Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80551 is a reply to message #80542] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 07:35   |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I also have both the 5043 and the 33609 plug. I find the differences to be
less subtle than you do. Try this for a fat lead vocal:
Feed Back mode.
Channel A 2:1, slow attack med release.
Patch out of A into B
Channel B 6:1, slow attack med release.
With the right input levels, I have had this setup competitive with the best
LA2A, or ADL 1000 sounds I have ever reached. I did try to reproduce this
with the 33609, but I lost all the magic.
Feed Forward give a very dependable 0-over limiter, although for sound I
still prefer to use Feed Back mode and finalize with a digital limiter. This
little box offers a lot of options and a lot of mojo.
I do like the 33609 a lot and I’m happy to have it for times when the 5043
is tied up. For anyone doing demos primarily, or local-band work, it would
be silly to spend the extra money, but if you can afford going up a step,
you can get really slick results with this unit. I think Rupert is kicking
ass with the Portico line.
g
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot as
>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it for
>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico as
a
>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was hard
to
>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>processor.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80556 is a reply to message #80551] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 10:18 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:45defb95$1@linux...
>
> I also have both the 5043 and the 33609 plug. I find the differences to be
> less subtle than you do. Try this for a fat lead vocal:
> Feed Back mode.
> Channel A 2:1, slow attack med release.
> Patch out of A into B
> Channel B 6:1, slow attack med release.
> With the right input levels, I have had this setup competitive with the
> best
> LA2A, or ADL 1000 sounds I have ever reached. I did try to reproduce this
> with the 33609, but I lost all the magic.
>
> Feed Forward give a very dependable 0-over limiter, although for sound I
> still prefer to use Feed Back mode and finalize with a digital limiter.
> This
> little box offers a lot of options and a lot of mojo.
>
> I do like the 33609 a lot and I'm happy to have it for times when the 5043
> is tied up. For anyone doing demos primarily, or local-band work, it
> would
> be silly to spend the extra money, but if you can afford going up a step,
> you can get really slick results with this unit. I think Rupert is kicking
> ass with the Portico line.
>
> g>
Hi Gene,
I have just about decided to return the Portico. It's a beautiful sounding
unit to be sure, but I seldom track with compression and when I do, I have
adequate outboard compressors in channel strips here to cover this. The comp
in the Forssell CS-1 is about as perfect as it gets for tracking with
compression IMHO, so as far as a tool for use in a mix scenario, since I've
got 4 x UAD-1 cards, the 5043 is a beautiful $1700.00 piece of redundancy.
I'm going to give it another couple of days, but to be honest, I think the
33609 has the bases covered in a mix scenario, for my purposes. The 5042,
OTOH, is indespensable.
;o)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80561 is a reply to message #80551] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 11:28 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Damn!!!.....I've been playing with this thing with fresh ears today. It does
have a dimensionality that exceeds the plugin. They are still very close but
as usual, hardware sounds more like hardware than a plugin sounds like
hardware. Still sitting on ledge, dangling feet over economic precipice..
;o)
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:45defb95$1@linux...
>
> I also have both the 5043 and the 33609 plug. I find the differences to be
> less subtle than you do. Try this for a fat lead vocal:
> Feed Back mode.
> Channel A 2:1, slow attack med release.
> Patch out of A into B
> Channel B 6:1, slow attack med release.
> With the right input levels, I have had this setup competitive with the
> best
> LA2A, or ADL 1000 sounds I have ever reached. I did try to reproduce this
> with the 33609, but I lost all the magic.
>
> Feed Forward give a very dependable 0-over limiter, although for sound I
> still prefer to use Feed Back mode and finalize with a digital limiter.
> This
> little box offers a lot of options and a lot of mojo.
>
> I do like the 33609 a lot and I'm happy to have it for times when the 5043
> is tied up. For anyone doing demos primarily, or local-band work, it
> would
> be silly to spend the extra money, but if you can afford going up a step,
> you can get really slick results with this unit. I think Rupert is kicking
> ass with the Portico line.
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot as
>
>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it for
>
>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico as
> a
>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was hard
> to
>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>
>>processor.
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80565 is a reply to message #80561] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 11:51 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
use 2 hands comphasser...2 hands.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:28:40 -0700, "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com>
wrote:
>Damn!!!.....I've been playing with this thing with fresh ears today. It does
>have a dimensionality that exceeds the plugin. They are still very close but
>as usual, hardware sounds more like hardware than a plugin sounds like
>hardware. Still sitting on ledge, dangling feet over economic precipice..
>
>;o)
>
>"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:45defb95$1@linux...
>>
>> I also have both the 5043 and the 33609 plug. I find the differences to be
>> less subtle than you do. Try this for a fat lead vocal:
>> Feed Back mode.
>> Channel A 2:1, slow attack med release.
>> Patch out of A into B
>> Channel B 6:1, slow attack med release.
>> With the right input levels, I have had this setup competitive with the
>> best
>> LA2A, or ADL 1000 sounds I have ever reached. I did try to reproduce this
>> with the 33609, but I lost all the magic.
>>
>> Feed Forward give a very dependable 0-over limiter, although for sound I
>> still prefer to use Feed Back mode and finalize with a digital limiter.
>> This
>> little box offers a lot of options and a lot of mojo.
>>
>> I do like the 33609 a lot and I'm happy to have it for times when the 5043
>> is tied up. For anyone doing demos primarily, or local-band work, it
>> would
>> be silly to spend the extra money, but if you can afford going up a step,
>> you can get really slick results with this unit. I think Rupert is kicking
>> ass with the Portico line.
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot as
>>
>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it for
>>
>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico as
>> a
>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was hard
>> to
>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>>
>>>processor.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80570 is a reply to message #80565] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 12:24 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
C'mon Deej you know you'll just die if you don't buy it
8>)
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bhut2lg8sp1mukfstm268d9debv40crfn@4ax.com...
> use 2 hands comphasser...2 hands.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:28:40 -0700, "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Damn!!!.....I've been playing with this thing with fresh ears today. It
>>does
>>have a dimensionality that exceeds the plugin. They are still very close
>>but
>>as usual, hardware sounds more like hardware than a plugin sounds like
>>hardware. Still sitting on ledge, dangling feet over economic precipice..
>>
>>;o)
>>
>>"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>news:45defb95$1@linux...
>>>
>>> I also have both the 5043 and the 33609 plug. I find the differences to
>>> be
>>> less subtle than you do. Try this for a fat lead vocal:
>>> Feed Back mode.
>>> Channel A 2:1, slow attack med release.
>>> Patch out of A into B
>>> Channel B 6:1, slow attack med release.
>>> With the right input levels, I have had this setup competitive with the
>>> best
>>> LA2A, or ADL 1000 sounds I have ever reached. I did try to reproduce
>>> this
>>> with the 33609, but I lost all the magic.
>>>
>>> Feed Forward give a very dependable 0-over limiter, although for sound I
>>> still prefer to use Feed Back mode and finalize with a digital limiter.
>>> This
>>> little box offers a lot of options and a lot of mojo.
>>>
>>> I do like the 33609 a lot and I'm happy to have it for times when the
>>> 5043
>>> is tied up. For anyone doing demos primarily, or local-band work, it
>>> would
>>> be silly to spend the extra money, but if you can afford going up a
>>> step,
>>> you can get really slick results with this unit. I think Rupert is
>>> kicking
>>> ass with the Portico line.
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot as
>>>
>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it
>>>>for
>>>
>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico as
>>> a
>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>>>>hard
>>> to
>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end
>>>>hardware
>>>
>>>>processor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80571 is a reply to message #80556] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 13:41 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey DJ and all..try hese demos out. http://www.sonalksis.com/
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>
>"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:45defb95$1@linux...
>>
>> I also have both the 5043 and the 33609 plug. I find the differences to
be
>> less subtle than you do. Try this for a fat lead vocal:
>> Feed Back mode.
>> Channel A 2:1, slow attack med release.
>> Patch out of A into B
>> Channel B 6:1, slow attack med release.
>> With the right input levels, I have had this setup competitive with the
>> best
>> LA2A, or ADL 1000 sounds I have ever reached. I did try to reproduce this
>> with the 33609, but I lost all the magic.
>>
>> Feed Forward give a very dependable 0-over limiter, although for sound
I
>> still prefer to use Feed Back mode and finalize with a digital limiter.
>> This
>> little box offers a lot of options and a lot of mojo.
>>
>> I do like the 33609 a lot and I'm happy to have it for times when the
5043
>> is tied up. For anyone doing demos primarily, or local-band work, it
>> would
>> be silly to spend the extra money, but if you can afford going up a step,
>> you can get really slick results with this unit. I think Rupert is kicking
>> ass with the Portico line.
>>
>> g>
>
>Hi Gene,
>
>I have just about decided to return the Portico. It's a beautiful sounding
>unit to be sure, but I seldom track with compression and when I do, I have
>adequate outboard compressors in channel strips here to cover this. The
comp
>in the Forssell CS-1 is about as perfect as it gets for tracking with
>compression IMHO, so as far as a tool for use in a mix scenario, since I've
>got 4 x UAD-1 cards, the 5043 is a beautiful $1700.00 piece of redundancy.
>I'm going to give it another couple of days, but to be honest, I think the
>33609 has the bases covered in a mix scenario, for my purposes. The 5042,
>OTOH, is indespensable.
>
>;o)
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80601 is a reply to message #80581] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 08:01 |
Cujjo
Messages: 325
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR but
not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send multiple
channels to it.
I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get that
depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing big
$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does all
that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics are
the only sound investment.
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>and Voxengo.
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>
>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey DJ,
>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
Oxford
>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>
>>>
>>The
>>
>>
>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very desirable.
>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>
>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot
as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it
for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
hard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>processor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>ADK
>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80611 is a reply to message #80601] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 09:42 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You did say “Great”, did you not? There are plenty of good ones in the box
but the great ones are expensive and hardware.
My favorite in-box verbs are:
TC Powercores with the extra licenses ported from the TC 6000.
Altiverb
CSR
TL-space (because it can use Altiverb impulses), but its for PT only.
Nebula2– keep an eye on this!
Gene
"CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR but
>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send multiple
>channels to it.
>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
that
>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing big
>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does all
>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
are
>the only sound investment.
>
>
>
>
>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>and Voxengo.
>>
>>
>>TCB wrote:
>>
>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
>Oxford
>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The
>>>
>>>
>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very desirable.
>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>
>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot
>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it
>for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>hard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>processor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80615 is a reply to message #80611] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 08:57 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI Gene,
Yes the TC powercore 6000 series ones are excellent.
Purely native ones to me would be the Wizooverb but I have been checking
out the Nebula2 and it looks like it might be the thing.
The Altiverb on PC is not ported very well at all. Very buggy and way to
much of a recourse hog for what it's doing for me.
What's CSR ?
Chris
Gene Lennon wrote:
>You did say “Great”, did you not? There are plenty of good ones in the box
>but the great ones are expensive and hardware.
>My favorite in-box verbs are:
>TC Powercores with the extra licenses ported from the TC 6000.
>Altiverb
>CSR
>TL-space (because it can use Altiverb impulses), but its for PT only.
>Nebula2– keep an eye on this!
>Gene
>
>"CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR but
>>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send multiple
>>channels to it.
>>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
>>
>>
>that
>
>
>>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing big
>>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does all
>>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
>>
>>
>are
>
>
>>the only sound investment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>and Voxengo.
>>>
>>>
>>>TCB wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Oxford
>>
>>
>>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very desirable.
>>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>>
>>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>as
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>for
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>as
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>hard
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>processor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>ADK
>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80622 is a reply to message #80615] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 10:31 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
http://www.futuremusic.com/news/testdrive/csr-review.html
I was never a big fan of IK Multimedia software, but CSR and the new Ampeg
plug are both quite good.
CSR has a few patches that are quite excellent for classic Lexicon style
emulation and they are extremely editable. The real boxes are still better.
Gene
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>HI Gene,
>Yes the TC powercore 6000 series ones are excellent.
>Purely native ones to me would be the Wizooverb but I have been checking
>out the Nebula2 and it looks like it might be the thing.
>The Altiverb on PC is not ported very well at all. Very buggy and way to
>much of a recourse hog for what it's doing for me.
>What's CSR ?
>
>
>Chris
>
>
>Gene Lennon wrote:
>
>>You did say “Great”, did you not? There are plenty of good ones in the
box
>>but the great ones are expensive and hardware.
>>My favorite in-box verbs are:
>>TC Powercores with the extra licenses ported from the TC 6000.
>>Altiverb
>>CSR
>>TL-space (because it can use Altiverb impulses), but its for PT only.
>>Nebula2– keep an eye on this!
>>Gene
>>
>>"CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR
but
>>>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send multiple
>>>channels to it.
>>>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
>>>
>>>
>>that
>>
>>
>>>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>>>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing
big
>>>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does
all
>>>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
>>>
>>>
>>are
>>
>>
>>>the only sound investment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>and Voxengo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>Oxford
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>The
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very desirable.
>>>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a
lot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>as
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use
it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>as
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>hard
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end
hardware
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>processor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>ADK
>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>ADK
>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80624 is a reply to message #80601] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 10:37 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Verbs..My go vserbs these are :
1) Wizoo verb.. Wow!!
2) SIR
3) Altiverb..When working, nice..
4) Paris..plate
"CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR but
>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send multiple
>channels to it.
>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
that
>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing big
>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does all
>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
are
>the only sound investment.
>
>
>
>
>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>and Voxengo.
>>
>>
>>TCB wrote:
>>
>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
>Oxford
>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The
>>>
>>>
>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very desirable.
>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>
>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot
>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it
>for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>hard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>processor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80625 is a reply to message #80622] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 09:39 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I tried the convo route with the Waves and SIR. Nice, but I'm using an old
Roland R-880, Quantec Yardstick, Sony V77 and Lexi PCM 90 here. They may not
be the most exotic of the hardware units but they are good and just get the
job done without a lot of futzing around and no CPU hit at all.
the Quantec is one of those *invisible in the mix until you disable it and
then you miss it* kinda' boxes.
;o)
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:45e07662$1@linux...
>
> http://www.futuremusic.com/news/testdrive/csr-review.html
>
> I was never a big fan of IK Multimedia software, but CSR and the new Ampeg
> plug are both quite good.
>
> CSR has a few patches that are quite excellent for classic Lexicon style
> emulation and they are extremely editable. The real boxes are still
> better.
>
> Gene
>
>
>
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>HI Gene,
>>Yes the TC powercore 6000 series ones are excellent.
>>Purely native ones to me would be the Wizooverb but I have been checking
>
>>out the Nebula2 and it looks like it might be the thing.
>>The Altiverb on PC is not ported very well at all. Very buggy and way to
>
>>much of a recourse hog for what it's doing for me.
>>What's CSR ?
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>Gene Lennon wrote:
>>
>>>You did say "Great", did you not? There are plenty of good ones in the
> box
>>>but the great ones are expensive and hardware.
>>>My favorite in-box verbs are:
>>>TC Powercores with the extra licenses ported from the TC 6000.
>>>Altiverb
>>>CSR
>>>TL-space (because it can use Altiverb impulses), but its for PT only.
>>>Nebula2- keep an eye on this!
>>>Gene
>>>
>>>"CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR
> but
>>>>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send
>>>>multiple
>>>>channels to it.
>>>>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
>>>>
>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>>>>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing
> big
>>>>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does
> all
>>>>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>>the only sound investment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and Voxengo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs,
>>>>>>>Sony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>Oxford
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a
>>>>>>>whole..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very
>>>>>>>desirable.
>>>>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a
> lot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use
> it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the
>>>>>>>>Portico
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>hard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end
> hardware
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>processor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>ADK
>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80632 is a reply to message #80601] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 14:19 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
PS
This is the box to watch. Due out soon:
http://www.bricasti.com/
Between 3K and 4K US$
Gene
"CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR but
>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send multiple
>channels to it.
>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
that
>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing big
>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does all
>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
are
>the only sound investment.
>
>
>
>
>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>and Voxengo.
>>
>>
>>TCB wrote:
>>
>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
>Oxford
>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The
>>>
>>>
>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very desirable.
>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>
>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot
>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it
>for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>hard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end hardware
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>processor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80635 is a reply to message #80632] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 13:37 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Are these the guys who used to be with Lexicon?
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:45e0abdd$1@linux...
>
> PS
> This is the box to watch. Due out soon:
>
> http://www.bricasti.com/
>
> Between 3K and 4K US$
>
> Gene
>
> "CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR but
>>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send
>>multiple
>>channels to it.
>>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
> that
>>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing big
>>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does all
>>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
> are
>>the only sound investment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>and Voxengo.
>>>
>>>
>>>TCB wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
>>Oxford
>>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very
>>>>>desirable.
>>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>>
>>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a lot
>>as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use it
>>for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
>>as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>>hard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end
>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>processor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>ADK
>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>(859) 635-5762
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Portico 5043 vs UAD-1 33609 [message #80639 is a reply to message #80622] |
Sat, 24 February 2007 14:14 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oh yeah I forgot about those IK things. I disliked Sampletank and
amplitude allot so didn't pay much attention to this stuff.
Gene Lennon wrote:
>http://www.futuremusic.com/news/testdrive/csr-review.html
>
>I was never a big fan of IK Multimedia software, but CSR and the new Ampeg
>plug are both quite good.
>
>CSR has a few patches that are quite excellent for classic Lexicon style
>emulation and they are extremely editable. The real boxes are still better.
>
>Gene
>
>
>
>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>>HI Gene,
>>Yes the TC powercore 6000 series ones are excellent.
>>Purely native ones to me would be the Wizooverb but I have been checking
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>out the Nebula2 and it looks like it might be the thing.
>>The Altiverb on PC is not ported very well at all. Very buggy and way to
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>much of a recourse hog for what it's doing for me.
>>What's CSR ?
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>Gene Lennon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You did say “Great”, did you not? There are plenty of good ones in the
>>>
>>>
>box
>
>
>>>but the great ones are expensive and hardware.
>>>My favorite in-box verbs are:
>>>TC Powercores with the extra licenses ported from the TC 6000.
>>>Altiverb
>>>CSR
>>>TL-space (because it can use Altiverb impulses), but its for PT only.
>>>Nebula2– keep an eye on this!
>>>Gene
>>>
>>>"CUjo" <CHris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok for dynamics, but what are some great reverb options? I know of SIR
>>>>
>>>>
>but
>
>
>>>>not so great for drums in Paris as far as I can tell as I can;t send multiple
>>>>channels to it.
>>>>I am thinking of looking in to more external boxes, as I just can't get
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>depth out of the Paris verbs. I do have the UAD1 plate and a TC box. I'd
>>>>like a H3000 and a lexi box at some point but the thought of investing
>>>>
>>>>
>big
>
>
>>>>$$ in them to have a new in the box verb come out next month that does
>>>>
>>>>
>all
>
>
>>>>that makes me hesitant. It's gettiing to the point where Pre's and Mics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the only sound investment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and Voxengo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would add PSP Audioware to that list but I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hey DJ,
>>>>>>>These days, plugins (imo) like the Sonalkis and Waves SSL's,UADs, Sony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>Oxford
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>, Sound Toys, & McDSP have changed my perception on plugin as a whole..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>above list of plugs have "sonic" foot prints that's very very desirable.
>>>>>>>To say that not impressed is an understatment...LAD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>More similarities than differences. Amazing. I do like the 5043 a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>lot
>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>it's still got a little bit of an organic edge to it and I can use
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>it
>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tracking, but the UAD-1 33609 is standing toe-to-toe with the Portico
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>channel insert in a mix. I never thought I'd see the day when it was
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>hard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tell the difference between a software plugin and a very high end
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>hardware
>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>processor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>ADK
>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 28 07:07:57 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09091 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
