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
That Sheen Condenser Microphones
Old 23rd July 2014
  #181
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Karloff View Post
This thread will get no better
It's not about getting "better" it's about finding a viable solution for the OP.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #182
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
It's not about getting "better" it's about finding a viable solution for the OP.
So um yah I think it is best i just ignore you
Old 23rd July 2014
  #183
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
I said plugins will do (I wrote hardware / hardware SIMULATION). My point being even the $150 plugin will get the Sheen. A 2k converter and 2k hardware compressors while much better is not needed. I have over 20k in hardware and agree that hardware is awesome. But its definitely not the only way to get there.
It's not about money per se, it's about quality. You don't need to spend $2000 or hardware compressors. I still use $50 dbx compressors and $100 ashley compressors to do all my tracking if I need comps at all. I never bought into expensive compressors or expensive mics for that matter. I still use essentially all shure mics for my drums. Unfortunately quality A/D D/A costs in the 2k range. Stereo Mic pre/EQ used to be in that range until a few years ago.

It's about quality, not money/cost. The op is using a 15 year old A/D D/A design. A design that was not even great for its era. This is where I'm coming from.

You can have skill till you are blue in the face. Your mixes are only going to be as good as you weakest link. His week link is his interface how can a professional AE monitor through something that cheapo in quality? It's so important hear an accurate representation of the sources, more importantly is tracking them accurately. A 20-20 frequency spec sheet does not represent the way things really sound. The quality of the frequency range it what matters. A Sound blaster card has better dynamic range , better frequency response and way less distortion than a Studer A827. If you have both at your disposal what are you going to use? The Fireface pres have better frequency response and way less distortion than a Neve 1073. what is better? What are you going to use if you have both on hand?

Skill has nothing to do with sheen, equipment does. You can record on your soundblasters and brag to people on message boards how great you are. You will never find sheen using crappy equipment, you will never find it with Andy Wallace skills using your fireface. No matter how bad a room sounds if you plug it into a Neve preamp its still going to sound like a bad room through a Neve. Its still going to have that Neve color and texture/sheen all over it providing it doesn't get covered up by inaccurate A/D conversions. The FF has a certain color and it's bad, it negates all the goodness that comes from great sources. Do your music justice and get it into your DAW bets way possible.

We are clearly on different pages here. This is a waste for all of us.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #184
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Someone please post a fireface mix which exemplifies "sheen" Let's go, really........... no more it's not the gear it's all mixer talent no compressors, no effects, no samples just a great raw fireface recording that has that professional sheen.
I've recorded a lot on a Fireface and I must agree...I never got "that" sound till I upgraded converters. Variables, yes...but still...
Old 23rd July 2014
  #185
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
I merely suggested the op needs a better interface
I just found this discussion and read through most of it. Sounds like you've suggested that about a dozen times. Still doesn't make it so.

And compression will add sheen? I think not.



Anywho, it sounds like it sounds, in the box. You want sheen and more polished/pro sound, take it out.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #186
Lives for gear
 
FireMoon's Avatar
http://***********.com/385/mic-compa...en-akg-m-audio All done through a Great River into a Fireface and the Fireface amply shows the differing characteristics of the different mics. In fact, most of those have that "sheen" or some of it about them. It serves to reiterate my point about how one needs to work out what one's musical focus is and then go from there gear wise. In the OP's case that is, relatively sparse arrangements and IMHO, the wrong mic locker for the purpose they are intended for. The Fireface can quite obviously produce that weight and body of tone that is actually the part of the "sheen" virtually all beginners, me included, fail to notice. Listening to the OPs mixes the sense I hear most from them is that. He's struggling with the 100-350hz range and his monitors and room don't play nice in that area of the frequency spectrum cos it's somehow !"missing".
Old 23rd July 2014
  #187
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post

And compression will add sheen? I think not.
but your "skill" will certainly add it.... as long as you got your skill from the same people who sold you your pixie/fairy dust and sold jack his bean-saw beans right?

But your Skill of Mic placement through a beheringrer eurodesk will give you sheen right?

....sheen comes from somewhere and it's not your skills . I think you guys need to be realistic and admit gear gives you the sound. Transformers, comps, plugins/emulations, tubes, opamps whatever...but it IS NOT your skill set.....

Lot's of famous producers when asked how did you get "that sound", will humbly tell you it was the u47 or the Neve or the Fairchild.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #188
Lives for gear
I just took a couple minutes to track down some music examples from one of the guys blaming converters... the music examples are far removed from having anything I would consider sheen. That's not to say the music is bad, it just doesn't have any quality that I would consider "sheen."

There is not even a common objective definition of what "sheen" is. I get the sense here that people aren't even arguing about the same things.

The reason people talking converters are so off-base is because if they had actually listened to the OP's samples, they would have heard much easier and more immediate steps he could take to improve his sound. Jumping to talking about converters sounds ridiculous to me, like a car coming into a garage with a wheel missing, "it won't move, can you fix it?" mechanic: "Ok, let's take a look at your oxygen sensors!"
Old 23rd July 2014
  #189
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

An hour befor I was on here I listened to a track a friend sent me and I was thinking the same thing. It had a smooth glow in spite of it being an electric blues piece.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #190
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
That's not to say the music is bad, it just doesn't have any quality that I would consider "sheen."
so sheen means what? you like the song?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #191
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
so sheen means what? you like the song?
What do you think it means? Oh, I already know: you spent a lot on converters. Spending money on converters=sheen. OK, got it, lucky for you there's no need to deal with skill, talent, technique, mastery. Life is easy, just spend money and your sound improves.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #192
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
I
You can have skill till you are blue in the face. Your mixes are only going to be as good as you weakest link. His week link is his interface how can a professional AE monitor through something that cheapo in quality?
No, it's not. The immediate weak link from the posted material and gear list is room, monitoring, and EQ use, and then maybe mics. THEN perhaps the converter - but only because everything else will then be high quality, NOT because there's anything wrong with the FF!

As I said, it wasn't more than a few years ago that RME were being praised as punching far above their price point - far from the "prosumer" you describe.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #193
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
What do you think it means?
To me it means the sonic character of a mix. The "air", the depth/space and the overall smoothness and texture and musicality, for lack of better words. For instance I think a Neve channel provides more "sheen" than say an SSL channel. Or an LA2A provides more sheen than a alesis compressor. A km84 has more "sheen" than km184.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
Oh, I already know: you spent a lot on converters. Spending money on converters=sheen. OK, got it, lucky for you there's no need to deal with skill, talent, technique, mastery. Life is easy, just spend money and your sound improves.
To be honest I have spent about 15k on converters but that is a drop in the bucket for me. When I was analog I spent way more than that on 2in decks and I always had 2 of them slaved. So 15k for me is nothing for a recording medium. I had 60k invested in my decks including synchronization. And these were not top of the line decks either. Not to mention, maintenance and on top and then my 2 track mastering deck. That was like 6k. More than the price of 2 burls . So.... no...... your assumption is wrong that I am somehow justifying my purchases but telling someone their converters are the issue and only those will provide a pro sound. Plus I had a desk too, which I no longer need with converters and outboard pres and eqs. So I saved a ton of money going digital. I have a smaller studio too.

I look at at the deck or in this case the interface, as the heart of the system along with a console. Since that is ultimately "the sound" that gets carried along with the sources. IMO that's what gives you the sheen....the sound. People used to get the sound from driving the desk , slamming tape hard and adding outboard effects etc..... Today it's mostly ITB comps and pres. But you can get that sheen from converters like Burls , RADAR and others. It depends on your objective. I personally can't stomach the sound of plugins so that's why I get my sound from pres and converters. This is not to imply someone else's methodologies are wrong. However IMO there has to be some level of quality on the front and back end to hear what you are doing not only getting that tracking integrity.

<SNIP - removed in the interest of keeping things civil>
Old 23rd July 2014
  #194
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Okay here are my efforts for this evening. Three 256K MP3 files all re samples of the OPs song - SWEET COMMUNION

Versions as follows:

Creamware Pulsar INT Clock
RME 9652 INT Clock
RME 9652 EXT Clock

Test setup shown below: (sorry for the heath robinson setup currently in the middle of a MAJOR studio power upgrade so all the racks etc are
in bits right now) (this is slapped in the middle of my Ebay Store operation which gets pretty hectic at times! LOL)







Kit Used – RME 9652, Creamware Pulsar II, EMS Magnetic (ie non switch mode Lab Power Supply for Aardsync), Aardsync II for Ext Clock.
Everything clocked at 44.1kHz.

Methods Used.
Downloaded Communion.mp3 onto PC.
Moved File onto Creative ZEN MP3 Player
Setup DAW PC as shown with RME 9652 and Creamware Pulsar Soundcards.
Took 3.5mm jack into inputs of cards (unbalanced)
Recorded the WAV using soundforge 7
Encoded to MP3 256K using Soundforge 7 - because of Gear Sluts file size limit i couldnt get 320k to fit :(
Results Uploaded


People may well have some comments to say about my test techniques (or lack of) but im all ears to some constructive criticism / comments.
Attached Files
Old 23rd July 2014
  #195
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
To me it means the sonic character of a mix. The "air", the depth/space and the overall smoothness and texture and musicality, for lack of better words. For instance I think a Neve channel provides more "sheen" than say an SSL channel. Or an LA2A provides more sheen than a alesis compressor. A km84 has more "sheen" than km184.
That means nothing to anyone except you, and is not remotely objective. What you are describing could easily be described as boosting frequencies to help compensate for typical adult patterns of hearing loss.

You like to brag about how much you spend on gear, yet couldn't find anything less esoteric to suggest than converter upgrades after listening to the OP's examples. For me, that's enough to recognize the futility of further engagement with you on this topic.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #196
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Okay here are my efforts for this evening. Three 256K MP3 files all re samples of the OPs song - SWEET COMMUNION

Versions as follows:

Creamware Pulsar INT Clock
RME 9652 INT Clock
RME 9652 EXT Clock

Test setup shown below: (sorry for the heath robinson setup currently in the middle of a MAJOR studio power upgrade so all the racks etc are
in bits right now) (this is slapped in the middle of my Ebay Store operation which gets pretty hectic at times! LOL)







Kit Used – RME 9652, Creamware Pulsar II, EMS Magnetic (ie non switch mode Lab Power Supply for Aardsync), Aardsync II for Ext Clock.
Everything clocked at 44.1kHz.

Methods Used.
Downloaded Communion.mp3 onto PC.
Moved File onto Creative ZEN MP3 Player
Setup DAW PC as shown with RME 9652 and Creamware Pulsar Soundcards.
Took 3.5mm jack into inputs of cards (unbalanced)
Recorded the WAV using soundforge 7
Encoded to MP3 256K using Soundforge 7 - because of Gear Sluts file size limit i couldnt get 320k to fit :(
Results Uploaded


People may well have some comments to say about my test techniques (or lack of) but im all ears to some constructive criticism / comments.

Curious what does this have to with the OP?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #197
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Okay here are my efforts for this evening. Three 256K MP3 files all re samples of the OPs song - SWEET COMMUNION

Versions as follows:

Creamware Pulsar INT Clock
RME 9652 INT Clock
RME 9652 EXT Clock
The levels between tracks are not the same. It also would have been more interesting, assuming you could match the levels, to have it be a blind test and let people try to sort the tracks by the cost of the converters.

I have no doubt it would end up similar to the behringer ada8000 vs lynx aurora shootout thread. If you haven't read that one, here it is: Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000

Every time I run across ridiculous claims about converters, I'm reminded of that thread.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #198
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Curious what does this have to with the OP?
His claim was that the OP could get a new clock to fix his "sheen" issues. or at least that it might help.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #199
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
That means nothing to anyone except you, and is not remotely objective. What you are describing could easily be described as boosting frequencies to help compensate for typical adult patterns of hearing loss.
So i can do an eq boost on a mackie board and make it sound like a 80xx series Neve desk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
You like to brag about how much you spend on gear, yet couldn't find anything less esoteric to suggest than converter upgrades after listening to the OP's examples. For me, that's enough to recognize the futility of further engagement with you on this topic.
I'm not bragging, in fact it seems to me like other people here are bragging that they can get professional results with any gear. In fact I am actually the most humble subject here. I am claiming I need great gear to get great results and to obtain what I hear as 'sheen'. Seems to me like y'all are boasting you can get great results with anything solely based on your skill set. which is admirable since in that regard I have failed. But at least I have admitted that since the beginning, in that sense I have no pride.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #200
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
His claim was that the OP could get a new clock to fix his "sheen" issues. or at least that it might help.
Yeah good idea, clocks can do wonders. I remember clocking my fireface to a 2192, it really smoothed things out. Jitter is a killer.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #201
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
His claim was that the OP could get a new clock to fix his "sheen" issues. or at least that it might help.
I'll just leave this here...

Does Your Studio Need A Digital Master Clock?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #202
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
So i can do an eq boost on a mackie board and make it sound like a 80xx series Neve desk?



I'm not bragging, in fact it seems to me like people here are bragging that they can get professional results with any gear. In fact I am actually the most humble subject here. I am claiming I need great gear to get great results and to obtain what I hear as 'sheen'. Seems to me like y'all are boasting you can get great results with anything solely based on your skill set. which is admirable since in that regard I have failed. But at least I have admitted that since the beginning, in that sense I have no pride.
I'm afraid I think you're starting to twist words here.

I think the point is that given the OP's gear that already exists, most are saying that there's no impediment to achieving a great, "professional", sound.

Listening to the tracks posted, that's what I get anyway. I think the majority of it sounds good - the issues are in EQ, possibly choice of vocal mic, and some of the cheesy programmed sounds.

I'm sure making a change to the conversion will help - a bit. It certainly won't fix the vocal EQ, which is the glaring issue and stops things sounding "pro" to me.

The proof for me is that the guitars don't sound bad at all - certainly not for the style. It doesn't sound like "brothers in arms" (and much as I love DS, I wouldn't want to make a record that sounds as shiny and overproduced as this - "Antidote for Blues" anyone?!) but neither does Mraz, Jack Johnson or anyone else in this sort of style. The conversion clearly isn't holding him back there so why should it be solely on the vocal?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #203
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Yeah good idea, clocks can do wonders. I remember clocking my fireface to a 2192, it really smoothed things out. Jitter is a killer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
Yeah, I've already referred to this example.

As I said earlier, I'm in no doubt that external clocks can change things, and subjectively improve the "sound" of a converter. It's inherent in the design of most converters that it can't "fix" the internal clock though.

To quote the SOS article:


"The issue here is that it is much easier to design a good clock circuit using a fixed crystal inside the unit than it is to design a circuit which accepts an external clock signal and synchronises to it well. External clocks are likely to acquire some element of jitter (largely because of the inherent effects of clock cabling), and the common slave?locking circuits can introduce further timing variations of their own, both of which can be quite hard (and expensive) to remove. As a result, an A?D will often perform less well when synchronised to an external clock than when it is running on its own internal crystal. The noise floor may rise, and there may be more low?level distortion products and artifacts. That being the case, it makes sense to use a device which can handle external clocks well as the slave, and a device which works poorly on external clocks as the master. In that way, the maximum audio quality can be achieved for all devices."

and

"There's a widespread notion that adding a high?quality master clock to a digital system will somehow magically improve its overall performance. While that might possibly have been the case in the very early days of semi?pro digital converters where, frankly, some of the internal digital clock designs were pretty ropey, it certainly isn't the case today. As I've explained above — and will prove below — today's converter designs generally work best on their own internal clocks, and most will deliver a slightly poorer performance when clocked externally. The very best devices will show no change in performance at all, because they have superb clock-extraction circuitry that can remove all traces of clock jitter and other external clocking artifacts, so they work just as well as when running on their internal clock."
Old 23rd July 2014
  #204
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

There is a difference and really pushing it to the extreme ie twisting the clock frequency on the aardsync out of range you really hear the degrade in sound quality but when the clock is on frequency I think in the case of a sheen then im kind of thinking i might be wrong. Its a difference but its very very subtle and im assuming you will only hear it using ultra clean monitors, signal path, listening room etc. This is of course not relevant to the OP.

Listening to the RME int vs RME ext im struggling to hear a difference in the context of this MP3. this may be an mp3 issue it might be the type of sound not 100% sure.

I am happy with this clock and will continue to use it but certainly wont be expecting any type of "sheen finish" from it.

My next experiment will be to take the OPs track and run it through the TC finalizer and Ozone. hopefully using some of the Master Out suggestions from Phil.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #205
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
That being the case, it makes sense to use a device which can handle external clocks well as the slave, and a device which works poorly on external clocks as the master. In that way, the maximum audio quality can be achieved for all devices."
There's some truth in the SOS article but im not sure if I would agree with all of it. Its seems very vague with some pretty sweeping claims. I think if your needing multiple devices clocked then external exclusive clock is the only way forward.

This suggestion above has a real slap it and see vibe about it. If you were going to sync everything off this "sketchey slave but supposedly good master" device would anyone in a large studio really follow this idea??
Old 23rd July 2014
  #206
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
To me it means the sonic character of a mix. The "air", the depth/space and the overall smoothness and texture and musicality, for lack of better words. For instance I think a Neve channel provides more "sheen" than say an SSL channel. Or an LA2A provides more sheen than a alesis compressor. A km84 has more "sheen" than km184.



To be honest I have spent about 15k on converters but that is a drop in the bucket for me. When I was analog I spent way more than that on 2in decks and I always had 2 of them slaved. So 15k for me is nothing for a recording medium. I had 60k invested in my decks including synchronization. And these were not top of the line decks either. Not to mention, maintenance and on top and then my 2 track mastering deck. That was like 6k. More than the price of 2 burls . So.... no...... your assumption is wrong that I am somehow justifying my purchases but telling someone their converters are the issue and only those will provide a pro sound. Plus I had a desk too, which I no longer need with converters and outboard pres and eqs. So I saved a ton of money going digital. I have a smaller studio too.

I look at at the deck or in this case the interface, as the heart of the system along with a console. Since that is ultimately "the sound" that gets carried along with the sources. IMO that's what gives you the sheen....the sound. People used to get the sound from driving the desk , slamming tape hard and adding outboard effects etc..... Today it's mostly ITB comps and pres. But you can get that sheen from converters like Burls , RADAR and others. It depends on your objective. I personally can't stomach the sound of plugins so that's why I get my sound from pres and converters. This is not to imply someone else's methodologies are wrong. However IMO there has to be some level of quality on the front and back end to hear what you are doing not only getting that tracking integrity.

<SNIP - removed in the interest of keeping things civil>
You've posted 43 friggin times in one thread in a very short time.
And you refuse to prove any of your work with a mix.
You're not sitting around thinking about mixing or helping people, you're way
to busy on the internet trying to be "right".
Next you'll be telling us Picasso's work was mostly due to his paintbrush,
and not his actual skill.
You're the guy nobody likes, but is to ignorant to realise it.
Stop being that guy..
Old 23rd July 2014
  #207
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
I think if your needing multiple devices clocked then external exclusive clock is the only way forward.
It's not the only way - but it can be the most straightforward way in terms of distribution and so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
This suggestion above has a real slap it and see vibe about it. If you were going to sync everything off this "sketchey slave but supposedly good master" device would anyone in a large studio really follow this idea??
Well, most large studios don't mix and match conversion - they'll have one rig,with one type of converter - maybe an additional 2-track "money" converter for printing mixes if OTB mixing (a side note; with a standalone AES converter like the burl, your recording sample delay isn't going to be accurately compensated unless you set it up manually, because the DAW has no idea of what latency the 3rd party converter is introducing. Unlike eg a Symphony or Avid setup, or indeed any system where the conversion is built into the interface, and where the converter talks directly to the interface drivers ie the converter is a known quantity).

Personally I have an HD IO and 2 192s on our PT rig, plus a sync io. I usually use the HD IO as master, because it's my main converter (I only go over it's 16io when I'm tracking a full band). I can't say I've noticed a difference when clocking from the sync IO instead though.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #208
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joecandy View Post
Next you'll be telling us Picasso's work was mostly due to his paintbrush
If picasso posted a bitmap of one of his paintings it seems to me like y'all would all be telling him he needs work on his "skills"
I'm the only guy who didn't criticize the OP, don't you find that a little ironical? wow you take the cake bro with that train of thought.


Quote:
Originally Posted by joecandy View Post
You're the guy nobody likes, but is to ignorant to realise it.
love the hostility, seems like all you guys are so insecure you jump down this poor guy's throat and tell him how bad his "skill" is. I only equated it to a piece of 15 year old equipment. And no one has posted anything done of a FF to prove my theory wrong. I'm still waiting. I'll probably die of old age first.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #209
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
Well, most large studios don't mix and match conversion - they'll have one rig,with one type of converter - maybe an additional 2-track "money" converter for printing mixes if OTB mixing (a side note; with a standalone AES converter like the burl, your recording sample delay isn't going to be accurately compensated unless you set it up manually, because the DAW has no idea of what latency the 3rd party converter is introducing. Unlike eg a Symphony or Avid setup, or indeed any system where the conversion is built into the interface, and where the converter talks directly to the interface drivers ie the converter is a known quantity).
Im sorry I dont fully understand would you mind explaining this in a bit more detail?

Say for example if you were using an eventide H8000FW (something i am thinking about buying btw) how would you interface this with say an Apogee Setup?

say something like this. i assume this would be the type of setup you might see in a posh studio.



The eventide FW has a WCLK in / out would this be a case of an external clock needed or would it not be needed as the signal would come in and out of the DAW without any conversion required?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #210
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
The levels between tracks are not the same. It also would have been more interesting, assuming you could match the levels, to have it be a blind test and let people try to sort the tracks by the cost of the converters.
sorry phil i missed this post. thats a good idea. i have a range of cards here as im heavily into kit generally perhaps I should do some blind ones

Would you say in your opinion this sheen issue is a CLK / Conversion issue (not all) but something in the overall equation?
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