Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Q&A, Tips, Tricks and Howto

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-27-2016, 09:16 AM   #41
SEA
Human being with feelings
 
SEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: By The Sea
Posts: 2,238
Default

Thanks guys for all you input!

As far as checking your RMS and Peaks, I've been trying out the BX Meter from Brainworx.

You can check out the vid here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsnqs8AU24

Has anyone tried the BX Meter (or use it)

Any other meters that would work better?

Thanks!
__________________
JamieSEA

http://www.facebook.com/jamieseamusic
SEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 09:23 AM   #42
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Digital just confuses people, how it works.

It's a good practice to start with your master fader at unity and leave it alone mostly, sure, but if you do need to move it later, it doesn't even matter. It's nothing but a fader, a gain pot, just like a fader or any other gain/trim control on any other mixer channel or anywhere else.

The rules of analog mostly don't apply to digital and like someone here correctly said, "digital headroom" is never ending as a practical matter. If you need more you can always create more, without any of the adverse affects of doing similar in analog, noise, etc, etc.

The relationship to how loud something sounds and what's showing on the master meters is partly perceptual or relative, based on the current monitor level.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 10:11 AM   #43
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,271
Default

I use Reaper's master meter. It has all the information I want, but it's far less visually distracting. That's important because even though we've been talking about a lot of numbers, they aren't really the point.

We decide to control the dynamics of a track when we can't get it loud enough in the mix without its peaks hitting whatever ceiling we're setting, or when we can't get the quiet parts loud enough without the loud parts being too loud, or when we can hear it coming in and out in a way we don't want.

It's always best to control those dynamics as necessary throughout the entire process. It starts with arrangement and performance, then the tones you dial in and the way you capture them, then with track-level automation/compression/saturation, then maybe at a group/bus level, and then maybe again a little touch at the master bus. But we shouldn't really be making these decisions based on numbers on a screen.

We make it sound good, then use the meters as a sanity check. Is there a stray peak somewhere making the overall mix quieter than it could be? Is it really rocking but actually squashed to all hell and you can't hear it because you've been listening over and over for three days straight? And then when you're finally happy with all that, where is that absolute highest peak? Subtract that from whatever final ceiling you really want (I shoot for -0.6dbfs for audio, but a little lower for YouTube) and add that much gain (or attenuation) to the Master fader and render it.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 11:01 AM   #44
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

I don't use the Master fader or track for anything, and I've calibrated my monitoring level with the Master at unity, so that's where it stays. Plugins use more CPU on the REAPER Master track than on normal tracks, so I keep the limiter and other "mastering" FX on a "main" bus that gathers all tracks.

FWIW, I use the limiter (Elephant 4) to only prevent incidental overs and also ISPs, it's set to -1.0dB but I aim to mix so that it doesn't really do anything most of the time. Sometimes it helps to dial in just a sliver of input gain to bring up some quiter details. This seems to work great for ambient music, I want to keep the dynamics and not listen to a limiter plugin.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 11:41 AM   #45
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
FWIW, I use the limiter (Elephant 4)
It's worth a lot to me because I love that limiter.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 12:45 PM   #46
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
We decide to control the dynamics of a track when we can't get it loud enough in the mix without its peaks hitting whatever ceiling we're setting, or when we can't get the quiet parts loud enough without the loud parts being too loud, or when we can hear it coming in and out in a way we don't want.
True. Unfortunately, as relates to the masses using these products they more often than not just remove all of the dynamics, and ruin it. Mostly because it's easier to just compress everything than to use automation. Vocals a bit too dynamic? Squash the hell out of it.

There's a big difference from what you correct say above, controlling or enhancing dynamics, and kinda destroying them. The latter just ruins the emotional part of the music for me, when everything is squashed 6-8 db just because that's the easy / lazy way to hear everything better.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 01:00 PM   #47
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Mostly because it's easier to just compress everything than to use automation.
It's so related to when/where the person enters the field. When all I had was an analog 4-track, I didn't need no stinking compressor. All I had to do is get a reasonable level that didn't distort too badly going in and the tape took care of the rest. Snare too much for the pre? Insert an inline pad on the mic cable.

Compressors in any context for me didn't really matter much until digital because it could actually capture and reproduce enough DR to matter and allow stuff to get lost in the mix. Even then I only used on the stuff that well, got lost in the mix and/or stuff like vox where it just needed to be compressed more because you need to hear every word the singer sings.

Then I went through a short phase of crushing stuff till I got sick of it in order to cure me of any potential habits.

Quote:
The latter just ruins the emotional part of the music for me
And you literally can't listen to it as long, it fatigues the crap out of your ears. I've tested this on unsuspecting friends on several occasions by creating two playlists, one with only sanely dynamic masters and another with only crushed stuff - both containing great songs. I love the looks on their faces when I switch playlists, they literally asked me WTF just happened demand I turn it down when the smashed playlist comes up.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 01:04 PM   #48
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

For sure. I wasn't saying it as a knock but for many people compressors are partly just a shortcut.

It's much easier to compress everything to "level it all out" than to automate a bunch of tracks or adjust clip gain for 8 vocal tracks 4 minutes down the timeline, it takes longer, so many people do that, compress everything out of the gate, but it doesn't sound as good to me.

I'd say the same for Kenny's de-essing method. It's way easier to throw a de-esser on something and set it and forget it but it doesn't sound as good as manually de-essing, which takes longer. If you notice, many people using de-essers don't even bother to automate the threshold so it will sound good for different levels of audio, they just set it and forget it.

It's who we are... a fast food nation. The best audio mix guys are really, really patient people. They do all of the tedious stuff that results in... "great".

And make no mistake about it. No matter how cool your tools are a 40-50 track mix really is still "work", lots of work, some of it quite tedious, to do it right, or best case.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2016, 07:10 PM   #49
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
It just occurred to me that it's at least worth mentioning that the pan law on these extra tracks are going to affect the level going through them. You will almost always have these panned dead center, so if you're using one of the pan laws that attenuate at center (not 0db or the "gain compensated" ones) you will be attenuating everything. With 3db pan law and both a sub- and master track like the picture, you'd end up with a full 6db attenuation before hitting Reaper's actual master. I use 0db for everything anyway, but if you use something else, you'd have to override it at the track level for these two.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 08:29 AM   #50
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
It just occurred to me that it's at least worth mentioning that the pan law on these extra tracks are going to affect the level going through them. You will almost always have these panned dead center, so if you're using one of the pan laws that attenuate at center (not 0db or the "gain compensated" ones) you will be attenuating everything. With 3db pan law and both a sub- and master track like the picture, you'd end up with a full 6db attenuation before hitting Reaper's actual master. I use 0db for everything anyway, but if you use something else, you'd have to override it at the track level for these two.
Hey ashcat, I use the 0.0dB pan law on all my tracks, it's my default.

I use both logic and my ears for all my panning and have never had any problem with that.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 09:45 AM   #51
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
Hey ashcat, I use the 0.0dB pan law on all my tracks, it's my default.

I use both logic and my ears for all my panning and have never had any problem with that.
Yeah dude. Pan laws are only really useful if you're actually modulating the track pan - like flying things around all over the place - and even then it kinda just saves some volume automation which might be better done by ear for the specific situation.

In my mind, sweeping L>R in 0db pan law is like an object moving in a straight line in front of you, where the pan laws make it take an arc. Neither is exactly right for every situation. Add to that the fact that in a full mix, panning will also change to an extent the frequency masking and interactions with other instruments, and it gets even more complicated.

The great thing about Reaper is that we can set this at the Project level for our own default for most tracks, and the override at the track level for those special cases where something else might work better.

It is kind of funny how we both just got done saying "I come from analog" and yet prefer 0db. I guess I never thought about pan law back in those days, and actually didn't worry so much about meters at all. I generally judged my levels by how often the red lights came on and how it sounded coming out of the speakers, and adjusted for pan law the same way I do now: by listening and adjusting the volume as necessary.

But I do have to say I did use compression back in the day. We had such a small window to work with that it some things really needed to be squashed in order to fit. People wax nostalgic, but cassette tape compression was pretty subtle up to the point it turned into distortion, and then it was just distortion. Generally nicer sounding than an opamp or a hard digital clip, but still not always desired. And the noise floor was always there like the whole thing was playing in front of a waterfall.

Back then, though, we had to be more thoughtful about how and where we used our compressor "plugins" because first we only had so many! They were physical boxes that only did one or two channels at a time. They cost money and took up space and we couldn't just make infinite clones of them. And then, there was noise coming from everywhere so you had to be careful about where in the chain you put the comp. I personally never actually used the pres or the mixer on my 4tracks - always had an external mixer and at least a small rack of outboard - but there was always some compression in that rack and I'd use some at tracking and some at mixing to help deal with the particular dynamic situation I was in.

But the fact is that everything in analog has definite dynamic range limits that are far less than what Reaper itself gives us. Even if you're using the PortaStudio itself, each input has a noise floor and a ceiling, each track has a noise floor and a ceiling, the playback channel, each of its EQ channels, and the mix bus have their upper and lower limits... Then whatever you're mixing to. It's really hard to get anything approaching linearity out of a full analog system, and in fact back in those days the best of us were trying really hard to get as close to linear as possible, and that meant finding that tiny window and figuring out how to jam everything through it.

And this is exactly why we end up needing so much when we're mostly ITB. Reaper doesn't give us any of that smooshing and clipping and curviness that we got "for free" from our analog processes. It won't fail to do its job the way analog circuits always do. But at this point a lot of us expect to hear some of that, and we generally still don't have much real world dynamic range to work with. If a reasonably quiet room is about 40dbSPL, and a pretty damn loud sound is 100, we can expect the dude who deliberately sits down and really cranks if to get 60db dynamic range. That's to say nothing of dude driving down the road with his muffler grinding on the rear axle or the chick with the ear buds on the subway or the kid washing dishes in the back of some nasty restaurant.


Edit - spose I should clarify this.
In this post, I'm using the term "dynamic range" in its correct definition: the difference between the volume ceiling and the noise floor.

When I talked in previous posts about DR as the difference between peak and RMS levels, it should better have been called "crest factor". I think a lot of people, places, and things, conflate the two, but they are different things.

Last edited by ashcat_lt; 07-28-2016 at 09:59 AM.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:49 AM   #52
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Are people really getting tripped up by pan law settings?!
To the point of drastically different levels on the output bus?!?!

I don't think so...

Honestly, I think the real problem (from reading many of these threads) is there are people out there who think mixing is strapping a brick wall limiter to the output bus and then just willy nilly pummeling it from all the source tracks until they're so confused they finally call the mix finished. Then they jump on the forum and ask what other limiters and distortion/saturation plugins they should run that mutilated mix through!


I've always left the pan law default. As mentioned, there is often volume automation that goes along with pan moves. It's always different. There's no preset.

I'm not saying I've never strapped a limiter across the mix bus to knock back a couple stray peaks after deciding that was the thing to do either. But I certainly don't mix into it when I'm dialing the mix up! If you're into creating situations like "Let's paint something blindfolded today!" that's cool. But if you want to actually mix something...

The only thing that should happen in "mastering" is final album assembly and maybe a few level balance moves song to song. There should never be any processing. The final mix should come off the mixing board at final master levels. Portable device masters - CD, mp3 - usually get limited/boosted. That's a thing for mastering (providing all secondary formats).

If there's something wrong with the mix... go back and finish the mix.

If there's something wrong with the mix and also the original source multitrack has been lost... Now we're into restoration work.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 12:46 PM   #53
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
Edit - spose I should clarify this.
In this post, I'm using the term "dynamic range" in its correct definition: the difference between the volume ceiling and the noise floor.

When I talked in previous posts about DR as the difference between peak and RMS levels, it should better have been called "crest factor". I think a lot of people, places, and things, conflate the two, but they are different things.
Yeah, heh heh, I use dynamic range in different ways too, I think they're all valid though.

I'll use it for the lowest level to the highest level for things like volume, Velocities, the scaling of the Velocities, etc..

A song that is squashed to death would have 0 dynamic range for me.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 03:57 PM   #54
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
Are people really getting tripped up by pan law settings?!
To the point of drastically different levels on the output bus?!?!
Yes, as a matter of fact we do occasionally get people coming through saying like "I set up this folder thing like so-and-so told me, but my levels are lower afterward. WTF?" so I posted about it in order to hopefully head that off if anybody's going to dive into it from this thread.

I honestly think the tone of your post is pretty condescending and confrontational. I appreciate some of your points, and even if I disagree I think it's a valid perspective, but it comes across as rather dogmatic.

I'm trying to describe reasons and ways that dynamic control is important (and it is for most of the things that most of us do, whether you approve or not) and try to get people thinking about how and why they're applying these things rather than just squashing things because they think they're supposed to. I think that just acting like the whole idea is ridiculous is counterproductive.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 11:18 PM   #55
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
Are people really getting tripped up by pan law settings?!
To the point of drastically different levels on the output bus?!?!

I don't think so...

Honestly, I think the real problem (from reading many of these threads) is there are people out there who think mixing is strapping a brick wall limiter to the output bus and then just willy nilly pummeling it from all the source tracks until they're so confused they finally call the mix finished. Then they jump on the forum and ask what other limiters and distortion/saturation plugins they should run that mutilated mix through!


I've always left the pan law default. As mentioned, there is often volume automation that goes along with pan moves. It's always different. There's no preset.

I'm not saying I've never strapped a limiter across the mix bus to knock back a couple stray peaks after deciding that was the thing to do either. But I certainly don't mix into it when I'm dialing the mix up! If you're into creating situations like "Let's paint something blindfolded today!" that's cool. But if you want to actually mix something...

The only thing that should happen in "mastering" is final album assembly and maybe a few level balance moves song to song. There should never be any processing. The final mix should come off the mixing board at final master levels. Portable device masters - CD, mp3 - usually get limited/boosted. That's a thing for mastering (providing all secondary formats).

If there's something wrong with the mix... go back and finish the mix.

If there's something wrong with the mix and also the original source multitrack has been lost... Now we're into restoration work.
It's cool that you have opinions and stuff, just don't expect anyone else to take your "never shoulds" seriously.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 09:47 AM   #56
tgraph
Human being with feelings
 
tgraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Silver City, NM
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
When I talked in previous posts about DR as the difference between peak and RMS levels, it should better have been called "crest factor". I think a lot of people, places, and things, conflate the two, but they are different things.
If only all of these definitions would just sit still long enough to get a grasp on them.
tgraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 10:00 AM   #57
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
It's cool that you have opinions and stuff, just don't expect anyone else to take your "never shoulds" seriously.
Haha, I appreciate your stubbornness I guess...

Well by all means stack up limiters on your master bus and have at it.
If you come up with something amazing... I'll buy a copy from you or something!

I mean it's still true that if it sounds right it is right at the end of the day. Who knows what weird setup might turn out something cool.

You know, loud always sounds better to the ear. You can get ballsy sounds with compressor tricks. But at the end of the day, you really stand a better chance of creating your mix by taking time and care working on elements of the mix and balances to bring things forward. You will get better results than slamming a limiter on the master bus. This isn't just my opinion. This isn't a comment to not make elements of a mix saturated/distorted either. I'm not some snobby classical music only kinda guy or something (but I like that too). No one's telling you not to use brutal sounds, least of all me. Try it!

Then come back and do some brutal volume war treatment on your finished mix if you really need bionic volume. Separating your mixing stage from your 'volume war' stage will make it easier to mix even if you're going after that.

Think about it. If you have an automated volume turning down device (literally what a limiter is) on your output, how can you possible work on the mix balances?

Try this next time:
Do your normal thing 1st.
Now take that limiter off the master bus and work the elements of the mix to get it hitting you the same way. Use dynamics control on a channel when you try to raise it to hit at the right level but a red light goes off first.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 10:34 AM   #58
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
You know, loud always sounds better to the ear. You can get ballsy sounds with compressor tricks. But at the end of the day, you really stand a better chance of creating your mix by taking time and care working on elements of the mix and balances to bring things forward. You will get better results than slamming a limiter on the master bus. This isn't just my opinion. This isn't a comment to not make elements of a mix saturated/distorted either. I'm not some snobby classical music only kinda guy or something (but I like that too). No one's telling you not to use brutal sounds, least of all me. Try it!

Think about it. If you have an automated volume turning down device (literally what a limiter is) on your output, how can you possible work on the mix balances?

Try this next time:
Do your normal thing 1st.
Now take that limiter off the master bus and work the elements of the mix to get it hitting you the same way. Use dynamics control on a channel when you try to raise it to hit at the right level but a red light goes off first.
I agree with you serr, and nice post.

In a previous post I showed how I use a Master bus and a SubMaster bus. My FX go on the Master bus and will usually have no more than an EQ, limiter, and Span (Span is really a great tool).

However, the FX on the Master bus will be bypassed until I've got my mix setup. It would be foolish and senseless to have it on while setting up a mix.

I start mixing with the first track I record, whether it's midi or audio. I also edit, automate, and apply FX as I go, with each recorded track. I want each instrument to sound as good as I can get it, right from the start. I might make some changes as I go, but if I can make an instrument sound good from the get go, it will make building a mix all the easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
With this Master/SubMaster setup I can adjust the limiter to my preferred settings and then adjust how hard I hit it with the SubMast.

Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2016, 12:20 AM   #59
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
Haha, I appreciate your stubbornness I guess...

Well by all means stack up limiters on your master bus and have at it.
If you come up with something amazing... I'll buy a copy from you or something!
I don't stack limiters on master, so there went your strawman. I already described earlier what I do, why I do that and for what kind of material it works in my opinion:

"FWIW, I use the limiter (Elephant 4) to only prevent incidental overs and also ISPs, it's set to -1.0dB but I aim to mix so that it doesn't really do anything most of the time."

I'm not telling anyone else what they should or should not do, and I wonder what makes you think you are the one to tell others.

Mixing and mastering aren't exact sciences, and there are numerous ways to achieve desired results- and what this desired result is, varies massively depending on the genre.

Quote:
The only thing that should happen in "mastering" is final album assembly and maybe a few level balance moves song to song. There should never be any processing.
Think of mastering as the stage two of mixing. You've balanced everything, individual elements are finished and you render it to stereo. This doesn't change anything in the sound, but helps you mentally to focus on the whole instead of the parts. If you then feel like the whole could benefit from some gentle EQ or compression, there's no reason you shouldn't do it then. Unless you think "because serr says not to" is a real reason.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2016, 10:41 AM   #60
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
I don't stack limiters on master, so there went your strawman.
Except you responded to my general comment. If you don't do that, why are you getting so defensive about a comment saying "don't do that"?


Back to a comment not aimed at anyone specifically:

I hear the same things you know. Strap a limiter on the master and crank it up... Loud and ballsy! Hard to argue with that right?

But now if you examine things...

Listen to the gained up master for a bit. What parts sound good cranked up? What parts are kind of getting in the way or overwhelming? Going back and working some of that out usually pays off. (Then you can turn up that new mix even louder with the limiter! Or not...)

Even more important. Take that limited/boosted file, put it on a track and lower the track volume to match the unlimited version. Now you can A/B them to compare for fidelity. Do they sound identical? (the best case scenario) If the limited one took a fidelity hit, they you'll want to do something about that. The only way to hear this is to normalize the volumes to A/B, otherwise louder sounds better.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2016, 11:07 PM   #61
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

I responded to your general comment because "never shoulds" are never correct. It's not so much about what you are saying, but how.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2016, 05:47 PM   #62
NecroPolo
Human being with feelings
 
NecroPolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Land of confusion
Posts: 69
Default

I don't know the proper way. I just know that I don't "science" just "ear" everything. I do tend to use the master fader to pump the optimal levels into the outboard gear that is heavily program dependent: some airy mix clipping around -1dB is much more forgiving than a dense -3dB clipping mix.

The DAW master fader gives a much more precise adjustment of the juice entering the analogue domain where every device can add its gentle footprints without the need of completely re-calibrating the whole chain from project to project.

I rarely change the I/O levels of the analogue chain. It gives me a stabile ground to know that an optimal signal level hitting the first device in the row gives a -9dBFs to -8dBFs output with approx. -1dB headroom of the last-in-row limiter without distortion or artifacts. Of course I adjust all the pre and post EQs and parameters needed but having balanced levels right at the beginning gives me a really quick workflow.
NecroPolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.