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
Avid postpones Q4 earnings call "indefinitely," accounting under investigation DAW Software
Old 1 week ago
  #1681
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
Let's be quite clear about this - Avid is on 'Life-Support'. i.e. If certain figures in the industry did not support it, Avid would be gone in a heart-beat!

Let me put it this way - if not Avid, then who???

Reaper? Yer, right! No proper hardware integration. A one man band that does audio only and is answerable to no-one. More importantly, not a member of the insider investment circle - so no control. The SW may be incredible, but the guy has a beard, so although an all-American product, a bit 'un-American' for most.

Logic/FCP? Apple is just too big (almost a nation unto itself!) not really in the pro-sector and totally unaccountable to the established players! So it's a total 'avoid'!

Adobe? Video only (audio totally lame) no hardware integration and no real interest in the top end of the pro sector. Also a bit too big to control!

DaVinci-Resolve? Ouch! Another one-man-band and this time an Australian and they are all nutters* so no proper control! The only problem here is, it's a real, professional, integrated system, with hardware, storage and peer-2-peer networking - and worst still, it's beginning to become really popular, along with their cameras, switchers and other hardware!

(The rest are all a motley collection of either audio or video only and not American!)

So the 'Powers-that Be' have decided to follow the advice of Robert Lewis Stevenson (advice that some of you may be well-advised to follow) -

"Always keep firm hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse!"

___

*Nutters refers to those itinerant workers who travelled England in the Middle Ages and helped with the harvest, ending with the well-paid nut harvest, after which they got really drunk to celebrate.
Why no mention of Cubase/Nuendo?
Old 1 week ago
  #1682
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael cleary View Post
Why no mention of Cubase/Nuendo?
Audio only.

The industry is looking (we assume!) for an alternative system for bulk storage and media management for both audio and video with hardware integration from a supplier with a proven track record in the professional music and movie/TV industries.

So once again, my question - If not Avid, then who?
Old 1 week ago
  #1683
Lives for gear
 
latweek's Avatar
 

I'm still LOLing at the Reaper/Beard reference..... clearly a deal breaker!
Old 1 week ago
  #1684
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
Audio only.

The industry is looking (we assume!) for an alternative system for bulk storage and media management for both audio and video with hardware integration from a supplier with a proven track record in the professional music and movie/TV industries.

So once again, my question - If not Avid, then who?
I'm not sure why "hardware integration" is such a big deal these days. In video perhaps but not in audio.

The latest crop of thunderbolt hardware interfaces are delivering 1.3-1.6 ms RTL, new ones on the way are talking less. I've seen demos of modern machines running 500 tracks loaded with plugins and a dozen virtual instruments running fine at very low latency. Rivaling HDX numbers.

DAWs will evolve to improve. Studio One now supports separate buffer settings for recording vs playback. So higher buffers for track monitoring while low buffers for input monitoring. Click the native low-latency button on the record enabled track(s) and monitor recording through plugins at no audible latency with 100 tracks playing back without freezing tracks.

What does dedicated hardware bring to that? Paradigms are changing. Native Thunderbolt 3 interfaces have yet to arrive. Watch out when they do.
Old 1 week ago
  #1685
Here for the gear
 

Quick, somebody tell Uncle Sam and Santa Claus that beards are unamerican!
Old 1 week ago
  #1686
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Avid is in the professional VIDEO business. An awful lot of real, paid-for professional audio is not overdubbed and people who use recording consoles don't need ultra-low latency because their console will be way lower than any DAW!
Old 1 week ago
  #1687
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
True, hardware is less essential. Not too long ago, TDM (or some type of offloaded processing) was a must for large sessions. Now, native CPUs can cover incredible amount of data and not bat an eye.

Regarding Avid'd video business, that has taken an even larger hit than audio. In my neighborhood editors are everywhere and I often ask about software/hardware. Media Composer is rarely mentioned for film. Adobe Premiere and FCP are each mentioned about 3:1 over Avid. 15 years ago, it was Avid for every major project. Now, it's about 1-in-6. It was once tens of thousands of dollars to get started with Media Composer. Now they're giving it away (called "First" though it's a somewhat governed version).
Old 1 week ago
  #1688
Lives for gear
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
There is also VEGAS which is very user friendly and works extremely well. Its only drawback is it is PC only. A great video AND audio editor and leads the DVW/DAW pack in many ways. FWIW
Old 1 week ago
  #1689
Lives for gear
Before I say anything, may I put on record that I dislike the way Avid treats its customers and I dislike even more the way it has treated its employees. I personally do not like or use PT or MC and the day Avid vanishes in a cloud of debt, created solely and alone by the past three generations of management being inept, incapable and greedy, will be a good day, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigiArc View Post
I'm not sure why "hardware integration" is such a big deal these days. In video perhaps but not in audio.
When standards are set, they are set by the big boys, Viacom, Disney, Comcast, BBC, RTL, RAI and all the other major players on Planet Earth. These major players need projects delivered to them using formats that their employees are guaranteed to be familiar with. For that reason, if Comcast (150,000 employees) or Disney (200,000 employees) decides to opt for a specific way of doing things, that has a large ripple effect right across the industry and not just in the US, but across Planet Earth. I hope we can agree on that fact!

I hope we can also agree that a commercial enterprise, large or small, needs to limit the number of suppliers that provide mission-critical equipment. One has to do that for legal reasons, as well as to keep costs down. When I decide which video and audio editing system I shall use in our new post room this summer, I shall make one call to one supplier and I expect to get one working system. If that system does not work, I have one company that I can litigate against and one person in that company I can call to make things work again. A collection of bits that require me to waste time, installing this, routing that and trouble-shooting something else, is a mistake I made once. No sane CTO in a large company is going to go down that route (at least, not if he wants to keep his job!)

The third thing that I hope we call all agree upon, is that audio all on its own is (commercially speaking) a turkey that don't fly no more. In my world, audio and video now have to go together - one system and one box. There are plenty of occasions when one deals with audio all on its own, but those are getting fewer and fewer. In the hobby and home studio for working musicians and composers, audio all on its own is doing just fine, thank you. But when money is supposed to change hands, it's usually A&V together.

And now the fourth thing that I hope we can all agree upon - hardware. In any media organisation, large or small, you can only store bulk media using hardware. You can only convert audio and video signals into bits and bytes using hardware. You can only get those 1ms latency times using hardware. You can only move those video streams in the studio, to the post rooms using hardware. Screens, SSD RAID arrays, CPUs, cooling systems, fibre optical cable, long-term storage, all that guff is hardware.

Fifth and last, I shall be looking for a supplier with an in-depth knowledge and commitment to the professional audio and video industry. I expect that supplier, when asked about content management and recall, to have an answer and not a work-around. I expect their products to be tried and tested over some years. If the customer is a broadcaster, that supplier has to understand the workings and needs of a news room, as well as being able to meet the needs of their film department, the archive department and the audio post rooms.

So there you have the needs of the commercial customer - one box, one contract and one supplier with a proven track record.

So yet again, I must ask the question - if not Avid, then who?
Old 1 week ago
  #1690
GS Community Manager
 
Whitecat's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
The third thing that I hope we call all agree upon, is that audio all on its own is (commercially speaking) a turkey that don't fly no more. In my world, audio and video now have to go together - one system and one box. There are plenty of occasions when one deals with audio all on its own, but those are getting fewer and fewer. In the hobby and home studio for working musicians and composers, audio all on its own is doing just fine, thank you. But when money is supposed to change hands, it's usually A&V together.
An important point - and there are even places that are end-to-end commercial production houses that just don't spend money on audio. They get something that's "good enough" thrown together in their NLE and that's it. For those guys, a "system" is not necessary - they use the NLE of their choice and the need for a DAW ecosystem is just not there.
Old 1 week ago
  #1691
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

An awful lot of people I know were using AfterEffects with Final Cut at home and Media Composer at work. By the time Apple pooped in the pond with FC-X, AfterEffects was only available as a $20/month rental so a great many signed up for the extra $30 to also get Premiere Pro. I've not heard of anybody preferring Premiere Pro to FCP7 or preferring either to Media Composer, assuming that they know it.

Avid's biggest problem is major studios that are still running Media Composer and Pro Tools HD on Mac G5s!
Old 1 week ago
  #1692
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
And now the fourth thing that I hope we can all agree upon - hardware. In any media organisation, large or small, you can only store bulk media using hardware. You can only convert audio and video signals into bits and bytes using hardware. You can only get those 1ms latency times using hardware. You can only move those video streams in the studio, to the post rooms using hardware. Screens, SSD RAID arrays, CPUs, cooling systems, fibre optical cable, long-term storage, all that guff is hardware.

So yet again, I must ask the question - if not Avid, then who?
True, but in audio in particular, the "hardware" is your native PC (generic term includes Mac) and an audio interface. Avid specialized in hardware accelerated interfaces. "Non-Accelerated" thunderbolt interfaces now rival (meet or exceed) the throughput specs of those hardware accelerators on native Intel based systems. So an Avid HDX system is no longer required to achieve some of those results. It will only get more so from here. Avid is limited by the same PCIe pipeline as the passive thunderbolt interfaces.

So, from a hardware standpoint, it is trending towards, "if not Avid then who" to "Anybody like Presonus, Apogee, UAD, Focusrite, etc." who has a thunderbolt interface. Right now, they haven't even implemented a Thunderbolt 3 interface. That will likely tip the scales even more.

And, large scale online or near-line storage systems run on the same Thunderbolt busses. Very easy to put a system together like that now without Avid specialized hardware. Video compression hardware is much more compelling of an argument than audio or storage.

I know people delivering work to Disney and Discovery channel. Some are using Avid, some are using Davinci, and some are even using FCP and Premiere.
Old 1 week ago
  #1693
mymixisbetterthanyours!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
So there you have the needs of the commercial customer - one box, one contract and one supplier with a proven track record.

So yet again, I must ask the question - if not Avid, then who?
I'm working in a 1000+ employees media company and we use Premiere for editing, Protools for audio and Davinci for color.

A good CTO trusts his middle management to define a complete system that works together with suppliers and integrators, probably will request some alternate scenarios, weighs efficency against capex and opex costs and makes decisions. If the interfaces are designed properly there's no reason not to use different systems.

As always, YMMV.
Old 1 week ago
  #1694
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigiArc View Post
True, but in audio in particular, the "hardware" is your native PC (generic term includes Mac) and an audio interface. Avid specialized in hardware accelerated interfaces. "Non-Accelerated" thunderbolt interfaces now rival (meet or exceed) the throughput specs of those hardware accelerators on native Intel based systems.
That's simply not true. The fastest throughput on native systems is still measured in milliseconds. The throughput through AVID hdx and hd cards is measured in samples. People who aren't familiar with hd/hdx are usually not familiar with the concept of completely bypassing the native throughput buffer. Once you're familiar with it, the difference is night and day. The only analogue to that in the native world are the various low latency monitoring assist features on many interfaces that bypass the native buffer by looping straight back to the D/A, bypassing the DAW.... completely different and inferior to HD/HDX, which lets you bring your inputs right through your DAW mix, plugins and all, just like a hardware mixing console.

Those numbers haven't changed much in years, because the holdup is always through the native processor. Those buffer numbers are not going to disappear.
Old 1 week ago
  #1695
Lives for gear
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
Maybe 10 years ago AVID was the one stop "go to" software for both audio and video studios but that simply is no longer the case. Lots of smaller independent studios and today there are lots of different ways to get the job done. There is NO ONE SOFTWARE that "everyone" uses. People cannot even agree on Mac or PC let alone what audio/video software to use. I have a very big dislike for the way AVID does business and how they treat their customers and I am not alone according to what I read on these forum posts. What ever software studios chose it has to meet their needs and Composer and Protools just aren't doing that anymore. MTCW
Old 1 week ago
  #1696
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
What ever software studios chose it has to meet their needs and Composer and Protools just aren't doing that anymore. MTCW
Sorry Thomas. I have to disagree with that completely. I can't speak to Composer, but Pro Tools HDX meets ALL my needs, and the needs of many of my associates - and then some. That kind of blanket statement (^^^) is what heats things up around here. Avid may suck in a lot of ways, and on paper it may look dismal for them, but I'd be willing to bet that they come out on top when all is said and done.
Old 1 week ago
  #1697
Lives for gear
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Sorry Thomas. I have to disagree with that completely. I can't speak to Composer, but Pro Tools HDX meets ALL my needs, and the needs of many of my associates - and then some. That kind of blanket statement (^^^) is what heats things up around here. Avid may suck in a lot of ways, and on paper it may look dismal for them, but I'd be willing to bet that they come out on top when all is said and done.
Sorry to disagree but for every studio like yours there are a NUMBER of studios where they no longer use Pro Tools. If you are happy with what you are using then I guess the best course of action would be to keep using it until AVID goes under then you can find something else. FWIW
Old 1 week ago
  #1698
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
Sorry to disagree but for every studio like yours there are a NUMBER of studios where they no longer use Pro Tools. If you are happy with what you are using then I guess the best course of action would be to keep using it until AVID goes under then you can find something else. FWIW

I never said there weren't there other options out there meeting people's needs. Of course there are other options. What I disagreed with was your statement saying PT does NOT meet the needs of users anymore. Which of course is just not true. And while you may be in a smaller market, PT in the large markets is still the standard. Very happy PT user here, and if AVID should go belly up (again, been hearing that for well over a decade which is longer than most studio's last), then I'll happily continue using PT. It does everything I need and more, and personally, I'd be just fine if they stopped development of it right where it is.
Old 1 week ago
  #1699
Lives for gear
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I never said there weren't there other options out there meeting people's needs. Of course there are other options. What I disagreed with was your statement saying PT does NOT meet the needs of users anymore. Which of course is just not true. And while you may be in a smaller market, PT in the large markets is still the standard. Very happy PT user here, and if AVID should go belly up (again, been hearing that for well over a decade which is longer than most studio's last), then I'll happily continue using PT. It does everything I need and more, and personally, I'd be just fine if they stopped development of it right where it is.
OK lets just agree to disagree.
Old 1 week ago
  #1700
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
That's simply not true. The fastest throughput on native systems is still measured in milliseconds. The throughput through AVID hdx and hd cards is measured in samples.
It is pretty much true. HDX @48kHz with no native plugins has an RTL of just below 2 ms. The fastest RTL on RME cards is just below 3ms but once you add native plugins to the HDX system, which you tend to have to do as the selection of HDX plugins is limited, the signal also goes through a playback buffer and ends up having a higher RTL than an RME interface running native (at its lowest buffer setting of course).

Quote:
Those numbers haven't changed much in years, because the holdup is always through the native processor. Those buffer numbers are not going to disappear.
Nor will they disappear on a HDX system when using native plugins. HDX has advantages but also disadvantages. It is unfortunately not a panacea.

Alistair
Old 1 week ago
  #1701
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I never said there weren't there other options out there meeting people's needs. Of course there are other options. What I disagreed with was your statement saying PT does NOT meet the needs of users anymore. Which of course is just not true.
As a blanket statement it is of course not true but it is true for some of us. I don't think Thomas meant that it was true for everyone but I could be wrong.

I use PT HD for post work[1]. Mostly because all my sessions need to be interchangeable etc but also because it works well for that. For music, PT just doesn't cut it for my way of working. Cubase blows it away on pretty much every level. (Note that I don't track bands, which PT is ofc very good at, and my music projects do not need to be exchangeable at the session level. All music collabs/deliveries are done with bounced stems/masters).

[1] Just as a reminder to everyone reading: This thread started in the post-production forum and is a discussion of PT in the post production world, not the music world.

Quote:
And while you may be in a smaller market, PT in the large markets is still the standard. Very happy PT user here, and if AVID should go belly up (again, been hearing that for well over a decade which is longer than most studio's last), then I'll happily continue using PT. It does everything I need and more, and personally, I'd be just fine if they stopped development of it right where it is.
Ah well that is where different strokes for different folks come in. I am personally always eager for new updates and improvements. I keep a suggestions list for all the software I use and I send them to the developers from time to time. My current DAW suggestions list document is 4 pages I think.

Alistair
Old 1 week ago
  #1702
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Avid may suck in a lot of ways, and on paper it may look dismal for them, but I'd be willing to bet that they come out on top when all is said and done.
Oooo, oooo, ooo... I'd gladly take that bet! But what would "on top" look like in their segment? What's the metric in this category? Sales? Customer satisfaction? Company profits? Stock price? And for a company that operates in multiple arenas of media, how do we discern the credit given strictly to DAWs based upon any of those successes/failures?

And what's the timeline for all being "said and done?" There will never be a single DAW (in the foreseeable future anyway) -- there will always be a group of developers. That is, until Apple absorbs another one of the larger audio companies (Avid?), or pushes everyone out of the category.

Conglomerates are monopolizing and taking over. Who's it gonna be here?
Old 1 week ago
  #1703
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
Oooo, oooo, ooo... I'd gladly take that bet!

And what's the timeline for all being "said and done?"
How about we place the bet 10 years ago when the naysayers started going ballistically rabid... I would win from my perspective. And then there's the definition of what "win" means. Too difficult to all agree I'm afraid. One thing is for sure - PT's "death" was predicted as a sure thing over a decade ago, and yet 2018 is released and it's better than ever and still in widespread use. So while my statement is obviously rhetorical, I think the point is valid - PT is here to stay in the foreseeable future.
Old 1 week ago
  #1704
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
I should hope that EVERY release of EVERY piece of software is better than ever. Has anyone ever charged $$ for a downgrade?

(ok, yes, Apple charged for the disastrous Logic X, but they've finally realized how awful that was and have shifted back)
Old 1 week ago
  #1705
Lives for gear
 
latweek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
How about we place the bet 10 years ago when the naysayers started going ballistically rabid... I would win from my perspective. And then there's the definition of what "win" means. Too difficult to all agree I'm afraid. One thing is for sure - PT's "death" was predicted as a sure thing over a decade ago, and yet 2018 is released and it's better than ever and still in widespread use. So while my statement is obviously rhetorical, I think the point is valid - PT is here to stay in the foreseeable future.
How about......

I say"PT is on life support", you say "Avid is doing fine".

These are not inconsistent statements.
Old 1 week ago
  #1706
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by latweek View Post
How about......

I say"PT is on life support", you say "Avid is doing fine".

These are not inconsistent statements.

I didn't say that. I think they have some serious problems. They don't affect me much as an end user though. And again, been hearing it for a decade. One thing is for sure, they seem to have as much staying power as the proverbial cat with 9 lives.
Old 1 week ago
  #1707
Lives for gear
 

Talking about Pro Tools usage and Avid the company are two different subjects.

This thread was started because Avid failed to release required by law financials. There were valid concerns of shenanigans which proved true. Avid also reduced it's workforce each year by at least 10% for many years running along with other blatent red flags of trouble. All signs of a company that is NOT doing fine. Recent financials show ever increasing debt loads and relinquishments given not being able to meet their pending debt load metrics. Unless Avid sells off IP (which is now in the lender's control) the current gains from subscriptions (basically a user tax) will not make debt load metrics requirements in a year or two per some math by some of the members here looking closely at released financials. Avid hasn't died because they were able to keep borrowing but it looks like those tricks have run their course. Execs continue to bleed a great deal out of what is left and maybe that was the real plan all those years ago.

Now if using Pro Tools works best for your needs then ride that train as long as you can but change will happen with Avid so prudent advice continues to be have your eyes wide open as you may end up with an orphan.
Old 1 week ago
  #1708
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
That's simply not true. The fastest throughput on native systems is still measured in milliseconds. The throughput through AVID hdx and hd cards is measured in samples. People who aren't familiar with hd/hdx are usually not familiar with the concept of completely bypassing the native throughput buffer. Once you're familiar with it, the difference is night and day. The only analogue to that in the native world are the various low latency monitoring assist features on many interfaces that bypass the native buffer by looping straight back to the D/A, bypassing the DAW.... completely different and inferior to HD/HDX, which lets you bring your inputs right through your DAW mix, plugins and all, just like a hardware mixing console.

Those numbers haven't changed much in years, because the holdup is always through the native processor. Those buffer numbers are not going to disappear.
It certainly is true! HDX latency is 0.7 ms vs native system latencies of 0.9-1.8. Thats with Thunderbolt 2! Not to mention that HDX "can" degrade sufficiently if native plugins are added to the chain.

I have used and am familiar with HDX systems. The biggest benefit in my opinion (and Avid's if you believe them) is the DSP that facilitates maintaining those values at higher track counts with additional monitoring.

However if Thunderbolt 3 interfaces became the norm they approach native PCIe speed (which also limits HDX).

Since native processors continue to gain in processing power and clever software developers like Presonus develop technology like "native zero latency monitoring" the benefit of HDX becomes harder to justify. It ain't cheap.

My numbers are from here: Pro Tools | HDX | Specifications | Avid
Old 1 week ago
  #1709
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigiArc View Post
It certainly is true! HDX latency is 0.7 ms vs native system latencies of 0.9-1.8. Thats with Thunderbolt 2! Not to mention that HDX "can" degrade sufficiently if native plugins are added to the chain.

I have used and am familiar with HDX systems. The biggest benefit in my opinion (and Avid's if you believe them) is the DSP that facilitates maintaining those values at higher track counts with additional monitoring.

However if Thunderbolt 3 interfaces became the norm they approach native PCIe speed (which also limits HDX).

Since native processors continue to gain in processing power and clever software developers like Presonus develop technology like "native zero latency monitoring" the benefit of HDX becomes harder to justify. It ain't cheap.

My numbers are from here: Pro Tools | HDX | Specifications | Avid
not to get into the fight but the hdx numbers include adc latency. I dont know if your other numbers are taking that into account or not.
Old 1 week ago
  #1710
Lives for gear
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
As a blanket statement it is of course not true but it is true for some of us. I don't think Thomas meant that it was true for everyone but I could be wrong.

Ah well that is where different strokes for different folks come in. I am personally always eager for new updates and improvements. I keep a suggestions list for all the software I use and I send them to the developers from time to time. My current DAW suggestions list document is 4 pages I think.

Alistair
I never meant "everyone" nor did I say that. What I said was "What ever software studios chose it has to meet their needs and Composer and Protools just aren't doing that anymore". and I stand behind that post.

There are sooooooooooooooooooooooo many choices for audio and video software today. Let's celebrate the diversity and let people decide what is the best software for them. To say that ProTools is the only "professional" software used by professionals is ludicrous to say the least.

FWIW
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