarking.

You may not think my explanation is comrehensible, I submit that perhaps you can tell us all, right here and now, the difference between loudness and intensity. From there we'll move on to critical bands, the cochlear filter bank, and thence to masking.

Oh, and your scare quotes constitute an accusation. Care to try to back that one up, fella? I really have had it with this profession, it's chockablock full of people who like to be rude, nasty, and insulting, and who would rather get into a fight than learn.
24-96 Mastering
Verified Member
#90
1st March 2012
Old 1st March 2012
  #90
Lives for gear
 
24-96 Mastering's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Posts: 2,836

Verified Member
24-96 Mastering is offline
So, seeing we still can't generate the actual assets ourselves, are any MEs here at this point confidently handling the labels 24/96 files for iTunes-ification? Sounds like a potential can of worms as long as procedures aren't tried & tested on the label side... Do any labels have provisions for this already?
__________________
.
Robin Schmidt @ 24-96 Mastering
www.24-96.comfacebook
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Mixerlmike / The Moan Zone
89
ninjaneer / Music Computers
2
mxeryus / Music Computers
2
Jesse Dunn / Music Computers
3

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.