Is there any real value in buying hardware?

Want to talk about music hardware or software that doesn't include Reason?
avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2016

Unless there are errors, the signal path copies exactly between chips. Data transfer is trivial, if there is the slightest error in your PC bus your machine will crash very often, if it even starts successfully at all - that is a reminder of how trivial communication between chips is.

Sean clearly says he's doing weird stuff - which again comes back to my comment on the PlayStation and n64. Seriously, there's NOTHING mysterious about chips, your CPU is a chip.

What can happen is that hardware accelerated calculations may differ, but those differences can always be replicated when performed raw in software. Also if your hardware only has integer arithmetic then you'll have to deal with it differently. And as with the PlayStation, sometimes flaws you'd otherwise avoid if you could, might sound pleasing. And those inexperienced with working with those limitations might not even think to include it in their software plugin as an effect.

I agree with you, there are differences in sound, but the conclusion that it's down to a shortcoming / limitation of software would not be correct.
Last edited by avasopht on 06 Jun 2016, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

06 Jun 2016

Wether you prefer the other or one, is important to personal preferences, may it be typewriters or music. There are especially two reasons I´ve been writing that much since then. One is to emphasis there is a difference in sound because hardwarequalities had been mostly presented as hokuspokus and while you mentioned hard to emulate hardware it sounded (at least in my ears) like the sonic differences between hardware and today´s widespread software are more or less neglectable. Second is simply delivering an alternative answer to OP´s initial question saying "yes, besides turning knobs, patching cables, (mostly) no latency, etc. there is even an acoustic value here", sharing an individual perceptive perspective. Wether it´s important to someone, everyone has to decide for or findout themselves, reason all I can finally do is advice everyone who is asking this or a similar question to actually play with hardware and listen for onesself.
normen wrote:
moofi wrote:What it is to understand here is I´m talking about hardware like found in a modular, may it be analog or DIGITAL. I´m talking about newly bought + manufactured equipment. Not any drifting or quirks because of it´s age or time it´s been manufactured at or anything alike.

I´m talking about the qualtiy in sound itself I hear from hardware or to be more specific a modular in this case (because it´s the only true hardware synth I got hands-on experience with). I at least can tell from here, a modular sounds immediate + present with a distinct rich character (may it be analog or digital) like you can hear in the demos I posted. So one could argue if you prefer this sort of soundquality compared to software to date, hardware or once again a modular delivers a value worth going for, at least it does here.

Wether it´s better is still a personal preference of course, like it is with mentioned food example wether you prefer a freshly cooked meal compared to canned food. Ruling out hardware because everything has already be done in software is more likely a bold statement, not holding up well from personal sonic experience.
See, you could make the same argument for typewriters compared to computers and laser printers. But nobody would be so dense to actually do that, that only happens in audio apparently. For typewriters everybody would be fine with saying "I just like a piece of paper with the quirky typewriter style printing better than a laser printed piece of paper" or "I like the sound it makes when I use it" instead of insisting theres some "magic" about typewriters.

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

06 Jun 2016

Like said I´m no expert on technical issues at all. And just to make sure, all I´m saying is there is a sonic difference to date like you confirmed, not a computer not theoretically being able to recreate a hardware sound, because here the point of an already existing "virtual ones and nils image" is valid, where again a mere assumption comes into play, that either algorithms aren´t as sophisticated yet because of the lack of enough processing power to handle a complex synthesising plug-in truthfully recreating hardware and even more so analog hardware or like similar to what you mentioned, todays algorithms leave out some aspects present in hardware, may it be circuitry and/or code.

Edit: Just for the record Sean was mentioning the weird processing of the module itself (or the chip in there), not only his different style in coding due to the differing coding environment.
avasopht wrote:Unless there are errors, the signal path copies exactly between chips. Data transfer is trivial, if there is the slightest error in your PC bus your machine will crash very often, if it even starts successfully at all - that is a reminder of how trivial communication between chips is.

Sean clearly says he's doing weird stuff - which again comes back to my comment on the PlayStation and n64. Seriously, there's NOTHING mysterious about chips, your CPU is a chip.

What can happen is that hardware accelerated calculations may differ, but those differences can always be replicated when performed raw in software. Also if your hardware only has integer arithmetic then you'll have to deal with it differently. And as with the PlayStation, sometimes flaws you'd otherwise avoid if you could night sound pleasing. And those inexperienced with working with those limitations might not even think to include it in their software plugin as an effect.

I agree with you, there are differences in sound, but the conclusion that it's down to a shortcoming / limitation of software would not be correct.

yeahright31
Posts: 153
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Location: Australia

10 Jun 2016

I would like to add I don't have a powerful computer, wish I did invest more in this area way back when. So I ended up buying hardware for few reasons, although one that stands strong is to put less strain on my ram as I only have 4 Gig ram, my fault I know.


Is there value in Hardware I'd have to say Yes, even more so living in Brisbane City, Australia -where our Music shops are all small and stock is always limited their websites range from half decent to complete shite, even to a point you end up visiting the shop to see if they have the gear your looking for because websites are so, so to really useless and you call the shops and the experience is often shite.

It's like you know something new will be out every time NAMM is around, but it takes months before we see any of these goodies and even then the minute you slip and forget to keep an eye on something you are after turns into the minute you will miss out on that product and it can take weeks, months before you see that item again, well I talking from my experience, for example I used to own a Waldorf Blofeld and I've never seen one available to buy locally, ebay may assist but then you are often forced to credit card, transfer rates and stuff, so it cost more then it's worth in the end. (From my experience)


This is why Refills and Rack Extensions come into play too.

User avatar
jonheal
Posts: 1213
Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Location: Springfield, VA, USA
Contact:

16 Jun 2016

I watched a fairly good documentary about the development of synthesizers, "I dream of wires." It intrigued me. The tactile nature of it. And I've watched a lot of YouTube videos of Alessandro Cortini, Tim Kaiser and others. I think I would very much enjoy playing with "real hardware," but sadly, I will never be able to afford it. Maybe a Mother-32 some day, if I'm lucky.

But in the meantime, I have been controlling Reason with a Behinger BCR2000, and it feels pretty darn tactile. :) Definitely a different experience than trying to grab tiny knobs with a cursor.
Jon Heal:reason: :re: :refill:Do not click this link!

dana
Posts: 335
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Contact:

19 Jun 2016

I'm buying a few mixers to send separate outputs into these mixers from multiple computers. I've deliberately went with different brands of mixer for the different eqs/sound they provide, and overdriving certain mixers give different sonic results. Its an experiment, but its a fun one with 4 or 5 different makes of mixer plus some outboard being fed by reason, maschine and ableton. I'm wanting to jam live with the mixers more than anything else.. And setting up all that in a computer with a controller just brings two problems: latency and controller issues (i would need multiple controllers to make it work) Most mixers - even the big huge massive 32 channel ones only provide maximum 4 stereo ins which is why i went with multiple mixers rather than one big one.

So, i'm thinking of the mixer as an instrument, together with control surfaces to change parts, fading in and out certain bits like a dj.. Its a lot more fun.

swamptooth
Posts: 166
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

04 Jul 2016

I own a mininova and an esx-1. I love them both. I don't want to stare at a computer all the time. I find that using hardware makes me use software in different ways, because it cues my brain to process what i'm doing slightly differently. it also helps me make a connection between how it feels to change a sound and the effect it has. i can never get the same feeling in software, even with a custom mapped midi controller.
I wish reason had better support for external midi devices, but i can always just use sonar or cubase.
I started out with hardware, though, so that could be part of the fondness. I have got to tell you though, sitting in a dark room just putting stuff together on the esx can be a religious experience.

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 2037
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

28 Apr 2018

Disting!!!
Image
moofi wrote:
03 Jun 2016
... Before opening a can of worms I end for now with an additional example: Already shown 555-VCO going into a digital delay (Expert Sleepers´Disting) and through Valhalla-DSP cartridge for Tip Top´s Z-DSP (mainly effect module). The delaytime is being clocked at audiorate through a second pitch-varying 555-VCO´s squarewave....

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2849
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

29 Apr 2018

back in the day hardware was the desktop. these days the desktop is the hardware and controllers control the software.
It's also a lot safer option to get Reaper/Reason as you can sync those everywhere. Hardware is still a good idea for dedicated spaces.
Producer/Programmer.
Reason, FLS and Cubase NFR user.

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 524
Joined: 29 May 2016

29 Apr 2018

Took me a very long time to box up my hardware, nostalgia killed me I started with the CZ1 in the 80s. And when we're talking hardware, we're not talking about midi controllers types of things.

For the megadollar mastering houses hardware still has a place especially with purist analog pursuits, offloading cpu power, speed and simplicity, familiarity, etc. However I'm a firm believer there's very little that software can't accomplish on par with hardware given skill and knowledge of what someone is attempting to mimic or create, whereas hardware cannot keep up with what is being developed every minute in the computing realm.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

User avatar
abeonis
Posts: 84
Joined: 06 Nov 2015
Location: Spain-France

30 Apr 2018

I plan to purchase one HW synth. I am not sure yet which one. The goal is to play with real knobs and forget the mouse for one moment. Not sure I will integrate it in my songs, Just want pure fun. Good news are I am divorced. No complaints at home, for the price of the device or the time spent playing with it. Zen.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 9.5 | Live 10 Suite + Push2 | Intel i7 8700K | 16 GB RAM | Scarlett 6x6 | Arturia MiniLab MK II | 2x Novation LaunchControl XL

User avatar
demt
Posts: 1357
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Contact:

30 Apr 2018

halo i just like to say that hardware synthersizers unlike computers are used for music only whereas the computer is used for just about anything talking of inspiration your not going to get your hardware synth confused with your email tax returns and thus clogging the inspiration, i truly am thinking of having a computer dedicated to music and nothing else as well as won for general purposes, though what facebooks music page is going to inspirationally feedback is indeed a new dilemma to be sorted praaps sum sort of network so the computers can communicate with eatch other when needed though i use a tablet as well networking is proving a bit diff but usable
10 to 1 that explains the comeback of the hardware synth
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

30 Apr 2018

demt wrote:
30 Apr 2018
halo i just like to say that hardware synthersizers unlike computers are used for music only whereas the computer is used for just about anything talking of inspiration your not going to get your hardware synth confused with your email tax returns and thus clogging the inspiration, i truly am thinking of having a computer dedicated to music and nothing else as well as won for general purposes, though what facebooks music page is going to inspirationally feedback is indeed a new dilemma to be sorted praaps sum sort of network so the computers can communicate with eatch other when needed though i use a tablet as well networking is proving a bit diff but usable
10 to 1 that explains the comeback of the hardware synth
Thats a great point - never thought about it that way around. Usually you'd say "a synth is more inspiring" but it's so true that computers / UIs etc. are so often uninspiring or even distracting.

User avatar
jayhosking
Posts: 613
Joined: 28 Nov 2016
Contact:

30 Apr 2018

I think the biggest advantage hardware can give you is a tactile experience. I confess I don't really understand buying hardware where you have to menu dive (looking at you, new Line 6), since I'd rather navigate through that stuff on a computer. But knobs and buttons, especially when there's a dial for everything, is a real joy (looking at you, old Line 6). I recently bought my first hardware synth—a Korg Minilogue—and even though it's a standard synth in many ways, it's a joy to just sit around and play.

I also agree that having a device that is only used for music making (and not emails, forum chatter, etc.) is good for productivity.

User avatar
kuhliloach
Posts: 880
Joined: 09 Dec 2015

30 Apr 2018

The box won. If you know how to produce and mix the difference between hardware and software is negligible. A quality computer, good instruments, good mics, a good room to work in, good amps, quality studio monitors, maybe some DI's and pedals, and you are set inside the box. Some folks even mix on headphones now. Enjoy the extra space in your studio. Cleanliness is godliness.

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 507
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

30 Apr 2018

Everything in moderation.

If all you've ever used is software instruments, you're missing out (on the feeling/expression of the real thing).

If all you've ever used is hardware instruments, you're missing out (on the flexibility of the software [editing/presets/etc] and the nearly limitless amount of virtual instruments you can have in one session).

I've implemented a "use it or lose it" strategy to dealing with my hardware. I sold off most of my more average rack gear and kept only the small amount of stuff that had a real benefit.

I kept my 32 channel analog Mackie mixing board. I sold the expensive mic-pre's because they really didn't sound noticeably better than the Mackie.

I kept my Nord Rack 2x and bought a Korg Minologue and I'm eyeing up a couple other hardware synths because IMO they're more fun than most software.

But most important to me: As a guitarist with very specific tastes, I've never found an amp sim that sounded good to my ears. I want a specific bite when I chug through a riff, I want specific reactions to my playing dynamics and I want a certain flavor of distortion that only a guitar set up like mine and the amp that I use with specifically procured speakers can produce. Every amp sim I've ever tried has fallen way short. Amp sims are great in a variety of ways, but my guitar/amp/mic hardware makes them entirely unnecessary.

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 524
Joined: 29 May 2016

30 Apr 2018

normen wrote:
30 Apr 2018
demt wrote:
30 Apr 2018
halo i just like to say that hardware synthersizers unlike computers are used for music only whereas the computer is used for just about anything talking of inspiration your not going to get your hardware synth confused with your email tax returns and thus clogging the inspiration, i truly am thinking of having a computer dedicated to music and nothing else as well as won for general purposes, though what facebooks music page is going to inspirationally feedback is indeed a new dilemma to be sorted praaps sum sort of network so the computers can communicate with eatch other when needed though i use a tablet as well networking is proving a bit diff but usable
10 to 1 that explains the comeback of the hardware synth
Thats a great point - never thought about it that way around. Usually you'd say "a synth is more inspiring" but it's so true that computers / UIs etc. are so often uninspiring or even distracting.
Try programming any traditional hardware synth, talk about a pain in the ass and overall uninspiring, believe me once the honeymoon period wears off you'll never go back to programming it without use of a PC. I used to know my M1and K2000 fairly well but only a fraction of what it was capable of, and I'd spend an hour to do what it takes 1 minute to do on a PC to get the equivalent sound I'm looking for.

Hardware feels good, hardware looks good, hardware is a pain in every other aspect when comparing it to any well-designed modern software.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

30 Apr 2018

Psuper wrote:
30 Apr 2018
normen wrote:
30 Apr 2018


Thats a great point - never thought about it that way around. Usually you'd say "a synth is more inspiring" but it's so true that computers / UIs etc. are so often uninspiring or even distracting.
Try programming any traditional hardware synth, talk about a pain in the ass and overall uninspiring, believe me once the honeymoon period wears off you'll never go back to programming it without use of a PC. I used to know my M1and K2000 fairly well but only a fraction of what it was capable of, and I'd spend an hour to do what it takes 1 minute to do on a PC to get the equivalent sound I'm looking for.

Hardware feels good, hardware looks good, hardware is a pain in every other aspect when comparing it to any well-designed modern software.
Either I get you wrong, you got me wrong or I got demt wrong but I think you're talking about something completely different there.

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 524
Joined: 29 May 2016

30 Apr 2018

normen wrote:
30 Apr 2018
Psuper wrote:
30 Apr 2018


Try programming any traditional hardware synth, talk about a pain in the ass and overall uninspiring, believe me once the honeymoon period wears off you'll never go back to programming it without use of a PC. I used to know my M1and K2000 fairly well but only a fraction of what it was capable of, and I'd spend an hour to do what it takes 1 minute to do on a PC to get the equivalent sound I'm looking for.

Hardware feels good, hardware looks good, hardware is a pain in every other aspect when comparing it to any well-designed modern software.
Either I get you wrong, you got me wrong or I got demt wrong but I think you're talking about something completely different there.
I dunno, hardware synthesizers is what he was talking about, just wanted him to realize it sure ain't pretty except in nostalgia land.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

xRwu8
Posts: 53
Joined: 27 Feb 2015

30 Apr 2018

jayhosking wrote:
30 Apr 2018
I think the biggest advantage hardware can give you is a tactile experience. I confess I don't really understand buying hardware where you have to menu dive (looking at you, new Line 6), since I'd rather navigate through that stuff on a computer. But knobs and buttons, especially when there's a dial for everything, is a real joy (looking at you, old Line 6). I recently bought my first hardware synth—a Korg Minilogue—and even though it's a standard synth in many ways, it's a joy to just sit around and play.

I also agree that having a device that is only used for music making (and not emails, forum chatter, etc.) is good for productivity.
I recently picked up an MPC X for this very reason - I was tired of not having a dedicated production machine that does one thing and one thing only - make music. I've had an MPC1000 for years, but the X is light years ahead, and is generally just really exciting and flexible. I'm still mainly a Reason user - in fact, if Props sold a "Reason box" with no functionality beyond Reason & VSTs (almost like an iZ Radar system), I would almost certainly buy that.

But as it stands, it can really feel like a drag when you’ve been using a computer for the past 8-12 hours for work or personal stuff, and then you have to sit at the exact same machine, and try to ignore the million other things it can do that you’ve just been doing all day (email, spreadsheets, internet research, social media, YT videos, etc) and actually focus on being creative. In that way I really envy traditional musicians, who get to hold a guitar or sit at a piano and make music without the distraction of any screens. Such is the mixed blessing of the computer being your main instrument.

So for me the MPC X in standalone mode is a great creative escape because every button, knob, light, screen, and menu is dedicated to helping you produce music and nothing else. It's very freeing! Then after I’ve grounded myself in an MPC project, I’ll inevitably bring it into Reason for more heavy-duty effects/processing and mixing.

I love having a hybrid studio. While I don’t care too much about having hardware instruments (other than the MPCs, just a couple of synths and a guitar), I love the outboard hardware lunchbox channel strip I put together (preamp, EQ, comp, de-esser, & tape saturator). Being able to quickly dial in and shape sounds in a tactical way is very satisfying, and really expands and supports the options I have available in the DAW.
:reason: :recycle: :refill: :re: :rt:

User avatar
demt
Posts: 1357
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Contact:

30 Apr 2018

Psuper wrote:
30 Apr 2018
normen wrote:
30 Apr 2018


Either I get you wrong, you got me wrong or I got demt wrong but I think you're talking about something completely different there.
I dunno, hardware synthesizers is what he was talking about, just wanted him to realize it sure ain't pretty except in nostalgia land.
actually modern hardware synths are very pretty and easy to use and a dedicated computer just for music complements them
10 years ago they were a bit more difficult
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5

User avatar
Psuper
Posts: 524
Joined: 29 May 2016

30 Apr 2018

demt wrote:
30 Apr 2018
Psuper wrote:
30 Apr 2018


I dunno, hardware synthesizers is what he was talking about, just wanted him to realize it sure ain't pretty except in nostalgia land.
actually modern hardware synths are very pretty and easy to use and a dedicated computer just for music complements them
10 years ago they were a bit more difficult
Sure but it depends on which synth you're talking about. Ones with a many on-board controls and an intuitive visual interface are still not the norm, and ones with modular cables and routing require a huge amount of time and work for each patch. Plus the more 'in your face' controls, the price goes up up up.

The point I'm making is hardware is like anything else 'hobbiest' -- prepare for a learning curve and workflow that typically is far less intuitive and speedy, especially if you're used to soft synths. I enjoyed the crap outta diving through menus in the past trying to make sounds, however you couldn't pay me to waste my time doing it anymore.
Reason needs to DAW.viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7504985

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

01 May 2018

Raveshaper wrote:
06 Apr 2016
I have been combing through the 2500 listings in the musical instrument section of my local craigslist, when it occurred to me:

Is there any real value in buying hardware anymore?

I see lots and lots and lots of Soundcraft, Mackie, Allen & Heath, Yamaha, and Tascam mixing boards.
I see lots of hardware compressors, including one that is similar to pultec that uses tubes.
I see lots of synthesizers.
I even see an SSL 900 with DAW and computer included.

If people are selling these things, is it worth having them?
They take up space, they are often redundant, they're "old", etc.
I still want to collect quality gear and grow to incorporate analog equipment into my process, but I just wanted others' opinions on this.

I would argue that people would not seek out things like the Massive Passive if it was easily outdone by a plugin. The gear has that "something" that strictly digital VSTs just don't. But, I have been wrong many times. And plenty of people do amazing things with nothing but a laptop.
Now I'm contradicting myself. What are your thoughts?


Absolutely.
I still keep a digital console and several racks of both analog and digital processors and effects. That said, I’ve narrowed down to the very best of them....those that have “a sound” to them.

What I think is that Reason in particular is at its most effective when interfacing it with the outside world. Using Pulsar at audio-rate to freak out a MIDI CC on a synth or sampler, using audio from Reason as inputs to your CV inputs on any analog gear you have, etc. In addition, I’ve had incredible results sampling both Grain and Europa into an old Ensoniq EPS 16+ at low sample rates to create fantastic soundscapes....

I use Reason as a sequencer and a “tape machine” in addition to the modular aspect I mentioned above. Anyone that wants to hear/learn more about it please feel free to reply or PM me!
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

01 May 2018

DJBuddhaBear wrote:
01 Jun 2016
I have an MPC2000, an Ensoniq EPS16+ (with flash ram & SCSI), an E-MU ESI-4000 Turbo, and a Roland S-330. Combined with my software tools, I feel i have the best of both worlds for now. Eventually I will invest in a Eurorack system and perhaps a few choice analog synths. ;)
You have two of my favorites....the MPC2000 and the EPS 16+....I’ve got several other samplers, but those two are really great sequencers as well. As I tell people, my synths are food for my samplers!
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

01 May 2018

Psuper wrote:
30 Apr 2018

Try programming any traditional hardware synth, talk about a pain in the ass and overall uninspiring, believe me once the honeymoon period wears off you'll never go back to programming it without use of a PC. I used to know my M1and K2000 fairly well but only a fraction of what it was capable of, and I'd spend an hour to do what it takes 1 minute to do on a PC to get the equivalent sound I'm looking for.

Hardware feels good, hardware looks good, hardware is a pain in every other aspect when comparing it to any well-designed modern software.
Wow we actually completely agree on something :puf_bigsmile:. I started off with software.... well technically I first learned to make music with an MPC, but I never got a deep understanding of what I was doing at the time. Especially though for live performance, I got used to using Mainstage. then I had this genius idea of using hardware for convenience and borrowed a friend's Motif XS rack. Granted it's old tech but it was shocking how much of a headache it was to program and how less capable it was than Mainstage. No wonder Mainstage exists! Hardware synths aren't much different. If it's knob per function, then great, but unless it has recallable preset storage it's a pain for keyboard players who need a different patch for pretty much every song on a setlist. Even for production, if you're the type that works with artists, you don't have time to design every sound, and having to bounce out audio for multitimbral instruments and be concerned about polyphony just isn't worth it to me. But if you're one who's just real keen on character, then go for it.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests