The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Have the higher sampling rate and bit depths cured the digital monster? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 13th August 2014
  #241
Quote:
Originally Posted by PorchBass View Post
I don't see how vinyl or tape fit into a discussion about high resolution digital recording?
I used to sell hi-fi and have on many occasions sat with customers swapping out interconnects in nice Hi-Fi systems in nice rooms. The thing that always struck me is that changing an interconnect wire will almost always be noticeable. The difficulty came in deciding whether noticeable meant 'better'.
To me 24/96 and above are obviously technically better and represent the future of recording, but the average consumers' analogue replay chain is getting worse negating any benefits.
I am also bored of buying CDs so compressed at mix and mastering that I don't like listening to them (e.g. last QOTSA album).
[bold added]

Uh oh.


For the record, of course, different lengths, different radii, different metallurgical composition can make a difference in signal transmission. If I compare 10 feet of speaker interconnect (ie, wire) with 1000 feet of the same wire using the same full bandwidth signal, I don't think we're going to need to ABX that.

But if you take two cables of the same basic construction and composition, all else being equal, there's not much chance of performance variation. The job of wire is pretty darn simple. The parameters of its construction and operation -- at this point in technological history -- are very well understood.

It's entirely possible to come up with two different cables with different performance if we substantially alter the material or design of the wire. But the bottom line is that there is not much point in such because the job of wire is so well understood by those solidly in the technical community: the transmission of signal with minimum loss and minimum signal degradation in any given application. The factors in determining this are reasonably simple and very well understood. We might make some trade-offs in 'difficult' situations like long cable runs and the like, but, at the root, proper selection of cabling is not, uh, rocket science.
Old 13th August 2014
  #242
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
No, it's an attitude. People who are betting their career on their next release always want the highest quality they can get. This is because literally one excited reviewer has often made the difference between a million seller and a thousand unopened CDs or records sitting in a garage.

We don't make records for "consumers." We make records for the folks who can advance an artist's career including their most engaged fans. No recording can ever be "good enough" for many of us.
And in none of those cases is anyone listening to anything better than 44.1/16. Attitude doesn't create frequencies above the limits of human hearing. The differences between a hit and a garage full of junk can all be found below 20kHz.

Personally, I don't get the engineering obsession with the top half octave of human hearing. Like I said, I still have excellent hearing, but I'm glad it's decayed to the point where it's 'normal', because now I can finally stand to listen to a glockenspiel. There's hardly any sound energy up there in daily life, and to have it poking you in the ear in a recording is just unnatural and annoying. It's a total distraction from where all the action, and where all the music is. A small, natural amount for some air is fine if there's some silence and some space, but cranking it so you can hear it over a 20dB noise floor is just perverse.

But maybe that's the difference. I can hear it, and I don't love it. Whatever it is, I don't associate it with any concept of 'quality'.
Old 13th August 2014
  #243
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

wading back into this mega thread.......

* When I am in my home studio, I mix to my RADAR and I can export or burn 24/44.1 WAV files or a burn a CD at 16/44.1 .

* when I play back the CD and the WAV files through my OPPO player in my living room system (its not audiophile but pretty nice), I prefer the WAV versions. Maybe its the CD encoder, maybe its bit depth, maybe both?

* I have done some recording projects at 24/96, but to be honest, I only notice a big quality difference when recording sparse acoustic stuff. (My old RADAR gives me 24 tracks at 44.1, 12 at 96)

* I have been a consumer of hi res music (SACD, DVD A, HD Traks, Blu Ray Audio etc) for over 10 years and have come to some conclusions:

- If listening to material that was originally from a tape master, the improvement in audio quality (over older conventional CD's) can be stunning IF the source material was recorded well and the Hi Res mastering engineer is talented.

-Analog recordings can sound so special in Hi Res Digital because the smoothness, roundness and full dynamics of tape based recordings can be fully captured in the high res format, not subject to the limitations cutting to vinyl

-However, some recordings remastered for both CD and hi res release are treated to high levels on compression for "loudness". These sound like ****e and a hi res version is a waste of money

-If listening to modern digital recordings, the hi res versions tend to sound better ONLY IF the mastering engineer allows for some dynamic range

-I believe that Hi Res formats can get market traction if we can expose more listeners to what a 5.1 mix done by someone like Eliot Scheiner sounds like.
Old 13th August 2014
  #244
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post

-However, some recordings remastered for both CD and hi res release are treated to high levels on compression for "loudness". These sound like ****e and a hi res version is a waste of money

-If listening to modern digital recordings, the hi res versions tend to sound better ONLY IF the mastering engineer allows for some dynamic range
I'm thinking of the 24/96 Talking Heads remasters right now, way too compressed. The original CDs sounded better.
Old 13th August 2014
  #245
Lives for gear
So here are two versions of the sam track. It's a quick retake of a demo I'm doing for a singer, a "jazz" version of Pink's "Get the Party Started." I just dashed this off at 96/24, then bounced one to a 96/24 wav file, the other downsampled to 44/16. The drums are a midi loop, the guitars and bass were recorded direct.

File one

File two

When I listened to them knowing which was which, I thought the 96/44 file sounded better. Then I put the files into a FREE program called ABX tester, and my accuracy rate was 20% on the first try, 20% on the second try.

In other words, I at first tended to believe the 96/44 would sound better, because I knew it was the 94/44 file--even though I'm completely skeptical of the difference, I still tended to favor the 94/44 file--until they were loaded into a simple ABX test, at which point I could not tell the difference.

This is a great example of the power of suggestion/confirmation bias at work--I used my own gear, gear I've gigged with for years, and mixed it myself, and still could not tell the difference. Try it yourself--download the files, and load them in an ABX testing program. Because if you see that one of the files is bigger, you will probably hear it as better. That's what conformation bias is and does
Attached Thumbnails
Have the higher sampling rate and bit depths cured the digital monster?-testresults.jpg  
Old 13th August 2014
  #246
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Here are a 16 bit and a 24/192 version of something I recorded for another thread. Both were recorded with a Prism Orpheus at 24/192, a couple DPA 4011s in XY through a Pacifica. No processing, so they are not loud.

This is not the complete picture as they both come from the same source file. I'm not able to record 16/44 and 24/192 in parallel with the same converters from the same sound source.

Ok, here we go:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eq13jcubd...P9g7Pg09SGLdRa
Just for interest here is also a link to an older thread I posted with basically the same recording as above in 24/44 but one sourced from a 24/192 take through the Prism and another from DSD 128 through a Korg MR-1000. The DSD take IS different in terms of playing and instrument placement, but I still think the sonic contrast is apparent.

Are there any PCM converters that will get me close to DSD sound quality?
Old 13th August 2014
  #247
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
I'm thinking of the 24/96 Talking Heads remasters right now, way too compressed. The original CDs sounded better.



I think this observation -- while not reflecting directly on the specific OP question -- as well as psycho_monkey's observation that he has to lobby hard to try to get labels to keep proper archival copies, points to what is likely to be a far bigger problem going forward unless serious cross-industry efforts are made to properly archive best-copies of these releases which, in aggregate, represent much of the musical history of the last 120 or so years.

WHATEVER formats we settle on, we need to emphasize to the people who own/control the masters that they have a 'responsibility' to properly preserve that recorded history. And that, as the psycho one suggests, may often be an uphill battle.
Old 13th August 2014
  #248
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
However "best under the circumstances" can't be ruled out.
"Best under the circumstances" is the hell we're condemned to!
Old 13th August 2014
  #249
For those performing ABX at different sample rates -- don't forget to make sure your converter is actually operating at the native SR!

Don't forget, both Windows and Mac OS default audio behavior is to resample on the fly.

When I tested Lance's two files I had to manually switch my converter up to 96 kHz and then back down to 44.1 kHz or the system would have done an SRC instead of resetting the sample rate on the device.
Old 13th August 2014
  #250
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
For those performing ABX at different sample rates -- don't forget to make sure your converter is actually operating at the native SR!

Don't forget, both Windows and Mac OS default audio behavior is to resample on the fly.

When I tested Lance's two files I had to manually switch my converter up to 96 kHz and then back down to 44.1 kHz or the system would have done an SRC instead of resetting the sample rate on the device.
Very important. I am about to download the program, and I was about to ask if did change the sample rate in OS. Good to know.

But wait, doesn't that mess up the blind?
Old 13th August 2014
  #251
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kafka View Post
...Personally, I don't get the engineering obsession with the top half octave of human hearing...
It isn't an obsession with the top half of or anything above the range of human hearing. Nobody is suggesting that.

It's an obsession with mid-range and lower midrange grunge, the range where our hearing is most sensitive. Recording and mixing at higher sample rates can help avoid it with many real world converters and software.
Old 13th August 2014
  #252
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
It isn't an obsession with the top half of or anything above the range of human hearing. Nobody is suggesting that.

It's an obsession with mid-range and lower midrange grunge, the range where our hearing is most sensitive. Recording and mixing at higher sample rates can help avoid it with many real world converters and software.
Recording and mixing at 96kHz is not the same as having the delivery in 96kHz. Obviously processing sounds different in higher sample rates. But an audio file shouldn't (and that is what the trials were about - anyone can hear the difference in mixing, no ABX testing required).

I can't hear any difference in 96kHz vs 44.1kHz personally (and yes the files contained above 20khz content). Might post some audio here later, although this has been done so many times that I am not seeing the point anymore.
Old 13th August 2014
  #253
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
It isn't an obsession with the top half of or anything above the range of human hearing. Nobody is suggesting that.

It's an obsession with mid-range and lower midrange grunge, the range where our hearing is most sensitive. Recording and mixing at higher sample rates can help avoid it with many real world converters and software.
But we're not talking about recording and mixing. We're talking about the delivery format.

If your filter works better at 96kHz in the studio, down in the audible range, then by all means, use that instead. You'd be crazy not to, no matter what the spectrum of the program material looks like. But delivery at 96/24 isn't going to do anything for the reception of the final product. You have no insight into what the user is using for DA (or their amp, speakers, earbuds, or listening environment) in the first place, so at that point you're already at the mercy of their choices.
Old 14th August 2014
  #254
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Why dumb down delivery if you don't absolutely need to?
Old 14th August 2014
  #255
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
So many things racing through my mind... ahem.


Ok. You are definitely not imagining there is a significant difference between these two files. But they're both a terrible mess. The music is fine, but the sound is garbled and there is a dynamic wobble that almost makes me seasick (my first thought was drop-out [maybe the tape-baking planted the idea in my head, that ol' cognitive distortion) but if it's drop out, it's the most radical and somewhat bizarre drop out I've heard.

What it sounds like to me is a wildly out of alignment dbx NR -- or dbx applied to a signal that wasn't encoded with it.

But, yes, the 96 definitely has the more high end. It doesn't sound good -- but there's more of it.

But the thing is, considering these tracks, there's nothing in the world to keep reasonable, professional gear running at 44.1 from getting far better fidelity than that on either of those versions. Not to mention a digital project would likely avoid the nasty tape speed flutter that gives the guitars and cymbals a chorus-y effect and, of course, whatever that deal-breaking dynamic problem is.

But, yeah, you're not imagining the difference. I just don't think that's anywhere close to the biggest of your problems. And I see no reasons why a good converter working at 44.1 couldn't far surpass either of those in production. Speaking strictly of the differences between versions presumably implicit to the switch of sample rates or converters -- there's something wrong there. I've never seen a difference like that from my converters from tracking at different rates with the same source -- and the same converter.

PS... I thought the music underlying it sounded musically fine, if sonically awful. Don't know if it was you, but I did want to get that in. Not being critical of the song.
If I'm not mistaken there was DBX in that studio signal chain. I specifically asked my engineer to make the 7.5 RTR with dolby. He said it wasn't going to need it he put DBX on it or perhaps the 15ips mixed master. I grabbed the tape as it would be digital only once. But it's unknown what the upload and play back from the file share is doing to it.

When my Revox is running again I'll have to re run the 15ips master. Again now I think.......The 12 string I was playing had a U67 shoved a couple of inches from top. Most of the track was recorded live and they shoved the 67 right onto the my guitar. It has always had a very phased sound. Any movement I made may have added to or caused the effect. As 12 strings go it'd not an open sound for that reason. I can't remember last week but I remember 30 years ago perfectly.

In any event I trust it made my point.
Old 14th August 2014
  #256
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Why dumb down delivery if you don't absolutely need to?
I guess the response might be why over complicate if you don't have to?

I'm not a professional audio engineer. But I understand the process pretty well and I can't hear the difference in blind tests. I don't think 44/16 is dumbing down, I think 96/24 is dumbing up, gilding the lily over complicating things. I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet.
Old 14th August 2014
  #257
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
In theory I agree with this, but with the superior digital audio technologies available for next to $nothing$ these days, is there really any excuse not to produce great stuff??
Obviously not everyone has the same skill sets, but even the most modest gear these days can yield some pretty stunning results when used properly.
Of course there's an excuse - lack of ability, lack of a decent recording space, lack of quality instruments and musicianship, lack of decent monitoring.

Despite all this some home recordists manage to pull off recordings that are very listenable, and in some cases better than professional output of today and/or yesteryear.
Old 14th August 2014
  #258
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Very important. I am about to download the program, and I was about to ask if did change the sample rate in OS. Good to know.

But wait, doesn't that mess up the blind?
I can't answer for everyone's setup but, yeah, there's no way on my Win 7, MOTU rig, using Foobar with its ABX add-in, that I can run an ABX.

If I set the MOTU to 44.1k, Windows sends it all 44.1. If I set it to 96, Windows upsamples to 96.

My DAW, Sonar 8.5, only allows one sample rate per project. If I import both files into a project set to either sample rate, the 'unlucky' file will get up- or down-sampled.


So, yeah, I can't think of a good software oriented way to do a direct SR ABX comparison here. I think you'd have to rig up a more formal hardware setup with multiple 'identical' converters and ABX hardware switching (and be careful to switch SR between the converters 'halfway' through your trial period to work around any possible differences in the hardware)... a BIG PITA.
Old 14th August 2014
  #259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
If I'm not mistaken there was DBX in that studio signal chain. I specifically asked my engineer to make the 7.5 RTR with dolby. He said it wasn't going to need it he put DBX on it or perhaps the 15ips mixed master. I grabbed the tape as it would be digital only once. But it's unknown what the upload and play back from the file share is doing to it.

When my Revox is running again I'll have to re run the 15ips master. Again now I think.......The 12 string I was playing had a U67 shoved a couple of inches from top. Most of the track was recorded live and they shoved the 67 right onto the my guitar. It has always had a very phased sound. Any movement I made may have added to or caused the effect. As 12 strings go it'd not an open sound for that reason. I can't remember last week but I remember 30 years ago perfectly.

In any event I trust it made my point.
Well, I do agree that those two files definitely sound different from each other and that the 96k file has more apparent top end than the other. But if the point you were trying to make was a general one about digital audio and sample rates, I can't say I was persuaded; there are other, it appears to me, far more significant problems with those clips that preclude any sort of confidence in the processes that brought them to us, I'm afraid.

But I want to applaud you on putting them up for us, warts and all, and again compliment on you some nice music.
Old 14th August 2014
  #260
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I can't answer for everyone's setup but, yeah, there's no way on my Win 7, MOTU rig, using Foobar with its ABX add-in, that I can run an ABX.

If I set the MOTU to 44.1k, Windows sends it all 44.1. If I set it to 96, Windows upsamples to 96.

My DAW, Sonar 8.5, only allows one sample rate per project. If I import both files into a project set to either sample rate, the 'unlucky' file will get up- or down-sampled.


So, yeah, I can't think of a good software oriented way to do a direct SR ABX comparison here. I think you'd have to rig up a more formal hardware setup with multiple 'identical' converters and ABX hardware switching (and be careful to switch SR between the converters 'halfway' through your trial period to work around any possible differences in the hardware)... a BIG PITA.
As far as i know my convertor--just an apogee duet--stays where i set it--that is, if the project was set to 96/24, it plays the files at 96/24. It still shows 96/24, and OSX is still using the duet as the output, so I assume the files I was listening to weren't downsampled--except the one I bounced at 44/16. I used Logic as the Daw and had a project to open at 96/24--otherwise the duet would have reset to whatever rate I set in Logic. The "Audio/Midi setup" application still shows 96/24

So as far as I can tell, I did that ABX test at 96/24. But I might be wrong, and would be interested to know more
Old 14th August 2014
  #261
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
As far as i know my convertor--just an apogee duet--stays where i set it--that is, if the project was set to 96/24, it plays the files at 96/24. It still shows 96/24, and OSX is still using the duet as the output, so I assume the files I was listening to weren't downsampled--except the one I bounced at 44/16. I used Logic as the Daw and had a project to open at 96/24--otherwise the duet would have reset to whatever rate I set in Logic. The "Audio/Midi setup" application still shows 96/24

So as far as I can tell, I did that ABX test at 96/24. But I might be wrong, and would be interested to know more
Mind, I was talking about playing Lance's files, which came as a 44.1 and a 96. (I wouldn't be able to play Ian's 192 file.)

At any rate (no put etc), it seems to me that if one is playing a 44.1 file and the converter's sample rate shows 96, that the file is being upsampled by the PB system, in my case the Win audio layer and in yours, CoreAudio.
Old 14th August 2014
  #262
Gear Head
 

hmm bold letters- well now we can agree
Old 14th August 2014
  #263
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Mind, I was talking about playing Lance's files, which came as a 44.1 and a 96. (I wouldn't be able to play Ian's 192 file.)

At any rate (no put etc), it seems to me that if one is playing a 44.1 file and the converter's sample rate shows 96, that the file is being upsampled by the PB system, in my case the Win audio layer and in yours, CoreAudio.
Makes sense!
Old 14th August 2014
  #264
Here for the gear
 
kim_otcj's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I've never met anybody who recorded a hit record that had the phrase "good enough" in their vocabulary.
But this whole high-definition verses red-book debate is itself a species of "good enough" argument. In effect, it's the audio engineer saying it's good enough to focus on the very most esoteric technical details of his trade. Because the more aggressively he focuses on that, the less he has to think about the quality of the program content down in the unambiguously audible range. That would mean being discerning about his client base. And all of a sudden, it wouldn't be "good enough" to accept clients solely on their ability to pay for studio time.
Old 14th August 2014
  #265
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I'm sorry, switching to a higher sample rate is utterly trivial. If it sounds more convincing for whatever reason, it's well worth using. It's not a head trip for me or for most of the people I know who use higher sample rates. We were all skeptical before we tried it.
Old 14th August 2014
  #266
Here for the gear
 
kim_otcj's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I'm sorry, switching to a higher sample rate is utterly trivial.
Yes, if you have the processing power, it is utterly trivial. In my setup, the difference between 44.1KHz and 96KHz is two switches -- one in the DAW and one on the ASIO driver for my interface. It makes me wonder why so many words have to be written on the subject, and why so many opinions have to be so vigorously defended. Is this really, honestly only about 96 vs 44.1?
Old 14th August 2014
  #267
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim_otcj View Post
Yes, if you have the processing power, it is utterly trivial. In my setup, the difference between 44.1KHz and 96KHz is two switches -- one in the DAW and one on the ASIO driver for my interface. It makes me wonder why so many words have to be written on the subject, and why so many opinions have to be so vigorously defended. Is this really, honestly only about 96 vs 44.1?
it's about the "digital sucks" people now saying "digital sucks unless it is 96k"
Old 14th August 2014
  #268
Lives for gear
I did a good few tests of 44.1 Vs 96 a few years back, and I could not reliably detect differences the differences so I remained on 44.1

IMO doing ABX tests for these kind of things (or as close to it as you can manage - I had a mate flip Cubase projects around randomly to avoid SRC issues) is a worthwhile endeavour, as it can tell you a few things about your own hearing.

I have got a much better monitoring chain now, so I'm thinking of doing some more tests soon.

What I'd ideally like to at some point is the following

Record a parallel session from the same performances, one at 44.1, and the other at 96k

I think I can do this, as I have 2 DAW machines (though only one dongle for Cubase 7.5 so would have to use Reaper as a recorder on the second DAW (import into Cubase 7.5 before any processing). I have 2 of the same audio interface. It would be a small project, and I'd use y-splits to mult the Mics to the 2 different interfaces, keep it to some simple acoustic guitars and vocals, maybe a little bit of drums.

This way, I'd be able to have a 44.1 master and 96k master of the exact same performances, and do different level masters - e.g. 44.1 vs 96 with no plugins at all (as recorded)

Then 44.1 vs 96 with plugins (SSL Duende, Slate VTM, VCC, VBC)

and finally, compare the 44.1 / 16 bit final versions.

For me this would cover off all the scenarios for me - possibly except complex stacking of guitars...

Would be an interesting test in any case.

PS - i realise there would by impedance issues on the mics via multing, but that should not affect the impact of 96 vs 44.1...
Old 14th August 2014
  #269
Lives for gear
I keep thinking about my own ABX test.

So I set up a project and recorded a brief hasty song at 96/24. Bounced one WAV file at 44.1/16, and a second at 96/24. Then I loaded them into ABX software. Could not tell the difference.

My converter and computer remained at 96/24 for the test. So here's the confusing part--the downsampled file should still show all the supposedly damaging effects of downsampling, even if played back at a sample, rate of 96--isn't that right? Downsampling would have removed information, and up sampling back at 96 would not have added that information back. So I'm thinking the abx test is still valid. Am I wrong here?
Old 14th August 2014
  #270
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
I keep thinking about my own ABX test.

So I set up a project and recorded a brief hasty song at 96/24. Bounced one WAV file at 44.1/16, and a second at 96/24. Then I loaded them into ABX software. Could not tell the difference.

My converter and computer remained at 96/24 for the test. So here's the confusing part--the downsampled file should still show all the supposedly damaging effects of downsampling, even if played back at a sample, rate of 96--isn't that right? Downsampling would have removed information, and up sampling back at 96 would not have added that information back. So I'm thinking the abx test is still valid. Am I wrong here?
I found it difficult to get a clean test before using Foobar back when I did things before - i had to upsample my 44.1 file to 96 to be able to use Foobar (though it now has WASAPI support which could help I think). Couldn't detect any differences though. I didn't like the idea of upsampling, so I did less formal test by trying to guess which Cubase project my mate had opened (either the 44.1 or the 96 - did this about 20 times, no differences that I could detect - I was effectively guessing.
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump