Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 255
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 255
I was reading a little tidbit from trent reznor who said he is tired of the perfect sound that is happening now and he won't be using pro tools for the next record. This got me re-thinking why I don't like the current sound of alternative music right now. Is it really just over compression and pro tools that make records sound the way they do now? Records definitely do have this perfect sound I'm not a big fan of. In the past, music with elaborate production had a lot of subtle layers that would reveal themselves over time, now it feels like every instrument is EQed perfectly into it's own space. An example I guess would be Linkin Park where they have a lot of synth/midi/effect work going on, but it's all in your face which makes it feel more shallow than a comparable genre records recorded just a few years earlier.
This brings me to my next thought which makes me wonder if pro tools is the problem... A lot of records that were recorded with pro tools in the late 90's don't sound like music presently being recorded whether they were a simple setup or an elaborate production (like The Fragile). Even bands with simple three piece setups sound dramatically different than they did 10-3 years ago. Compare a Nirvana record to The Vines and you'll see what I mean. The most dramatic example I can think of is Marilyn Manson's Holywood (released in Nov of 2000) and their new CD (released may of 2003). I don't think anybody here is a big fan, but if you listen to these two cds back to back, the change is dramatically different. And it doesn't seem like it's an intended artistic change, but the band conforming to the modern sound (either by choice or by force).
In the past, a lot of records had their own sound to them. If you heard an outake or b-side from these records, you could almost guess what album it should have come from because the sound was so distinct. Now, most groups seem to fit into just a few recording styles. That evanescence song sounds just like a linkin park track with a different singer, almost all nu metal bands sound like they came from the same recording session, and most hip hop also suffers from this as well.
Is there something specific causing this other than squashed mastering and the use of DAWs?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,402
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,402
Add autotune to that list. I'll dance in the street when that craze becomes passe'.

Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by SolipsismX:
Is it really just over compression and pro tools that make records sound the way they do now?
It's definitely not PT. You can point the finger at the guys sitting in front of the screen, but not at the hardware or software.

George played me something last week that sounded as good as anything I've heard. PT? It was. Sure there was lots of other equipment. More importantly, there was a master at the helm. Did PT ruin it? Not by a long shot.

It is ironic that in this day and age of the greatest resolution ever available in digital recording and storage mediums most people are turning out product that sounds drastically worse than what was recorded even 50 and 60 years ago.


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,009
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Is there something specific causing this other than squashed mastering and the use of DAWs?
Label mooks?


Yorik
Stone In A Pond


"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
Tracking things live and natural in real acoustic spaces is gonna sound very different than the contrived and heavily manipulated approach. And just 'cause you have a million things you can do to the sound doesn't mean you have to do any of them.

Comping everything and all that... undeniably useful techniques, but to use them as standard procedure instead of clever ways to save an especially killer unrepeatable take is a different story.

Just so much stuff is regarded as "the way it's done" when there are *so* many ways to do things... why do we always want to replace the old ways with new ways, and forget the old ways, instead of adding a new tool to our collection of proven tools?


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally posted by 3D Audio:
[QUOTE]It's definitely not PT. You can point the finger at the guys sitting in front of the screen, but not at the hardware or software.
Problem is, that alot of the current crop of "engineers" and "producers' got into that seat because of credits recieved on big selling records as "pt engineer'. When all they were, were glorified assistants, lining up kicks and snares and tuning vocals.
They are more computer oprartors than real producers and engineers. Their soution to p[retty much everything is "grab a plug-in" or retrigger.

Most of them couldn't get a galf decent drumsound if their life depended on it.

Also this obsession to have everything perfectly intune and quantized is completely out of control too. Just recently in Rogers now defunct forum, I posted a song, and one of the responses was that the vocal was horribly out of tune.

Man, whatever happened to rock n roll.



IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Yah, what Mark said. I would say recordings have a lot less character now not only because of overcompression, lack of dynamics, and everything being "perfectly" autotuned and quantized but also the frequent use of samples, emulators and the like. It seems like there are a few Amp Farm settings and a few sample libraries that are used on practically every record. At the very least, a lot of people take things like drum hits that are "inconsistent" and paste a "better" one over it... never mind that a certain amount of the dreaded "inconsistency" is what gives the part its character and dynamics.

One can't exactly "blame" Pro Tools for that because it's the engineer or producer or label who makes the decision to do these things. I still think there are some sonic issues with mixing in DAW's vs. good analog consoles and outboard gear, but that doesn't account for all the boneheaded decisions made by the operators of course. PT just makes it EASY to be a bonehead. \:D

Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
PT just makes it EASY to be a bonehead.
Frame that and put it on the wall.


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
It is ironic that in this day and age of the greatest resolution ever available in digital recording and storage mediums most people are turning out product that sounds drastically worse than what was recorded even 50 and 60 years ago.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Sorry dude, I know you are a smart engineer, but you just went over the edge. The recordings in the 40's and 50's hare horrible. Ever listen to Elvis, or early Rolling Stones records from 64 or 66? They sound like crap. The bass guitar was never heard clearly for example. John Etwistle complained that his bass never had the sound he had in the studio in the 70's when he went to the Alembic bass. Not to mention the drums, the heavy reverbs etc. There is no way you could ever convince me other wise. Joni Mitchel's "They put in a parking lot", compared to Amy Grant's version. Amy's voice and everything has a sparkle to it that Joni's does not have. Carol Kings Tapestry or the Momma and Papa's recordings, sound either dull or wishy washy with the heavy reverb. Nothing sounds fresh, clear, and a live. Ringos' drums, I could never hear what he was doing on many of the records. Paul McCartney bass sounded dead sounding. But I do agree that there are tons of recordings more recent that sound like crap. That I will agree to. Listen to the latest Rush CD which was way over compressed. Cheryl Crow also has that over compressed in your face sound as well.

If I may be so bold, I think you and some others are just used to hearing the old recording for so long that when new recordings come out, and it does not sound like the old, you are saying it does not sound the same as the old recordings therefore it does not sound good. Eric Claptons' Unplugged is better than any Simon and Garfunkel recording or Everly Brothers.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:
It is ironic that in this day and age of the greatest resolution ever available in digital recording and storage mediums most people are turning out product that sounds drastically worse than what was recorded even 50 and 60 years ago.
Sorry dude, I know you are a smart engineer, but you just went over the edge. The recordings in the 40's and 50's are horrible. Ever listen to Elvis, or early Rolling Stones records from 64 or 66? They sound like crap. The bass guitar was never heard clearly for example. John Etwistle complained that his bass never had the sound he had in the studio in the 70's when he went to the Alembic bass. Not to mention the drums, the heavy reverbs etc. There is no way you could ever convince me other wise. Joni Mitchel's "They put in a parking lot", compared to Amy Grant's version. Amy's voice and everything has a sparkle to it that Joni's does not have. Carol Kings Tapestry or the Momma and Papa's recordings, sound either dull or wishy washy with the heavy reverb. Nothing sounds fresh, clear, and a live. Ringos' drums, I could never hear what he was doing on many of the records. Paul McCartney bass sounded dead sounding. But I do agree that there are tons of recordings more recent that sound like crap. That I will agree to. Listen to the latest Rush CD which was way over compressed. Cheryl Crow also has that over compressed in your face sound as well.

If I may be so bold, I think you and some others are just used to hearing the old recording for so long that when new recordings come out, and it does not sound like the old, you are saying it does not sound the same as the old recordings therefore it does not sound good. Eric Claptons' Unplugged is better than any Simon and Garfunkel recording or Everly Brothers.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Sorry, about the duplicate messages

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:
Lynn: It is ironic that in this day and age of the greatest resolution ever available in digital recording and storage mediums most people are turning out product that sounds drastically worse than what was recorded even 50 and 60 years ago.

System 8: Sorry dude, I know you are a smart engineer, but you just went over the edge. The recordings in the 40's and 50's hare horrible. Ever listen to Elvis, or early Rolling Stones records from 64 or 66? They sound like crap. The bass guitar was never heard clearly for example. John Etwistle complained that his bass never had the sound he had in the studio in the 70's when he went to the Alembic bass. Not to mention the drums, the heavy reverbs etc. There is no way you could ever convince me other wise. Joni Mitchel's "They put in a parking lot", compared to Amy Grant's version. Amy's voice and everything has a sparkle to it that Joni's does not have. Carol Kings Tapestry or the Momma and Papa's recordings, sound either dull or wishy washy with the heavy reverb. Nothing sounds fresh, clear, and a live. Ringos' drums, I could never hear what he was doing on many of the records. Paul McCartney bass sounded dead sounding. But I do agree that there are tons of recordings more recent that sound like crap. That I will agree to. Listen to the latest Rush CD which was way over compressed. Cheryl Crow also has that over compressed in your face sound as well.

If I may be so bold, I think you and some others are just used to hearing the old recording for so long that when new recordings come out, and it does not sound like the old, you are saying it does not sound the same as the old recordings therefore it does not sound good. Eric Claptons' Unplugged is better than any Simon and Garfunkel recording or Everly Brothers.
It's always been a challenge to make things sound great. Obviously most things won't. But I have heard stuff from the late 50's that just sounds f'ing HUGE. It wasn't guitar rock&roll, although I heard some real healthy guitar sounds too. I'm talking 45 years ago, not 50 or 60. Dynamics where things don't just get louder, they get bigger in every way. Where stuff doesn't have to be compressed to sit beautifully in the mix.

Keep the best sounding record you can find from this era around as a reference, and find something that beats it for a vocal sound with backing tracks. With the undeniable technical advantages we have now, we ought to be able to smoke this stuff. Good luck!

I'm just discovering how great these old things sounded, so much more open and surprising and compelling in dynamics than most of the multitrack stuff.


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,184
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,184
That's the problem with having the tools with which to rearrange atoms...the temptation to do so and the results thereof.

I've been leaving the occassional timing error alone...

Time to do some direct-to-disk live stereo recordings to get the music in and the microscopy out.


Give me the ANALOG and no one gets HURT
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
peake@pacificnet.net you make a good point here. We are always now, trying to get perfect computer like vocals, timing, etc which is not human sounding.

Bear in mind I did not mention before the noise ratio of 50 and 60's years ago, tape hiss, and all the other audio inferior issues that were around back then.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
System 8, I would like it if you listen again to old recordings, but this time to the recordings done by Bill Putnam for example.

Start with the Frank Sinatra recordings and imagine these guys didn't have the better sounding two inch tape machines. Just two or three tracks and later the eight track machines.

IMHO the recordings from the late fifties/early sixties are the best sounding (orchestral) recordings ever.


The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally posted by sign:
Start with the Frank Sinatra recordings and imagine these guys didn't have the better sounding two inch tape machines. Just two or three tracks and later the eight track machines.

IMHO the recordings from the late fifties/early sixties are the best sounding (orchestral) recordings ever.
The Sinatra recordings were specifically what I was thinking of.


Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Home of 3dB
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
Lynn, a couple of weeks ago I've listened to Miles' "Kind of Blue", the SACD version.
Recorded on a 3 track in 1959, it's a miracle.

Cheers, Han


The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:
It's always been a challenge to make things sound great. Obviously most things won't.
Amen. System 8, you're citing the wrong examples. Lynn and sign have some better suggestions. A lot of the recordings from the mid 60's, although many of my personal favorites musically, are not so great audio-wise. One reason for this is something similar to what we're experiencing now - a brand new technology, multitrack recording and mixing. Engineers, artists and designers hadn't quite figured out how to make that work yet.

If we really want a legitimate comparison of what was possible then vs. now, we have to compare the best with the best. Comparing the best recordings being done with today's technology vs. the best mono jazz recordings from the late 50's/early 60's, or the best multitrack recordings from the 70's, we're still coming up short these days. I keep asking whether we have a digital equivalent of "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Kind Of Blue" and I'm still waiting for an answer.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Sorry, but have you listened to stuff like Etta james "at last"? Walks all ove rthat lame-ass version i heard celine Dion do.
Try listening to soem original glenn miller ecordings.

"Somewhere beyond the sea", "Mack the Knife", or even "dreamlover' by Bobby Darin. Or the Christmas Album Frank Sinatra did. Amazing.

Problem is, to much "techie" crap going on. Not enough heart and soul.


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Yeah - the fidelity of modern recordings has become more consistent - but that consistency is a sterile, lifeless one.

One of the things I have come to appreciate about Nashville country recordings (even though I still don't like country music) is that the live feel is still there. Overprocessed in a lot of shops, but it's there. It still, even with all the processing, gives you a sense of a bunch of really tight cats jamming in a room somewhere (and a robot with a southern accent singing over them)

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Well I think part has to do with what is the popular "sound" of today. In the 80's it was more keyboards, lead guitar and heavy reverb. Now it is more of a natural sound, but there are many recordings that are over compressed.

How about listening to the Frank Sinatra recording with all the rock stars that was done before he died. Though the old Frank recordings had a velvet sound on his voice partially due to the ribbon mic (Which I love) the band would be alot better with today's recordings.

I think of Wes Montgomery with his version of Take 6 and then Lee Ritenour's version on his Wes Bound CD. Lee's version is not muffled and everything is bright and full.

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 422
D
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 422
Quote:

Also this obsession to have everything perfectly intune and quantized is completely out of control too. Just recently in Rogers now defunct forum, I posted a song, and one of the responses was that the vocal was horribly out of tun
Well several people have said this, me included. But that does not mean that I would every thing tune to deafth (or quantisize for that matter). Believe it or not, I do not have an autotune plugin. If I see the need of a tuning (which happens very rarly) I give the tracks to a friend who does that. In your case my honest opignion was, that the inntonation problem of the vocal performance was over the top. But thats just me.

Daniel
http://www.ideeundklang.com

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,126
K
Kaz Offline
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
K
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,126
Oh my lord have mercy...I would say this era's music is most defined by the sound of people complaining about it incessantly and reduntantly to the point of madness, like a bad rapper going on and on and on
over a mind numblingly repetitive thread!


Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
A
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally posted by zzzzzzzzz:
Oh my lord have mercy...I would say this era's music is most defined by the sound of people complaining about it incessantly and reduntantly to the point of madness, like a bad rapper going on and on and on
over a mind numblingly repetitive thread!

Yes...yes...yes...Now I dont know who you are, but this is one of the most honest, and ohh so true posts I have seen regarding this..!!!

Kind regards

Peter


Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.>>S
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:
Though the old Frank recordings had a velvet sound on his voice partially due to the ribbon mic (Which I love) the band would be alot better with today's recordings.
Oh dear, well, than listen to the orchestra in Frank Sinatra's "It was a very good year", which was recorded on april 22 1965.
And listen to the orchestral sound in the highly praised Diana Krall "The look of Love" album.

And tell me about it, which one sounds best?


The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
There will alwasy be some great recordings of the past and crappy ones that are out now. The point is when you have someone in the studio like George or David Foster behind the mixer, what he can do now in a studio will sound better than what he could of done in the 50's.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,216
System 8, I'm afraid I have to disagree here.

These days many (mastering) engineers prefer the sound of an analog tapemachine like the Ampex ATR over any other.

The best sounding mics today are sometimes older than 50 years and since the late fourties the mics have not changed or gotten any better.

I'm talking Elam 250/251, U47, U67, M49 here.


The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally posted by sign:
System 8, I'm afraid I have to disagree here.

These days many (mastering) engineers prefer the sound of an analog tapemachine like the Ampex ATR over any other.

The best sounding mics today are sometimes older than 50 years and since the late fourties the mics have not changed or gotten any better.

I'm talking Elam 250/251, U47, U67, M49 here.
You are talking about personal preferences here. No one can argue with that. People have heard the records for 40 years or so, and are used to the way they sound. Then digital comes into the picture with a different sound that your not used to. So many just prefer the sound of the old stuff with tons of 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion.

But I am specificly talking more on lower wow and fluter, noise floor, tape hiss, limited channels,
limited ways to do things, poor mixes where drums or bass for instance are in the backround and you are not able to really hear what they are doing. Not getting a proper representation of what the instrument sounds live onto a recording.

Sure a lot of the old mic's sounded great, no one can argue that. However there are new high quality mic's and equipment with better spec's. Not to mention transistors, pots and most components have become significantly improved over the last 30 years. Even the great mic's of old need to be refurbished with new parts which will change how they sounded like in the old days.

Royer makes great ribbon mics now, as well as AEA. Check out this review. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/articles/aearibbon.asp?session=bd22 67881554235a0e8fa62d947802b4
Some improvements with new technology in the article on ribbon mics are as follows.

1. There is also an X option which employs stronger neodymium magnets for a 6dB louder output and a slightly more forward sound quality. Hand-matched pairs are available for stereo applications too.
2. the increased output level option to provide around 5mV/Pa (instead of 2.5mV/Pa) which equates to a nominal sensitivity of about -44dBu
3. The specifications suggest the mic can withstand a maximum SPL of a frightening 165dB and has a source impedance of 270(omega).

However don't go too far with what I said here. I agree a lot of people get master recordings and put them on a reel to reel to get that sound they are looking for. There is nothing wrong with using yesterday's technology today if it gets you the sound your looking for. My point though was just staying in the old technology and not using the new because you feel the old technology makes better recordings is foolish to this old boy.
I see a happy middle ground where you use something like a GML or Manley Slam mic pre, with a Massive Passive or George's 8200 and then go into digital with excellent converters. Then when you go out, you can get your master and put it on a reel to reel if you want and use any other great outboard gear to get the sound you want. I don't think anyone agrees that doing everything in a computer with plug ins will give you just as good of as sound as if you did it with the way mentioned above.

Good Thread that is wearing thin now. \:D

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,195
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,195
Quote:
Originally posted by sign:
Lynn, a couple of weeks ago I've listened to Miles' "Kind of Blue", the SACD version.
Recorded on a 3 track in 1959, it's a miracle.

Cheers, Han
Don't you think it was miracled... er... re-mastered prior to SACD?


I am back.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,375
H
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
H
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,375
Personally I think everyone's got the wrong side to, here. Maybe it's because this is an "engineering" forum. It's the lack of quality musicianship and music that define this era's sound. In addition it's the inflated role the engineer plays as well as the self produced musician/engineer. Never has so much turd polishing been going on. It's going on because the musician lacks the ability and the technique that was more prevalent 4 and more decades ago. Record Com. "mooks" need a product they can sell that's bigger and more squashed than the last and next. Slacker musicians need all the help they can get. Instead of getting it right in the tracking room it's made right, altered, squashed, reversed, comped, edited, reamped, quantized, stomped and chewed in a DAW in the control room.

So it's the inevitable "bottom line" that's killing it and is defining this era's sound, rather than music, "sweet music" existing for it's own reward.


All the best,

Henry Robinett
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5