The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
192khz perception idea...
Old 25th March 2013
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

192khz perception idea...

Well, there is some difference of course, nothing does nothing. Everything is being modulated by everything, always; so there´s a first idea about a perceived difference between 192khz and other SR:

If you can hear something is better than 44.1, say 48 kHz, or even better at 96k, then something else is really happening at 192k. But, what´s happening?. This band needs good contents!. No noise, good harmonics, pristine A/D conversion, etc...

Think of the air & the vast natural mediums... if you have a "group" of data into them, every part of the package is altering (in a way) the rest of the portion. It´s not crazy to think that those high frequencies are modulating the ones we actually hear with our ears. Our ears can´t perceive everything that happens at air, or into our A/D at 192k; but those "extra" frequencies DO ALTER the ones we hear. In what way?. Science must go further, as this are just philosophical approaches.

Say you hit a crash in the air, the crash goes doing harmonics till what, 25k?? mmm doubt that... there´s something in recording at 192khz, but you´ll need real expertise & clinic care. Maybe that´s why we can hear improvements with valves, they do give some extra harmonic into the extended 96k - 192k range, as microphones can´t react to better than 20k.

As most microphones can´t record beyond 20k, i did some experiments with synths at 192k and 96k... I could say I perceive some kind of "improvement" regarding fidelity of re-production at 192k.

In open space, there´s a massive reproduction of harmonic content beyond the ear, and maybe that´s why some can hear 192khz recordings as a little more "real/better" than 96k ones... Is crazy to think that nothing arrives to our perception beyond 25k, so, it´s not a very crazy idea to capture a bigger "window" of "reality", to maintain some more of that possibilities, if I can say it that way. That said, the 192khz improvement means NOTHING or WORST if you don´t care about proper equipment, tracking, processing, mixing, etc..

The same is being discussed about High Frame Rates at cinema/video. Are 32 bits/192khz of audio, or 60/120fps 6/8k resolution the next generation of audio-visual content??. You better bet on it!!.

This question is going to be obsolete when we start to do direct implants of data into the brain... eehe...

Just my 1/2 dime.
Old 25th March 2013
  #2
Old 25th March 2013
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

There´s always someone with our next step.
Thanks!.
KK.
Old 25th March 2013
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Silent Sound's Avatar
I can hear a definite difference between 96kHz and 44.1kHz, and I'd assume there's a difference between 192 and 96 as well. However, the difference isn't that great, and when you're final output is going to be at 44.1kHz anyway, it sounds best to me to start off with 44.1 kHz. I've never really given 88.2 kHz a try, since it's an even multiple of 44.1, I could see why some say it's a good choice. In the end, it all comes down to practicality. At 44.1, I don't have to worry so much about the computer keeping up, the amount of room the files are taking up, resampling problems, and a whole host of other incompatibility issues or hardware/driver problems, and other things I haven't even thought of.

To me, it's kind of the law of dimishing returns. There should always be an "improvement" with increased fidelity. The problem is, at some point that "improvement" won't be perceptible, and may introduce more problems that make it sound worse, or just more difficult to use.

It's like, I can buy a $300 guitar and have a pretty nice axe. I can buy a $3000 guitar and have something even better. I can buy a $30,000 guitar and have something that's maybe better than the $3,000 one, but by how much? I can spend $300,000 on a guitar and I guarantee I can find something that sounds, plays, looks, and feels better for under the $30,000 mark. More is not always better. Sometimes more is just more.
Old 25th March 2013
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Well, there is some difference of course, nothing does nothing. Everything is being modulated by everything, always; so there´s a first idea about a perceived difference between 192khz and other SR:

If you can hear something is better than 44.1, say 48 kHz, or even better at 96k, then something else is really happening at 192k. But, what´s happening?. This band needs good contents!. No noise, good harmonics, pristine A/D conversion, etc...

Think of the air & the vast natural mediums... if you have a "group" of data into them, every part of the package is altering (in a way) the rest of the portion. It´s not crazy to think that those high frequencies are modulating the ones we actually hear with our ears. Our ears can´t perceive everything that happens at air, or into our A/D at 192k; but those "extra" frequencies DO ALTER the ones we hear. In what way?. Science must go further, as this are just philosophical approaches.

Say you hit a crash in the air, the crash goes doing harmonics till what, 25k?? mmm doubt that... there´s something in recording at 192khz, but you´ll need real expertise & clinic care. Maybe that´s why we can hear improvements with valves, they do give some extra harmonic into the extended 96k - 192k range, as microphones can´t react to better than 20k.

As most microphones can´t record beyond 20k, i did some experiments with synths at 192k and 96k... I could say I perceive some kind of "improvement" regarding fidelity of re-production at 192k.

In open space, there´s a massive reproduction of harmonic content beyond the ear, and maybe that´s why some can hear 192khz recordings as a little more "real/better" than 96k ones... Is crazy to think that nothing arrives to our perception beyond 25k, so, it´s not a very crazy idea to capture a bigger "window" of "reality", to maintain some more of that possibilities, if I can say it that way. That said, the 192khz improvement means NOTHING or WORST if you don´t care about proper equipment, tracking, processing, mixing, etc..

The same is being discussed about High Frame Rates at cinema/video. Are 32 bits/192khz of audio, or 60/120fps 6/8k resolution the next generation of audio-visual content??. You better bet on it!!.

This question is going to be obsolete when we start to do direct implants of data into the brain... eehe...

Just my 1/2 dime.
A little more homework on the science of sound, particularly with attention to intermodulation might well prove helpful. Intermodulation is, for our purposes, a circuit thing -- it occurs only in systems with nonlinearities -- it's not something that happens to sound waves traveling in free air. Starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation
Old 25th March 2013
  #6
heh

Not all of us are native English speakers (as I am) but, speaking as a US American, I can assure you that not all of us native English speakers are all that great at the written language, either.

Old 25th March 2013
  #7
PS... re edited post...

Sorry, audiogeek!

I apparently yanked the referential, semantic rug out from under you.

But the very first thing I posted didn't reflect the greater patience and sympathy with my fellow humans that I'm trying to foster in myself. Up the glass mountain in Teflon slippers again...

heh
Old 25th March 2013
  #8
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
A little more homework on the science of sound, particularly with attention to intermodulation might well prove helpful. Intermodulation is, for our purposes, a circuit thing -- it occurs only in systems with nonlinearities -- it's not something that happens to sound waves traveling in free air. Starting place: Intermodulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Beautiful.....
Tks.
Old 25th March 2013
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Beautiful.....
Tks.


Mind you, Kan Kaban, I'm no expert on either electrical engineering or the science of sound-in-air, but this intermodulation issue is one of those little things that comes up from time to time.

Problems tend to arise when we find ourselves (improperly) extending what we understand (or thing we understand ) about audio signals in analog electrical form to the very, very different phenomenon of compression waves moving through air. The transduction point (the mic) is where the extraordinary complexity of sound in air is 'reduced' to an electrical signal with only two properties pertinent to our efforts: amplitude/polarity over time.

If we know the properties of the materials, we can mathematically describe the interrelationships and potential functions that can be applied to those signals with striking precision and relative simplicity and clarity.

Sound in free air, on the other hand, can be a very complex thing -- particularly as we perceive it with our (hopefully) two ears and process it with the lower brain mechanisms of the auditory perceptual system -- a system that evolved over millions of years as both an early warning system for us and our primordial ancestors as well as a crucially important immediate personal space mapping system.

(Our ears tell us an extraordinary amount about our environment -- but our brains tend to mostly process that subconsciously... so when we walk into a room with carpet on the walls, we already 'know' from our hearing that it is an unusual physical environment, for instance. When we walk into a hall with long echoes, even if we're blindfolded, we have already had what could be crucial information processed and handed to us on the silver platter of 'unconcious' perception.)

The human auditory system is great for warning us about threats and telling us about our immediate environment, but the one thing it was never designed to do was to provide objective measurement of different auditory phenomena.
Old 25th March 2013
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Yes.

Also, there are always information from the non-cientific part of the phenomenon, like from sensation (psychoacoustics) or philosophy. I just think it´s important to discuss this issue from every side. There´s a cost - benefit involved too....

I´m interested in the "improvement" perceived at 192k, by many professionals out there. (including me...) Thanks for your understanding & recommendations.
Old 25th March 2013
  #11
Higher sample rate makes a positive and audible difference whenever there's compression or another form of modulation processing as it helps eliminate (or subdue) aliasing artifacts. When that's not going on then a higher sample rate can often become a detriment due to clock jitter and ridiculous file sizes.

The best solution is in fact a lower sample rate but plugins/tools that do waveform reconstruciton and upconvert before application. In fact I've often wondered why no DAW software offers the ability to track at 44, but upconvert to a much higher rate before the bus (then downconvert after). That way plugins wouldn't need to upconvert themselves which would result in lower overhead (a single upconversion per channel compared to an up and a down per plugin), and every single plugin would benefit. Hell it would be a great selling point.
Old 25th March 2013
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Yes.

Also, there are always information from the non-cientific part of the phenomenon, like from sensation (psychoacoustics) or philosophy. I just think it´s important to discuss this issue from every side. There´s a cost - benefit involved too....

I´m interested in the "improvement" perceived at 192k, by many professionals out there. (including me...) Thanks for your understanding & recommendations.
Curiosity and an open mind are great things to have!

But with them come some 'responsibilities.'


A few last points before I set my boot heels to a-wandering...

Scientific knowledge and technology design expertise do not necessarily make someone a good engineer.

Conversely, being a creative and successful engineer does not necessarily mean that someone understands the science and technology they are using.

The universe is an amazing, extremely complex, yet somehow elegantly simple 'place.' There are always many things we do not know.

But the Scientific Method evolved in such a way as to help assure us that the answers that careful adherents to that method derive from their research and experimentation will tend to be the most reliable answer available at any one time.

Individual scientists -- humans, after all -- make mistakes and are subject to all the typical human frailties. But the Scientific Method has 'built into it,' principles and practices designed to find and correct those mistakes through peer review and replication of experiments.

On that note, Have fun!
Old 25th March 2013
  #13
Lives for gear
For me the difference in timbre has not been great above 44,1 KHz, up to 96 KHz. In my view the small differences I've heard are mostly related to the performance nature of the converter at certain frequency rates, I've found 44,1 KHz to be superior sounding in quite a few cases. But where the change comes into play for me is at 192 KHz, on that rate I can sense the timbre becoming clearly more well defined.

So for me it's like I can skip all the rates in between, it's 44,1 KHz and then the next step is 192 KHz for me...
Old 26th March 2013
  #14
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

The difference seems small, since we can´t understand quite perfectly what´s going on.
Is there any scientific well known conclusion about this?.
At least it must be some kind of explanation to the origins of 192k...
Old 26th March 2013
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Lipps's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickrock305 View Post
Well, there's this story about Rupert Neve hearing a problem with one of the channels in one of his consoles. Couldn't figure out what it was, when it was hooked up to some electronic test equipment it turned out there was a frequency anomaly at around 40 kHz. So I wouldn't say the human ear can't hear that high. Its more of a felt vs. heard thing. And this can be produced with analog equipment, but cannot with standard digital stuff because of sample rates. Thats why higher sample rates sound more natural, more "analog". Look into the Nyquist theory, which basically explains that the sample rate for audio must be two times the highest frequency to be sampled. Therefore a sample rate of 44.1 kHz is only going to reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz. While a sample rate of 192 kHz will reproduce frequencies up to 96 kHz. And the difference is readily apparent.

And I do agree with Tony M., that plugin EQs don't really cut it for boosting IMO. That task is handled MUCH better by analog EQs.
I actually read this same thing somewhere. Couldn't find the article, however. Something happens above 20khz that we can perceive. Well at least some of us.

I think 192 uses too much hard drive space and CPU resources. But if its singer songwriter stuff or minimalist jazz, I say go for it. Can't hurt!
Old 26th March 2013
  #16
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Well...
We´ve just done some VERY INTERESTING blind tests here...
Files were 44.1, 48k, 88k, 96k, 192k; ADDA Rme Fireface 800.

Content: hardware synth w opened filters + some lexicon.
Yes, we know... some random contents... so disclamer is we wanted specifically this kind of reverbs to compare with, in a general content basis. BUT, original channels at DAW were SYNTH DRY STEREO & SYNTH WET STERO. (4 mono) in parallel. So.. some contents of the dry signal of the synth are still there to hear...

DAW: This is a recently installed mountain lion, so we just have Ableton Live 9, we don´t like it or use it as we do Protools at the studio. It was a good opportunity to test brand new 192k capacity on it.

We did A/B comparisons (couples), at every rate plus it´s nearest opponent. Ex: 96k vs 192k. 10 passes the same couple, 5 times in a row, the rest of the 5 stopping between each one. Just two of us, one engineer, one musician. No previous listenings. We were chasing the "best" sound of every couple. Sometimes we did´t know what rates conformed the couple we were listening, sometimes we did know.

There´s a winner for us, but won´t say nothing in case you want the files to make your own sessions.

Cheers!.

Last edited by Kan Kaban; 26th March 2013 at 08:28 AM.. Reason: Data.
Old 26th March 2013
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Must say that hearing the entire sample A (59sec), and then the entire sample B, helped a lot with the decision between higher sample rates (48k+beyond). The same regarding accumulative factor. It was simpler to decide with 3 minutes of silence between every take (10) of the couples.

Example:
Couple 96k vs. 192k.
Pass one: Sample A (59sec) then Sample B (59sec). (one 96k, one 192k)
Decided the best sounding..
Silence or little chat...
Pass two the same till pass 10.

We decided to do this with headphones (Ultrasone) for this first day. Next time is going to be monitors. Sincerely, 44.1 vs 48k was the easiest to decide. Instantly. The rest needed a little more attention, but at last 70% of the decisions were for the winner of the couple, searching for the best sound.

We are really relaxed right now with this part of the workflow, it was an enigma until we did this tests. We encourage everyone to test your ADDA´s with attention to details.
Old 26th March 2013
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Mr. Lau's Avatar
My samplerate is bigger than yours heh
Old 26th March 2013
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
For me the difference in timbre has not been great above 44,1 KHz, up to 96 KHz. In my view the small differences I've heard are mostly related to the performance nature of the converter at certain frequency rates, I've found 44,1 KHz to be superior sounding in quite a few cases. But where the change comes into play for me is at 192 KHz, on that rate I can sense the timbre becoming clearly more well defined.

So for me it's like I can skip all the rates in between, it's 44,1 KHz and then the next step is 192 KHz for me...
You should read the article linked at the beginning of this thread. If you can clearly hear an improvement at 192kHz, then it's in the implementation of your converter, not because of the higher sample rate.
Old 26th March 2013
  #20
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Well, is the same to us.

I could also say that the implementation of 192k does the FF800 sound better (to both of us here, at this conditions).

Why?.

I don´t care why really, if we like better what we proved us to like.
Old 26th March 2013
  #21
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lau View Post
My samplerate is bigger than yours heh
Ecuador?. What city?
I´m at Guayaquil...
Old 26th March 2013
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Well, is the same to us.

I could also say that the implementation of 192k does the FF800 sound better (to both of us here, at this conditions).

Why?.

I don´t care why really, if we like better what we proved us to like.
Yes, YOU don't care, because it works FOR YOU using YOUR interface. But this is a public forum, with people owning thousands of different interfaces - so stating "192kHz sounds better" is wrong and misleading, because it's not the samplerate it's a flaw within the specific interface implementation that makes it sound better at these frequencies. It's like stating "blue cars are faster than green ones", after you walked over a green old Toyota with your brand new blue Porsche...
Old 26th March 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
mainesthai's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Must say that hearing the entire sample A (59sec), and then the entire sample B, helped a lot with the decision between higher sample rates (48k+beyond). The same regarding accumulative factor. It was simpler to decide with 3 minutes of silence between every take (10) of the couples.

Example:
Couple 96k vs. 192k.
Pass one: Sample A (59sec) then Sample B (59sec). (one 96k, one 192k)
Decided the best sounding..
Silence or little chat...
Pass two the same till pass 10.

We decided to do this with headphones (Ultrasone) for this first day. Next time is going to be monitors. Sincerely, 44.1 vs 48k was the easiest to decide. Instantly. The rest needed a little more attention, but at last 70% of the decisions were for the winner of the couple, searching for the best sound.

We are really relaxed right now with this part of the workflow, it was an enigma until we did this tests. We encourage everyone to test your ADDA´s with attention to details.
OMG!
Science is being raped here.

Please read this very very carefully:
On Biases In Modern Audio Quality Listening Tests
And then perform your tests in the proper way.
Old 26th March 2013
  #24
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chk23 View Post
Yes, YOU don't care, because it works FOR YOU using YOUR interface. But this is a public forum, with people owning thousands of different interfaces - so stating "192kHz sounds better" is wrong and misleading, because it's not the samplerate it's a flaw within the specific interface implementation that makes it sound better at these frequencies. It's like stating "blue cars are faster than green ones", after you walked over a green old Toyota with your brand new blue Porsche...
Calm down, I stated clearly that this practical tests with this ADDA´s, convinced us to use 192k recordings on it. Also I recommended to do this at home with your interface and check your own interests.

I´m in no way stating 192k sound better than anything in an abstract way.

Read carefully before accusing. As public as this forum is, this is also not intended as a scientific data research program. This was just an experience, made with well respected engineer as supervisor.

Enjoy your 44.1!, let us hear by our owns.
Old 26th March 2013
  #25
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mainesthai View Post
OMG!
Science is being raped here.

Please read this very very carefully:
On Biases In Modern Audio Quality Listening Tests
And then perform your tests in the proper way.
Thanks for the info, I´ll check it tomorrow.
PS: I don´t pretend to do any science here, just to deciding what to do with this particular configuration.
Old 26th March 2013
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Calm down, I stated clearly that this practical tests with this ADDA´s, convinced us to use 192k recordings on it. Also I recommended to do this at home with your interface and check your own interests.

I´m in no way stating 192k sound better than anything in an abstract way.

Read carefully before accusing. As public as this forum is, this is also not intended as a scientific data research program. This was just an experience, made with well respected engineer as supervisor.
I never accused you - you just were referring to my post that wasn't even directed to you, so, sorry if I answered to that to make my point clear...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Enjoy your 44.1!, let us hear by our owns.
No reason for defaming, I never stated that I use 44.1 (and in fact I don't)...
Old 26th March 2013
  #27
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
The difference seems small, since we can´t understand quite perfectly what´s going on.
Is there any scientific well known conclusion about this?
44.1Khz is fine.

Quote:
At least it must be some kind of explanation to the origins of 192k...
Marketing?

Alistair
Old 26th March 2013
  #28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Yes.

Also, there are always information from the non-cientific part of the phenomenon, like from sensation (psychoacoustics) or philosophy. I just think it´s important to discuss this issue from every side. There´s a cost - benefit involved too....

I´m interested in the "improvement" perceived at 192k, by many professionals out there. (including me...) Thanks for your understanding & recommendations.
Whatever the perceived "improvement", at the moment workflow puts a big fat NO on it. I run out of processing power at 48k regularly....192k ain't gonna happen anytime soon for a decent sized production.
Old 26th March 2013
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Jolly Jimmy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
We´ve just done some VERY INTERESTING blind tests here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Sometimes we did´t know what rates conformed the couple we were listening, sometimes we did know.
Doesn't sound like a blind test to me.
Old 26th March 2013
  #30
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Let me say you guys, is really strange the way some of you react to this issue. I feel like in 1635 trying to state the results of this experience. I just hear "heresy!!!!" everywhere.

The method of the test is just a simple & logic procedure. Someone click the couples in random order, the other listens without knowing that order, of course. We did know the couple was 96k vs 192k, sometimes, for example. That doesn´t affected the decision, because we were deciding ALWAYS the best sounding!!. What is wrong with this idea??. We could decide in free will, with good hearing & technical skills. We liked better 192k over 96k at the studio. That´s all.

It´s funny some of you can´t hear differences between 44.1 an the rest!!!!! hahehehe. That´s really a funny idea. Differences are NIGHT & DAY, just between 44.1 vs 48k!!. I won´t believe that RME FF800 is an out of this world device that has nothing to do with the rest of ADDA in this range... I proved this between 44.1k vs 48k late 90´s with a SoundBlaster, too.

This is not marketing guys... I´m an engineer & artist. You can´t state there´s no need for nothing more than 44.1 because the IDEA in you head is not what you wanted. If some of you wanted the idea of: "we hear till 20k, nothing more is useless", let me say that´s not the reality. For WHATEVER reason you scientists find somewhere in the future. I´ll keep believing in our ears for now.... DEEP measurement possibilities.

The only thing I would say again, as a real conclusion of the experience test is: Make yourself your own tests, measuring your ADDA´s possibilities, and make your own determinations. No one can decide for your needs better than you.

We´ll use 192k for a cinematic mix involving synths, just because we heard the following: Better separation between instruments / channels, better reproduction of reverb densities, better quality in general basis. There was information at 192k that simply wasn´t there at the rest os the SR. Why was that???. We are artist. We don´t care. We just hear something is or not better to our perception & we trust our years of experience hearing TONS of music & recordings on tape, digital, cassete, 44.1, etc, etc...

We can work 192k flawlessly with SSD + Protools til the count track we need, and that´s all we need to keep going on... it´s like taking a risk. If you can see the goal & have the resources, it´s always a good experience to swim some "unknown" futures.

Just one question I would love some real scientist to answer at GS:

Are you recommending professionals to work at 44.1khz for ever???.

That´s the scientist advice to us engineers, producers, artists, users?.

Please be clear, I really want to hear that again from a well respected professional (not Lavry please, we know the case too much)

We are not recommending 192k to anyone. We did the test to decide for ourselves. We want it, NOW!!!!!!

Thanks!.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 63 views: 6914
Avatar for RME Support
RME Support 17th July 2006
replies: 6180 views: 918697
Avatar for Sound Arch
Sound Arch 5 days ago
replies: 295 views: 56961
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 153954
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
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