You are here

Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Big Ear » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:08 pm

My friend has just got a pro summing device. He sendt me two files, with the same mix from his Protools HD system, the one being mixed "in the box" the other mixed through a d-box 8 channel summing.
There is no doubt in my mind and ears that the summing mix was supior to the "in the box" mix.
Instruments/voices sounds more like the individual tracks when soloed, in the final mix. The result seems to be a mix with the charecter of the individual instruments preserved.
Anyone got more experience with this ? :?
The reason to my doubt is the article http://www.soundonsound.com/SOS/jun04/a ... 0604-5.htm
where Paul Cooper suggest that there is no reason to belive that a summing mix should be better. I doubt that.
It makes sense to me that the internal mix must "shave some bandwith" in order to digital mix 24 tracks at 24 bit resulution, where the summing unit actually can contain all signals with no compromise, due to the fackt that its designed to be able to "pile" alle sinals before attunate it down to the final output.
Anyone got the experience/tecnical insight ? :headbang:
Big Ear
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby narcoman » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:49 pm

it SHOULDNT be any different but it is - even from a technical standpoint.

You've got more DA conversions, and therefore more noise and/or distortion. These elements are (often) quite beneficial when used carefully. I think that is the main reason outboard summing often provides "deeper" mixes.
narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Andy McBain » Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:34 pm

Which summing device did he use? I'm interested in getting one.
User avatar
Andy McBain
Regular
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Jack Ruston » Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:37 pm

I'm not convinced that it's the summing that makes the difference per se...Obviously if your gain structure in the box is wrong is rather unforgiving, so that's the first thing to look at...but lets assume that that side of things is ok...I think the main difference is the tasty distortion that comes from running through analogue. This makes everything seem bigger, deeper, more 3d etc etc etc. I think if you run your mix through a really high quality analogue mix bus chain you get very much the same thing...It just makes it sound bigger and 'nicer'.

Here's another thing that I think tends to influence this: Those who run summing devices may also be using them as a platform for other analogue processing, or just be the sort of engineers who use a fair amount of outboard (hence the choice of a summing amp) and therefore more of this charachter creeps into the mixes from the word go.

I have to say that I do believe that the less you 'DO' in the computer, the better. I've always found that the more I pile on the plug ins, the worse things get sonically. Even with the very good ones. All that number crunching can cause problems in a subtle way.

J
Jack Ruston
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3731
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Glenn Bucci » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:20 pm

If you read Bob Katz book on mastering, he states the summing out of the box concept is snake oil. It's not summing out of the box that gives you the improved sound. It's running your music through good hardware gear that gives you the sound. I have also noticed the Neve and Sumo summing box reviews in SOS, both Paul and Hugh stated they received very similar results when running a 2 bus mix through the summing boxes compared to when it was summed out. Just some food for thought.

I personally love the SLP Dreamix character it gives a mix. But for the price....I would rather first have proper acoustic treatment, good monitors, pre's, mic's, EQ, and compressor. Then when you get all that and you want to buy a Dangerous box, or Dreamix, then you may want to consider it. Or consider buying a Pendlum OCL-2 optic compressor and see how they improves your mix with gentle ratio.
User avatar
Glenn Bucci
Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Pennsylvania
revelationsoundstudio.com

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby tweeter » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:51 am

I've had my D-Box for a little over 72 hours now. I did a lot of research before buying the D-Box, and I was not really certain it was going to help much. I was having trouble hearing things in my mixes, and I was growing a little frustrated with my hit-n-miss mix downs.

I have a top-notch mics, pre's, and converters, and I was starting to feeling like I had a character flaw or something. I could get it close, but my mixes just didn't have that record quality.

After just twenty minutes with the D-Box I was glowing. My LSRs have never sounded so detailed and clear. I reworked a couple of old songs and my goodness, the difference was astounding!

This D-Box is the single best piece of gear I have ever bought! I wonder why I waited so long. I think I was a little suspicious this unit could be so cheap for what it delivered. It seemed too good to be true. Sorry to sound a bit zealous; it's just that it made a dramatic difference in my results.
tweeter
Poster
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby blue manga » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:20 pm

The Producer Formerly Known As Jack wrote: All that number crunching can cause problems in a subtle way.

J

Werd !
User avatar
blue manga
Frequent Poster
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Guitarmaniac64 » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:59 pm

The swedish magazine Studio did a test about analouge summing
you can download the files and decide wich one you think is the best sounding "plz do a blindtest first"

http://stutjanster.idg.se/laddaner/showFile.asp?FilegroupID=475&EditionID=59
Guitarmaniac64
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Luleå Sweden

 


Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Glenn Bucci » Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:13 pm

tweeter wrote:I've had my D-Box for a little over 72 hours now. I did a lot of research before buying the D-Box, and I was not really certain it was going to help much. I was having trouble hearing things in my mixes, and I was growing a little frustrated with my hit-n-miss mix downs.

I have a top-notch mics, pre's, and converters, and I was starting to feeling like I had a character flaw or something. I could get it close, but my mixes just didn't have that record quality.

After just twenty minutes with the D-Box I was glowing. My LSRs have never sounded so detailed and clear. I reworked a couple of old songs and my goodness, the difference was astounding!

This D-Box is the single best piece of gear I have ever bought! I wonder why I waited so long. I think I was a little suspicious this unit could be so cheap for what it delivered. It seemed too good to be true. Sorry to sound a bit zealous; it's just that it made a dramatic difference in my results.

Glad the D-Box is working for you. There are a lot of happy owners of that unit. Have you tried just running a 2 bus mix through it to see how close it sounds compared to summing your channels through it?

In regards to record quality, there are so many variables that give you that "record quality". Having a proper monitoring with a treated room is one thing that would help a lot. Experience is another. I know if Qunicy Jones had a 01V96 and recorded a band with it, his production would sound better than what I could do with Apogee's with Nuendo and all the outboard gear I could ever want. However since we all fall short of his knowledge and experience having a D-Box or Mixdream could help you get the sound your looking for. :D
User avatar
Glenn Bucci
Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Pennsylvania
revelationsoundstudio.com

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby forumuser646589 » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:09 pm

Big Ear wrote:Anyone got the experience/tecnical insight :headbang:

This is my reply to you -- personally:

You heard a/the difference, you noticed it, you know what you liked best - Just GO with it and listen to no-one, if it sounds good to you, it's what counts at this stage. Within reason, i.e; 'we' must like it too (your audience)... to some extend of course. Chances are, you are on the RIGHT path.

Reading too much of what people think/say, has never been the way to go, in any field. You just witnessed it. You are the BOSS.

Forget the silly numbers, 50 Bit... 100KHz... in/out - AD/DA bla bla bla... Who cares? If it sounds good it's what matters. There are many people out there obsessed with numbers, specs and figures, maybe they missed their vocations and should have become scientists. People who sell products or make reviews, are NOT the one you should listen. Why? Because they don't mix or they don't produce, to a level where they can compete with big shots. Their job is to review stuff and get payed for it... Not to MIX or Produce either. I have read reviews occasionally, yes, but to find out about features, NOT how it sounds.

As a side not, I am going to sound 'cruel' but honest, I heard mixes done by reviewers, by curiosity... I said to my self: God, and these guys tell the world what is 'good or bad'. Well, there you go, this was my reaction. And who am I BTW? It doesn't matter, wether I am famous or not, rich or broke, my post are uniquely aimed for the people out there, who are on the same wavelength. For the rest, who find me 'rude', well sorry, I probably feel the same about you - so we are quit.

By big shots, I don't mean Bob Katz or who else, I am talking about people you don't hear about (by name) but you hear what they do, and you like it, although you don't know who they are. These guys don't listen to no-one, they do what feels/sounds good and/or right to them, they simply have a gift and use their intuition. I am sure that you are one of them.

I use DSP exclusively out of necessity and convenience, at the moment. Do I prefer it over Analog? No way, and certainly not in a near future.
Do we need both? These days, sure, no doubt. But things have changed, big time, including the music industry itself. TODAY, it doesn't mater how it sounds, it has to be loud. On the other hand, only few people understand that even though, with wider dynamic range AND frequency response, 'we' are trying to get the fuller and more authentic sound that was produced and printed on media with a much narrow response, both in dynamics, as well as frequency response - ironic isn't it?!

There are many kind of people:
1) the kind who want you to buy things they own, or do what they do because they think it's best... they own it, it's the best they THINK...
2) the kind of people who tell you what is THE option, regardless of what they own, and wether whey benefit from it or not, they KNOW so.
3) many variants...

I'll give you a little example on this; I don't have a Mini Moog here, but I know what it sounds like I have had many Analog synths...
I have heard all DSP emulations of Moog, ARP etc... I gave/give up.

To me, BIG sound is BIG cabinet, BIG and heavy hardware...
Small sound is tiny, coming from bookshelves speakers, out of DSP, very light weight, basically, coming from a chip, the size of a match head.

It's incredible when you compare the two together, there is A relation with physical size, weight, and sound quality.
Simply put, for some obvious reason, big desk, big processors, big rooms, produce big sounding recordings.
On the other side you have got iPod... pretty small in all aspect.

To summarize, as I sometimes get misunderstood, this is my reply to you, and I am not interested to discuss this issue with anyone else.
You are on the right path my friend ;) Use your ears, not the specs, numbers, reviews, or listen to laughters at back (when applicable)...

On a side note, there are BIG record companies/labels who appoint someone for all their mixes, this someone make a name for him/herself,
but in theory, that someone was just lucky to get there - God knows how or why, and we are were we are today, people listen to the advice of those lucky people who got the job, yet, the listeners never 'get there', they get misled or confused instead. Then, wannabe mixers/engineers go and buy boxes because x or y is using it... The 'appointed' shall have a fruitful life and will be the 'voice' for the industry. That is it basically.

This is nothing new, there is A REAL story by TOM Moulton, if you haven't hear of him do a search, there was an issue with a 'portorican' sweeper working in the studio, where they cut records, he knew how to operate the tools better than anyone, although he was THE sweeper - they called him, until one night Moulton wanted to experiment... and then, came out the 12 inches... Google it, it will make you understand a lot about the music industry. Basically, no-one heard of this sweeper.
User avatar
forumuser646589
Poster
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 1:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Glenn Bucci » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:09 pm

-=@(*_*)@=- wrote:
Big Ear wrote:Anyone got the experience/tecnical insight :headbang:

This is my reply to you -- personally:

You heard a/the difference, you noticed it, you know what you liked best - Just GO with it and listen to no-one, if it sounds good to you, it's what counts at this stage. Within reason, i.e; 'we' must like it too (your audience)... to some extend of course. Chances are, you are on the RIGHT path.

You bring a good point. If it sounds good to you and you get the sound or results you want, stick with it.
Many on some forums will say bad things about a piece of gear like the Avalon 737. But if you use it and get great results, that's all that matters. :D
User avatar
Glenn Bucci
Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Pennsylvania
revelationsoundstudio.com

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:31 pm

-=@(*_*)@=- wrote:You heard a/the difference, you noticed it, you know what you liked best - Just GO with it and listen to no-one, if it sounds good to you, it's what counts at this stage.


Quite right. Couldn't agree more. At the end of the day, it what sounds right to the musicians involved that matters.

People who sell products or make reviews, are NOT the one you should listen. Why? Because they don't mix or they don't produce, to a level where they can compete with big shots.


That's a bit of a sweeping statement, and although it's easy to pont at specific cases where you would be quite right, it is easily easy to find countless cases where you are wrong. The trick is not to ignore everyone who isn't a current professional mix engineer (or whatever), but to establish the credibility of their opinions through their previous work, and then decide how much weight to place on their opinions.

Their job is to review stuff and get payed for it... Not to MIX or Produce either.


... but maybe they have previously been paid as mix engineers or producers and have now moved on for more money, better hours, less stress, different challenges, more family time, or whatever.I can think of dozens of reviewers, marketing people, company managers and others still involved inthe business who fall into these categories and whose opinions I would still consider carefully. I can also think of a good many current (and past) producers whose opinions I wouldn't give any weight to at all...

As a side not, I am going to sound 'cruel' but honest, I heard mixes done by reviewers, by curiosity... I said to my self: God, and these guys tell the world what is 'good or bad'.


;) Sometimes you can only do so much with source material, sometimes your preferneces and theirs might differ, sometimes they just didn't cut the mustard on that day with that genre of music... But then it is easy to think of dozens if not hundreds of commerical tracks that you wouldn't want to play twice too because of poor mixes.

I'm not disagreeing so much as trying to show that nothing is ever quite as black and white as the simplistic picture you are painting.... but then again, if you're not interested in discussing it I've probably just wasted a minute of my life writing this... ;)

Hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 23432
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Chris_Allen » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:49 pm

Guitarmaniac64 wrote:The swedish magazine Studio did a test about analouge summing
you can download the files and decide wich one you think is the best sounding "plz do a blindtest first"

http://stutjanster.idg.se/laddaner/showFile.asp?FilegroupID=475&EditionID=59

ok so I'm stupid - can you tell me where I can see the test results?


my Swedish is not so great :blush:
Chris_Allen
Poster
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Brighton

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Guy Johnson » Thu May 01, 2008 12:14 am

Well i listened, and (just) preferred the A version.
User avatar
Guy Johnson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1343
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:00 am
Location: North Pembrokeshire
This is my few words.

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby forumuser646589 » Thu May 01, 2008 3:24 am

Hugh, I like your posts in general, and don't have a problem with you. You are wise and know how to speak. I was referring to the usual 'muppets' (they know who they are), not someone like you. As a matter of fact, you are the one I appreciate the most here.

What I was getting at mainly, is that I heard/know many people who aren't popular or rich either, but they ROCK, and they do it better than what we call "Pros'" in the business. This is the world we live in - unfortunately, +, sadly, they shall stay 'unknown' and 'poor' for the rest of THIS life.

Likewise, yes, most mixes I hear today SUCK. 100% agree - no doubt. Which by the way, confirms what I tried to explain above.
I can say that I started 'suffering' from around the mid eighties, when music started to seriously degrade in quality, spirit and vibe. I find myself listening to the old numbers, from the mid 60s to mid 80s... after that, well - NIENTE.
Today, I still listen to music pre 80s, personally.

There are two types of music, the kind that gives you feelings, that touches you deep inside, and it doesn't have to be of a high quality recording, it simply touches you directly. Then there is the other type of music were you could say it's 'high' quality, high end recording, everything is spot on, the musicians are top session players, it's neat... Both is good to me, I don't have a problem with that. So, I am not Anal, I can appreciate an average recording with a excellent performance.

This is to say that I am not obsessed, I know the differences and their purposes.

On the other hand, you've got pointless recordings, meaningless, and soulless. That, I don't care for. These are all over the world these days.

On the subject of people who make reviews vs people who are simply gifted at whatever they do, wether mixing, cooking or entertaining... Yes, there are exceptions, of course. But my message was simple, someone who reviews is usually not the one I would advise listening to when it comes down to making purchases. An example, a bass magazine, the editor reviews various bass guitars, he plays with them for 10 MINUTES MAX. Then he speaks like he is been playing that bass for months! That is IMPOSSIBLE. Makes sense?
On the other hand, you have someone who's been playing with various basses for many many years, different pickups, wood, necks, strings, frets, circuits etc... The later doesn't review bass guitars. Who would you listen too?

This is what I am getting at. I am not being cruel, but realistic and sympathetic, although it might not sound like it.

Further, I mentioned that I heard post mixes from reviewers and I wasn't impressed but rather disappointed. The newer version was worse sonically, the original wasn't great, but more bearable if I may. Again, let's try to explain this my way: not everyone has got what it takes, while everyone has a gift, YES, what is important is to remember which gift it is, and to make the most of that gift, and accept it, and not get distracted and loose focus or the reason.

An example, and maybe a funny one; a male/female model or a natural born athlete, he/she was born this way, and that is his/her gift, on the other hand, there are many unrealistic people who are not born that way, but they persevere and believe that one day they will make it, they refuse to look at themselves in front of the mirror and simply say: "no, it's not gonna happen, no matter how hard I try... Gym, diet, clothes..." You have seen the movie 'Twins' with Arnold and Joe? Well, Arnold had a serious gift, even though he used a bit of enhancing substances (these are the tools of the field...), he was Mister Olympia for many years. Now, imagine Joe, with the same goal in mind -- It's not realistic, isn't it? Likewise, there are people who think they can mix big, because they have been surrounded by kit for most of their life,
that is simply not true.

So, to summarize, we all have a gift, it's certain, and we all need each other, but we must accept the reality, even though sometimes it hurts a bit.

Well, I hope at least one or two of you understand what I mean here. It's not sarcastic by all mean.
User avatar
forumuser646589
Poster
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 1:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Guy Johnson » Thu May 01, 2008 9:44 am

Yes, what you are saying -=@(*_*)@=- is recordings must have soul. Whether or not the technical end is very good. Off the top of my head are the Michelle Shocked "texas campfire takes" and anything by Glen Gould.

I personally always go for feel and soul when recording and mixing if possible; I prefer that even if there is a tiny bit of comb filtering, crackles form a fire in the recording-room (note room not studio!), rain and wind...
User avatar
Guy Johnson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1343
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:00 am
Location: North Pembrokeshire
This is my few words.

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby narcoman » Fri May 02, 2008 12:34 am

-=@(*_*)@=- wrote:Hugh, I like your posts in general, and don't have a problem with you. You are wise and know how to speak. I was referring to the usual 'muppets' (they know who they are), etc etc

I take it I'm one of the muppets.....



can't argue with the rest of it though - pretty much nailed. It is, after all, do/don't - have/haven't kind of business. It's either liked or it's not.....it's not all crap though , Joe Baressi and Alan Moulder still make great records.....
narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby forumuser646589 » Fri May 02, 2008 8:26 pm

Guy Johnson wrote:Yes, what you are saying -=@(*_*)@=- is recordings must have soul. Whether or not the technical end is very good. Off the top of my head are the Michelle Shocked "texas campfire takes" and anything by Glen Gould.

I personally always go for feel and soul when recording and mixing if possible; I prefer that even if there is a tiny bit of comb filtering, crackles form a fire in the recording-room (note room not studio!), rain and wind...

Yes, I do agree with that. The creative musical content is far more important than the level of quality of the recording itself. The recording HAS to have the power to "touch" you, me... from the tiny radio in the bathroom, and that's how I started to discover music, from a tiny MONO speaker, and I was 9 + I fell in love, the flavor of the days was Motown, Jazz, Funk, Disco and Fusion. I haven't changed my mind since.
God forbid!


narcoman wrote:
-=@(*_*)@=- wrote:Hugh, I like your posts in general, and don't have a problem with you. You are wise and know how to speak. I was referring to the usual 'muppets' (they know who they are), etc etc

I take it I'm one of the muppets.....

No, I didn't have you in mind, you have solid posts - no doubt + I don't remember you "putting me down", thus far. It's not that I don't like people who disagree with me, it's more about who, why and how (the way) that bothers me. Then, one might ask: "but how do you know, who they are and what they do know or don't?..." well, it's obvious.


narcoman wrote:can't argue with the rest of it though - pretty much nailed. It is, after all, do/don't - have/haven't kind of business. It's either liked or it's not.....it's not all crap though , Joe Baressi and Alan Moulder still make great records.....

Fair enough.

Now, to summarize, here is quote from - Eddy Schreyer of Oasis Mastering, taken from the UAD website (current article):
Basically a mic to tape was, in a lot of respects, a cleaner process. Obviously the digital world is trying to capture a sine wave, digitize it as best it can, with many, many, many layers of overtones, and sub harmonics and things. It's very, very complex, in the digital world, to achieve accuracy.

I don't know him personally, but I am glad to know that there are still people out there, who understand the principle. I am always curious to know who uses what, and most importantly, what and how they say it on line. Not that it's going to change my mind at all though, but at least I get my personal opinion on who is who and who knows what... A priceless piece of information(s), especially nowadays, where everyone is "big" in the field.
User avatar
forumuser646589
Poster
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 1:00 am

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Tue May 06, 2008 9:07 pm

-=@(*_*)@=- wrote:Now, to summarize, here is quote from - Eddy Schreyer of Oasis Mastering, taken from the UAD website (current article):
Basically a mic to tape was, in a lot of respects, a cleaner process. Obviously the digital world is trying to capture a sine wave, digitize it as best it can, with many, many, many layers of overtones, and sub harmonics and things. It's very, very complex, in the digital world, to achieve accuracy.

I don't know him personally, but I am glad to know that there are still people out there, who understand the principle.

If the principle you refer to is the idea of recording a mic more or less straight to tape (as opposed to lots of processing en-route or in post, lots of overdubbing and comping etc), then yes, I'd agree entirely.

On the other hand if the 'principle' is that digital audio systems struggle to record sine waves without overtones and sub harmonics... then the guy doesn't have much idea of what is involved!

Hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 23432
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Summing vs. mixing "in the box"

Postby narcoman » Tue May 06, 2008 11:51 pm

Absolutely right Hugh, unbelievable that someone supposedly involved in the high end of audio would spout such rubbish about how digital works! Hear it everywhere unfortunately - there is a similar discussion going on at another well known forum where many seem to believe that 24bit has "more resolution and captures the waveforms more accurately" - after all this time experienced people still think this !!
narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users