The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Prophet 6 Gain Comparison Demo
Old 12th March 2018
  #1
Prophet 6 Gain Comparison Demo

Okay, as requested I wrote and recorded a short demo to see if there were practical differences in using a variety of gain settings on the Prophet 6 (see: I want to love the Prophet 6).

Here are the full details:

Overview
The purpose of this demo is to ascertain whether or not there is an audible difference in the Prophet 6 synthesizer based on its internal gain settings. As discussed earlier, the internal gain staging of the Prophet 6 is complex, with the possibility of overdriving the synthesizer. Questions have emerged to whether or not the sonic quality of the Prophet 6 can be improved by using more conservative gain stage settings when programming the synth.

Programming the Sounds
There are two versions of the same song. The non-synth elements are the same in each. However, in the "optimal gain" version the Prophet 6 was set with the oscillators and VCA envelope amount at 65%. The "max gain" version has those parameters set at 100%. To create the sounds I programmed the optimal gain version first, copied that program to another sound bank, adjusted the oscillator mix and envelope to 100%, and then adjusted the program volume until they were equally loud (+/- 0.1 db) based on peak and RMS metering. The target goal was that each preset, whether they were optimal or max gain, would be matched in gain and record at -18 dbfs based on the (static) UA Apollo preamp settings (+30db: see below).

Then I recorded each track sequentially--first the optimal and then the max gain preset. I proceeded systematically through each of the sounds in this fashion. When external processing was employed I used the same settings without making any adjustments at all. Furthermore, I did not alter the preamp/interface gain--it remained the same for the entirety of the recording process.

Recording Studio Setup and Process
To record these tracks I used a Universal Audio Apollo Twin Duo (v1) into Cubase version 8.5. Neumann KH120 nearfield monitors were used during the length of the session to judge the recordings and complete the mixing and mastering processes. Regarding the actual recording of the tracks, no Unison enabled plugins were used during recording. The input gain of the Apollo was set at +30db. For the purposes of this test I originally wanted to set the Apollo at unity gain, which is +16db based on an earlier test I conducted using white noise. However, based on the output level of the Prophet 6, I decided to increase the Apollo's gain to better facilitate this test. The setting of +30db was viewed as a reasonable compromise. As mentioned earlier, the gain setting of +30db was not altered during this test as the purpose is to evaluate the effect of the P6's internal gain structure--not the performance of the Apollo. Each track was recorded to peak at -18 dbfs, based on the earlier settings.

For MIDI sequencing I used Cubase 8.5 and the MOTU Midi Express 128 USB. Additionally, my studio is equipped with a patchbay (ProCo PM148). The Prophet 6 and Apollo are both integrated into the patchbay. The MIDI, patch, and audio cables are all ProCo Excellines.

To aid in recording "finished sounds" (my preferred working style) I utilized a number of external sound devices. Each device and setting was used for both the optimized and max gain tracks. The following additional equipment was used: Pigtronix Echolution2 Pro, Red Witch Empress chorus, TC Electronic Stereo Chorus Flanger, JHS Colour Box, Boss Dm-2w Delay, and the Pigtronix Keymaster.

Composition Elements
The majority of the demo song consists of Prophet 6 tracks. However, there are a number of other elements in the song. I intentionally restricted these additional parts, but ultimately decided that the incorporation of percussion would improve the track. Furthermore, the selection of a piano sound was also chosen because it serves as an excellent barometer for estimating the sonic quality and dynamics of the Prophet 6. As you may know, the piano is one of the most dynamic and widest frequency range of instruments, which is why this was purposely selected. Furthermore, the basic music and arrangement was written on a piano, so that seemed a natural choice to include in the song. Lastly, a small sound effect was included at the beginning and end of the song that was taken from the Evolve library.

Note that all additional sounds were chosen to enhance the demo, serve as a comparison to judge the Prophet 6, and because none of these elements can be confused for the Prophet 6. Thus, no synthesizer, string machine, or other sounds were chosen that could be mistaken for the Prophet 6. If you hear a synthesizer you are hearing the Prophet 6.

The additional elements included are: (1) Evolve shaker loop at the intro/outro, (2) Native Instruments' The Grandeur piano library, (3) Linn Drum kick and snare drawn from Arturia Spark, and (4) high hats, toms, crash cymbals, and room mics from Native Instruments' 80s Drums library.

Prophet 6 Parts
My goal was to feature a wide variety of sound types the P6 is capable of. Generally speaking, I stuck to creating "bread and butter" types of programs. Each program was created by myself based on the needs of the song. There are a total of eight Prophet 6 parts in the song: (1) a high arpeggiated figure with a delay on the right side, (2) an ostinato that exploits the pan spread feature with a mild delay, (3) a deep low swelling pad, (4) a punchier bass line, (5) a phased-out string machine sound that used the diode distortion on the P6, (6) a TC chorused, pseudo-brassy main melody line, (7) an angry PWM swell, and (8) a highly resonant string swell.

Mixing and Mastering
After all the tracks were recorded I created a new session for mixing purposes. To maintain consistency between the songs I assigned the tracks to versions in Cubase. Thus, version 1 consisted of all the "max gain" tracks and version 2 contained the "optimal gain" recordings. That way all I had to do was switch the track version and the mixer settings, plugin settings, auxillary busses, and other settings would remain consistent. The additional elements remained consistent between each version and were not altered. While mixing I periodically switched back and forth between version 1 and 2. The final mix was the result of compromises that worked and sounded the best for both versions.

In order to save time I neglected to automate the mix. If this were a "proper" version of this song I would invariably automate the mix; however, as the purpose of this exercise is to explore the Prophet 6's sonic quality I felt that was "trying too dang hard."

A number of plugins were used to construct the mix, primarily Slate Digital plugins (VTM/VCC/VMR/VBC). All console emulation settings were based on the SSL G. The EQ and dynamics processors were Slate Digital emulations of the SSL (FG-S and FG-401). The main reverb is UA EMT 250, the snare and kick make use of the Lexicon Random Hall program. For mix buss processing I employed the following: VCC (SSL G), UA Pultec EQ1P for a gentle 8k boost, Slate VBC: Red, and finally to Slate VTM.

While I did a fair amount of mix processing it is important to note that *both* versions of the song received the exact same processing. This allows comparisons to be made for how well the P6 accepts processing and if there are differences based on its internal gain.

To "master" the track I applied a standard HP cut around 35 hz, a gentle roll off around 16.6 khz using Waves Linear Phase EQ. Then I used FG-X, bypassing the compressor function, to bring the tracks up to a standard listening volume. My aim was 14 decibels of dynamic range. It was decided that, in addition to sounding awful, that a master with less dynamic range would make it difficult or impossible to judge the differences between versions. Therefore it was decided to preserve a fairly liberal dynamic range.

Conclusion
I will NOT be weighing in on this discussion, at least not at first. I debated whether or not to even label which was which in the interest of seeing which was preferred. However, I decided to forego that option as it is seldom that fruitful conversations occur in those types of "taste tests" that aren't otherwise discussed under normal circumstances.

Note: the track takes a little while to get going. Give it time....

Here is a link to both versions:

Prophet 6 Gain Comparison by James Kenneth Meeker | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Last edited by James Meeker; 12th March 2018 at 04:47 AM..
Old 12th March 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 

OK, i like how the first one sounds.
Now the second one...
I like it too.

Will A/B tomorrow when i am not so sleepy and tired - almost 5am here.


Also a good song.
Old 12th March 2018
  #3
Lives for gear
Thanks for doing this, and for the careful documentation.

Just listened for the first time through ATH-M50x’s and middle-aged ears.

Which settings sounded better to me depended on the timbre. The high arp with delay seemed to be brighter and more present with the levels maxed, and for me that was a good thing. But the paddish sounds benefited imo from the dialed-back levels—more softened. Over the course of the track, it seemed like the maxed version got a little fatiguing, and the dialed-back version got a little backgroundish, like i wanted some new brighter sonic element to appear and take center stage.

The dialed-back sounds reminded me of what I’ve been getting by just turning the oscs down in the mixer. Still need to experiment with VCA envelope level as a gain stage.

Thanks again for working this up!

edit: The melody is now lingering in my mind’s ear. Well done...
Old 12th March 2018
  #4
Really nice track. And the funny thing for me is - after participating for weeks in various "Prophet 6 vs the world" threads, eager to hear every edge of objective difference - I put this on and find myself simply enjoying the music. Huh. Of all things! Granted I'm in a cafe with headphones on, not sat in my studio staring at the perfect mid-point between my speakers and my brain, but I do wonder how able I am to evaluate the differences here after all. As George Harrison's cartoon double would say, "It's all in the mind." Still, I will play this again in my wee studio, notebook in hand (whether I take notes or not), because I'm fascinated, like so many of us, with how to keep finding magic in the toys we make music with. But, really - nice track.
Old 12th March 2018
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by percussion boy View Post

Which settings sounded better to me depended on the timbre. The high arp with delay seemed to be brighter and more present with the levels maxed, and for me that was a good thing. But the paddish sounds benefited imo from the dialed-back levels—more softened. Over the course of the track, it seemed like the maxed version got a little fatiguing, and the dialed-back version got a little backgroundish, like i wanted some new brighter sonic element to appear and take center stage.
Thank you for the comparison as well.

Listening here on Dynaudio BM6As and Avantone Mixcubes

I agree with this assessment - both versions sound good, neither sound wrong, and it's a very subtle difference if you are looking for it. If you aren't looking for it you may not notice that much.

I too will be experimenting more with Env Amount as a gain stage setting.
Old 12th March 2018
  #6
M32
Lives for gear
 
M32's Avatar
First off, nice track.

I must say i do find the whole exercise a bit pointless.
The results are as would be expected when every sound is driven hard,
you get less depth and dynamics.
Of course for some sounds a driven, pushed tone can be great.

I have an OB-6, not a P6 but i noticed the same thing:
DSI has given you all the range you could get out of this instrument, allowing you to change the tone, and adjust for a different input (one osc - multiple oscs - unison - with spread or not etc...)

Anyone experienced in synthesis knows the key is subtlety,
turning knobs all the way to the left or right will rarely give you a nuanced result.
Again, in a good synth, parameter range is wide enough to give the maximum flexibility and range,
it doesn't mean it always has to be on 11.

What i found more interesting is the difference between
pushing the mixer section going into the filter vs pushing the VCA section.
Both give very different results.
This is what i think would be a worthwile experiment/research.

Backing off osc mixer levels to around 50 percent and VCA level to 60 percent seems to give the cleanest results, with notes and transients becoming most clear.

Pushing mixer levels makes the sound more smudgy, but in a nice warm way.

Pushing the VCA feels most extreme to me, it gets rather fuzzy and harsh, which i do like for some basses and agressive sounds.

I noticed that for me, most factory presets are pushing the vca too hard already. One of the first things i do when auditioning them is dial back the VCA amount, often with good results.

When i'm making a sound i like to find the best balance between mixer levels and vca amount, while adjusting for level change with the program volume dial.

I noticed the vca responds very differently when you are using the stereo spread, centered sounds drive the vca a lot quicker. Again, having range to compensate is great.
Old 13th March 2018
  #7
Lives for gear
 
synthguy's Avatar
I kind of agree with everyone above on their takes. A scouche contradictory here and there, but that's what will come with two tracks made of subtle differences. The main thing to me was that the maxed filter swells got rather blarey in an obnoxious way, though I was listening to both a hair loud in Sennheizers through an audiophile DAC. There was a smidge more definition and clarity overall in the laid back track, but shouty swells aside, both sounded really good. The P~6 rocks right well.

Now to enjoy it over speakers with sushi.
Old 17th March 2018
  #8
Did two things: used tracks from both "takes" (optimal and max) and then put a proper mix and master on the track. Added an additional percussion bit during the last couple of bars.

Oracle Gate Main Theme by Electromancer | Free Listening on SoundCloud
Old 17th March 2018
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Meeker View Post
Did two things: used tracks from both "takes" (optimal and max) and then put a proper mix and master on the track. Added an additional percussion bit during the last couple of bars.

Oracle Gate Main Theme by Electromancer | Free Listening on SoundCloud
Hi James! Thanks for this post again. I wanted to clarify that when you say both volumes at 65% (optimal) you mean the knobs at around 2 o’clock. Simple question.

Also, regarding the gain staging of the preamp, I am now using the Prophet into the Great River pre DI and then into apogee converters. Since I am using an external preamp, the apogee is set to +4db bypassing its preamps (as with all pro gear). Then given that I set the Prophet at its optimal settings (65% for everything, for instance), should I set the volume on the preamp so that when this track hits the logic fader at “0 position” it has a 18db output?

I think that this is what you mean, but wanted to make sure.

Thanks.
Old 17th March 2018
  #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttattwa View Post
I wanted to clarify that when you say both volumes at 65% (optimal) you mean the knobs at around 2 o’clock. Simple question.
Yeah, the mix and envelope amount knobs were at about 2 o'clock for the "optimal gain" setting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttattwa View Post
Also, regarding the gain staging of the preamp, I am now using the Prophet into the Great River pre DI and then into apogee converters. Since I am using an external preamp, the apogee is set to +4db bypassing its preamps (as with all pro gear). Then given that I set the Prophet at its optimal settings (65% for everything, for instance), should I set the volume on the preamp so that when this track hits the logic fader at “0 position” it has a 18db output?
I recommend making it so the P6 patches hit -18 dbfs going through the Apogee (no Great River in the chain). Once you have that level optimized you can set your external gear like the GR preamp, which should also end up around -18 dbfs once the gain/output has been adjusted.

I have my master volume on the P6 set at 70%, which seems a good compromise for a number of factors based on my setup. I don't recommend putting the master volume on 100% on any synth.

Whatever method you use to set the P6's total output I would standardize it. For monophonic sounds I test a C2, C3, and C4. For polyphonic sounds I play a C3 chord with C1 and C2 held down. It helps to play the same note/chords when setting volume to get things approximately equal.
Old 17th March 2018
  #11
Gear Maniac
 

Meanwile I making music with my Prophet-6 .
Old 17th March 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Meeker View Post
I have my master volume on the P6 set at 70%, which seems a good compromise for a number of factors based on my setup. I don't recommend putting the master volume on 100% on any synth.
Hey James - thanks for such a meticulous and detailed test. I have an OB-6 and it's much the same story.

Out of interest - what are your reasons for the above statement?

I've spent 30 years working with synths' master volume always up at 100%!
Old 17th March 2018
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
I've spent 30 years working with synths' master volume always up at 100%!
My understanding is that the output for most synthesizers is a gain stage involving opamps. Most opamps prefer to be ran at less than their maximum capacity. Theoretically one should get a cleaner, less distorted signal with more headroom by running an amplifier at that level.
Old 17th March 2018
  #14
Lives for gear
 
synthguy's Avatar
I'm surprised no one has liked the new track. I guess it was that good already?

This is inspiring me to claw through some weekend fatigue, with the help of some coffee, and get back to that music stuff myself. Synthesizing is the best!
Old 23rd March 2018
  #15
I had a few private questions about the improved mix that I'd like to answer. First concerned the recording process--as mentioned above I tracked all of the signals at -18 dbfs, which is my standard practice. I made use of the JHS Colour Box on many of the signals, both for mild color and EQ.

Quite a few questions about mixing: first plugin was VTM set to the 16 track/Ampex 456 model at normal bias. Moderate drive throughout except for the bass pad, which benefitted from mild compression artifacts. VTM went straight to Slate VMR, with Slate VCC set to the SSL G model, with most signals nearing 0 dbu on its internal meters. I generally gain stage console simulation plugins identically how I would work on a SSL G, Neve V3, or Trident 80B (the consoles I spent the most time with in my prior career). As a rule of thumb: bass signals get less "slam" (otherwise they can quickly lose focus), background elements also get less, and forward/main elements get more drive. Delicate elements, like high hat or cymbals, also get a lot less drive into the console. The vast majority of signals were EQ'd with the Slate SSL model (FG-S). Nothing too radical with the EQ, just typical moves to tailor the top end, bottom end, clean up the mids, allow for separation, and so forth.

Very little compression was used on the individual tracks with the exception of the two bass elements. Both were compressed using the Slate FG-401 (SSL model). When mixing electronic music I find compression to be counterproductive in many cases except for the low end. My main goal was to "level out" the bass pad so that the punchier synth bass could come and go without losing the low end, yet it wouldn't produce mud when both were active. Therefore, the bass pad is "held" in place about 4 db underneath the synth bass. Furthermore, I used the SPL Transient Designer on the synth bass to further accentuate its punch.

Most compression occurred on the mix buss. Using the Slate VBC I put the FG-Red (Focusrite Red 3 model) across the buss set at a 1:2 ratio, -12 threshold, with a slow attack and automatic release. Drive was set around 7. This provided a reasonable amount of transparent compression that preserved transient information yet "glued" the entire track together. Speaking of mix buss, I placed a UA Pultec after the compressor that moderately (+1.7 or so) boosted 100 hz and 8 khz at the onset of mixing. These boosts resulted in needing a lot less EQ'ing of the individual tracks. Lastly, the Slate VCC (SSL G) mix buss plugin was placed first as well as an instance of Slate VTM (2 track master, normal bias, 456) as the last plugin in the chain. Neither the console or tape emulation featured radical boosting/drive. My goal is to produce a clear and big mix, so driving the entire mix through these processes is detrimental to that end. Mainly I'm looking to achieve mild harmonic excitement, mild compression, and greater stereo separation with these plugins.

Obviously, I set my mix buss first and work through those processes and settings throughout. Once set I rarely modify my mix buss settings. It is amazing how quickly your mix can fall apart when you change your buss settings around. After years of doing this I have a good sense for what will or won't work. Furthermore, if it is NOT working I usually pick up on that pretty fast and make adjustments early on.

Effects wise I ran a few aux/send effects: (1) main reverb (UA EMT 250), (2) Lexicon Random Hall for snare, and (3) SPL Vitalizer for stereo widening. Both reverbs were further post-EQ'd with Slate FG-S to work together, reduce low end mud, control the top end, and so forth. The last plugin for each aux chain was Slate VCC (SSL G) for added authenticity to a "real world" analog console environment.

I would like to add that, generally speaking, the Prophet 6 did most of the heavy lifting for me. By carefully programming sounds that worked together, as well as taking advantage of the ability to use a high pass filter on the P6 to control the low end, most of the "mix" was captured at the point of recording. As I tracked using chorus and delay for most of the sounds I did not require very many FX busses at all (3 total). The Prophet made putting the track together very, very easy!

I had an inquiry for reference mixes that I used. The primary tracks I referenced were Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories" for low end, Front Line Assembly's "Tactical Neural Implant" for transients/punch/midrange, and a combination of Scott Litt and Trevor Horn's work for top end. I also referred to the first Nine Inch Nails album (PHM) a few times. One challenge when mixing primarily electronic music is the lack of truly audiophile synth recordings.

The resultant mix had about 18-21 decibels of dynamic range and peaked at -6 dbfs. The final master averaged 12-14 decibels of dynamic range (LUFS) once mild compression and limiting was involved. It was very important that the master accurately reflect the mix without any radical processing.

If I had to collect any "take aways" from this particular production they would be:

1. I tracked "finished" sounds that required very little additional processing

2. I avoided compression except on the bass lines and mix buss

3. EQ was minimal--it was only used to reduce masking, tailor the top/low end, and avoid midrange clutter

4. Virtual console/tape plugins were employed minimally, more for esthetic style than to "make or break" any track

5. Lots of hard panning, or employment of the pan adjustment on the P6

The last thing I want to note: in general, the "optimized gain" tracks responded slightly better to any processing while mixing. I found I could push EQ further on those tracks. That being said, some of the final mix tracks use the "max gain" settings, notably the ostinato P6 line and the bass pad. The synth bass, which is very punchy, was "optimized." Generally speaking, the "max" synth bass had about half of the punch as the "optimized" version; this makes sense because I've found that punchy sounds are the result of having plenty of headroom.

Hope this answers any questions you may have had!
Old 23rd March 2018
  #16
Gear Addict
 
Blackdog128's Avatar
I wasn't smart enough to have any questions, but I sure learned a lot from that post!

Thanks!

Last edited by Blackdog128; 23rd March 2018 at 09:47 PM.. Reason: forgot to say thanks :^)
Old 24th March 2018
  #17
Gear Maniac
 

That's a nice track, haven't heard much about the JHS Color box, what are its strengths for your process and sound?
Old 24th March 2018
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelxd View Post
...haven't heard much about the JHS Color box, what are its strengths for your process and sound?
Well, it is versatile: can handle line, DI, and microphone level signals. For the cost it is a steal: a "Neve inspired" preamp (Lundahl custom wound transformer, for whatever that is worth) plus a rudimentary fixed three band EQ and highpass filter.

Can be brilliant on some sources, particularly bass and guitar. Synth-wise it is hit or miss (I've had more luck with analog synths than digital, despite marketing blurbs that it will "warm up" those types of instruments.... the OB-Xa and Odyssey sound awesome through it, the MEK not so much). Capable of stuttering, circuits driven past the point of failure types of sounds which makes it vaguely unique.

Honestly, I don't think it sounds very much like a 1073. However, it sounds very good. Reminds me of a weightier API preamp, but sacrifices some snap for size. It doesn't seem to get those chocolatey Neve sub-harmonics though. There are some sub-harmonics, but not as *complex* as the Neve. This isn't surprising because the Colour Box costs so much less and runs on a piddly 18v power supply.

Neat box. I will probably keep it around for bass/guitar even after I (finally) pick up the a pair of 1073LB's. You can easily summon those direct "The Wall" tones with a generous high band boost and bass cut*.

*note: plus a digital delay, obviously.
Old 24th March 2018
  #19
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Meeker View Post
Well, it is versatile: can handle line, DI, and microphone level signals. For the cost it is a steal: a "Neve inspired" preamp (Lundahl custom wound transformer, for whatever that is worth) plus a rudimentary fixed three band EQ and highpass filter.

Can be brilliant on some sources, particularly bass and guitar. Synth-wise it is hit or miss (I've had more luck with analog synths than digital, despite marketing blurbs that it will "warm up" those types of instruments.... the OB-Xa and Odyssey sound awesome through it, the MEK not so much). Capable of stuttering, circuits driven past the point of failure types of sounds which makes it vaguely unique.

Honestly, I don't think it sounds very much like a 1073. However, it sounds very good. Reminds me of a weightier API preamp, but sacrifices some snap for size. It doesn't seem to get those chocolatey Neve sub-harmonics though. There are some sub-harmonics, but not as *complex* as the Neve. This isn't surprising because the Colour Box costs so much less and runs on a piddly 18v power supply.

Neat box. I will probably keep it around for bass/guitar even after I (finally) pick up the a pair of 1073LB's. You can easily summon those direct "The Wall" tones with a generous high band boost and bass cut*.

*note: plus a digital delay, obviously.
Thanks for the input, Ive been curious about it since I first heard about it, but there isn't much information online about its use with synthesizers. I'm assuming you like the way it compliments the Prophet-6 as well since you recorded with it.
Old 24th March 2018
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelxd View Post
Thanks for the input, Ive been curious about it since I first heard about it, but there isn't much information online about its use with synthesizers. I'm assuming you like the way it compliments the Prophet-6 as well since you recorded with it.
It works moderately well, not as much as I would have liked. But it still adds something.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 5614 views: 927204
Avatar for zachaction
zachaction 18th February 2020
replies: 7332 views: 959035
Avatar for DStep ATL
DStep ATL 1 week ago
replies: 151 views: 29071
Avatar for znature
znature 6th February 2015
replies: 366 views: 55257
Avatar for robshrock
robshrock 20th August 2020
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump