Difference in sound - SSL X-desk and Mackie ?
Brett 123
Thread Starter
#1
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Brett 123's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Difference in sound - SSL X-desk and Mackie ?

I was interested on a technical point of view the difference in sound that the SSL x desk has to something like a standerd Mackie 32 -8 ?

I know that the X desk has no transformers in to change the sound at all , so would it do a similar thing to a clean sounding Mackie ?

I'm guessing it has better components and maybe there is a difference in the mix bus ?

Would appreciate anyone with knowledge on this ?

Thanks,

Brett
#2
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #2
Gear addict
 
payne104's Avatar
 

im pretty sure they would sound quite different in many ways
#3
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #3
Nexialist
 
Stephen Bennett's Avatar
 

I have an X-Panda and a Mackie 1402 VLZ3. What impresses me really is how good the Mackie is. Like a lot of these things, four times the price doesn't mean four times the quality. But it's when I have lots of inputs coming in on mixdown that I notice the difference - but then I also have extremely high quality conversion, pre-amplification and monitoring too. Using the X-Panda as a summing desk is proving very addictive! How can I describe it? Weight, separation, focus - particularly in the bass.

It actually reminded me of when I wanted a Les Paul. I tried tried a Studio, Epiphone and some copies. But when I plugged in the genuine article I just went - 'ah yes, that's the sound I'm after.' Same with the SSL.

It depends what you need. I use the Mackie happily for live performance and probably wouldn't mind it as a keyboard recording mixer. But if you're going that extra mile....... It definitely sounds like a tiny SSL console.

Regards

Stephen
#4
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #4
Used to have a 32-8bus, and now I'm a proud owner of a Xdesk plus Xpanda.

I can't compare them side by side now. I sold the Mackie. But as far as I remember, the biggest improvement is the headroom of the SSL. You can run it hot as hell, and it doesn't crack.

I've just done some summing tests with the SSL, where I tested its gain staging. One of the tests was to run pretty hot from the converters (all ITB tracks close to 0 dBfs), leaving the line trims at zero (most LEDs were constantly orange, some red) and then mixed on the SSL.

There was a slight distortion on the mixbus. Although still okish, the sound wasn't that clear anymore, compared to the other test runs with lower levels. And of course I had to turn the master level way down

But I can assure you, that this wouldn't be as nearly as possible with the Mackie 32-8bus. Maybe newer models can take more.
Brett 123
Thread Starter
#5
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Brett 123's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Cool , thanks guys . That's what I kind of thought it would be . I have a 32 - 8 I use to monitor , though I'm getting a couple of summing mixers and wanted to sum them together , I thought the X desk would be pretty good for this ( and have a few spare channels of SSL of course ).
#6
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #6
Gear addict
 

I find one of the best things about the X-desk is that i doesn't really have a sound - it's super transparent. Nothing cloudy, doesn't choke the bottom end, the hotter you run it the better it sounds, whereas with Mackie desks they tend to get a little muddy and hotter signals start to break up and fall apart. Not that it's always a bad thing though..
#7
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
AllBread's Avatar
 

Check the schematics of the mackie - can you get into it line level without hitting a mic pre of transformer? That would be the first major difference. That's why I replaced my Midas Venice with an X desk - I could hear a big difference in signal going from one of my outboard pres straight into pro tools vs into a line input on the midas and using the direct out. Once I did that test, I sadly packed up the Midas and put it in the remote recording stack. Same test with the x desk and I can't tell the difference.
#8
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #8
Rocket Scientist
 
foldback's Avatar
I would love to hear a high quality audio track, passed through a higher-end Mackie mixer and the same track passed through an X-Desk.

Do you all think the comparison would be like comparing audio passing through two different brands of wire? Say, for instance comparing sound passing through 20 feet of premium Mogami cable compared to sound passing through 20 feet of plain old Belden 8412?

I'm no Mackie fan-boi, it's been a dozen years since I owned anything Mackie and their repair service is absolutely some of the worst anywhere.

I'm very doubtful that the X-Desk is a magical higher quality of sonic reproduction. I don't have one so I can't say for sure.

I do have a Neve 8816/8804, an Allen and Heath ZED 436 and a Soundcraft 16 channel mixer at my disposal which I've done extensive listening comparisons with. I compared audio passing through the mixers to audio straight out of the Apogee converter. My headphones were Audio Technica M50 driven by my custom Bryston headphone distribution system.

The results from passing through these various mixers were interesting and yes I could hear some differences between the mixers but all were very useable and not very different unless EQ or something else was switched into the circuit. Obviously the Neve has no EQ, it's just a straight line in.

For switching between sources I used my headphone cue system which lets me select inputs via gold bifurcated switching relays.

We're in the process now of moving to a much larger facility where I will be doing many more tests and will try to create some more definitive comparison tracks.

I am very fatigued by all these "it's SSL so it must be better" or "it's Mackie so it must be crap" sorts of personal statements about sound reproduction.

It would be really informative if someone could post audio files to backup alleged differences, that would be science and qualify as real engineering instead of judging based on price.

I wish you all the best in your recording efforts.
#9
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #9
If anybody near to Zurich has a Mackie, I'd love to make such a test.
#10
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #10
Rocket Scientist
 
foldback's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by deft_bonz View Post
If anybody near to Zurich has a Mackie, I'd love to make such a test.
Thanks for offering. I very much appreciated your previous comment about headroom. In my experience that can make a big difference when you're mixing.

There seems to be two separate breeds of equipment when it comes to headroom. There is the old Neve and API way of doing things where the equipment could stretch out to greater than +24 dBm with less than 1% distortion, and the newer (popular priced) audio components that run out of gas at only +20dBu.

I think headroom could be a very valuable buying criteria, much better than simply comparing cost alone.

Headroom is one of those characteristics that will be difficult to demonstrate in a straight A-B comparison of listening to a prepared audio track passed through the equipment. The prepared audio track will sound very similar through both devices because the headroom is not challenged. It's only by sitting at the mixer and doing an actual mix that the headroom may be appreciated.

Thanks for your offer, I hope someone takes you up on it. I'd love to hear the results.
#11
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by foldback View Post
Thanks for offering. I very much appreciated your previous comment about headroom. In my experience that can make a big difference when you're mixing.

There seems to be two separate breeds of equipment when it comes to headroom. There is the old Neve and API way of doing things where the equipment could stretch out to greater than +24 dBm with less than 1% distortion, and the newer (popular priced) audio components that run out of gas at only +20dBu.

I think headroom could be a very valuable buying criteria, much better than simply comparing cost alone.

Headroom is one of those characteristics that will be difficult to demonstrate in a straight A-B comparison of listening to a prepared audio track passed through the equipment. The prepared audio track will sound very similar through both devices because the headroom is not challenged. It's only by sitting at the mixer and doing an actual mix that the headroom may be appreciated.

Thanks for your offer, I hope someone takes you up on it. I'd love to hear the results.
I think it could be possible to test the headroom, when you put 16 tracks really hot out of the box. Let's say hitting around -2 to 0 dBfs. Then no pad in the mixer, e.g. on the SSL you leave the trim at zero. With this setup you try to mix and print that. Of course both mixes won't sound the same, because you can only achieve a similar mix on two consoles. But I guess it could show the differences in the headroom.
Brett 123
Thread Starter
#12
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Brett 123's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by foldback View Post
I would love to hear a high quality audio track, passed through a higher-end Mackie mixer and the same track passed through an X-Desk.

Do you all think the comparison would be like comparing audio passing through two different brands of wire? Say, for instance comparing sound passing through 20 feet of premium Mogami cable compared to sound passing through 20 feet of plain old Belden 8412?

I'm no Mackie fan-boi, it's been a dozen years since I owned anything Mackie and their repair service is absolutely some of the worst anywhere.

I'm very doubtful that the X-Desk is a magical higher quality of sonic reproduction. I don't have one so I can't say for sure.

I do have a Neve 8816/8804, an Allen and Heath ZED 436 and a Soundcraft 16 channel mixer at my disposal which I've done extensive listening comparisons with. I compared audio passing through the mixers to audio straight out of the Apogee converter. My headphones were Audio Technica M50 driven by my custom Bryston headphone distribution system.

The results from passing through these various mixers were interesting and yes I could hear some differences between the mixers but all were very useable and not very different unless EQ or something else was switched into the circuit. Obviously the Neve has no EQ, it's just a straight line in.

For switching between sources I used my headphone cue system which lets me select inputs via gold bifurcated switching relays.

We're in the process now of moving to a much larger facility where I will be doing many more tests and will try to create some more definitive comparison tracks.

I am very fatigued by all these "it's SSL so it must be better" or "it's Mackie so it must be crap" sorts of personal statements about sound reproduction.

It would be really informative if someone could post audio files to backup alleged differences, that would be science and qualify as real engineering instead of judging based on price.

I wish you all the best in your recording efforts.
Good point , this was my first thought . That if there are no transformers changing the sound ( or eq etc ) it's just line level passing through ?

So how much would slightly better components and headroom effect the sound ?

I be interested to hear.
#13
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #13
Rocket Scientist
 
foldback's Avatar
Does SSL publish technical specifications for the X-Desk, I've been looking around their web site and can't find anything specific.

As an example, API says that the "clipping level" for a 512 mic preamp occurs at +30dBu.

Another example is that Neve states the maximum output level for the 8816 driving a 600 ohm load is greater than +26 dBu. The Neve specs also state that the input level is greater than +26 dBu, the input impedance is greater than 20K balanced and that the output impedance is 50 ohms.

These are all indicators about the headroom characteristics of a piece of equipment.

The only thing I could find in the X-Desk manual was that the output level is set to be +24 dB at 0 dBfs.

In my experience, the ability of a piece of equipment to drive into a 600 ohm load is a valuable indicator and can provide insight about the headroom available. Many older pieces of studio gear have transformer coupled inputs and these present very challenging reactive loads to equipment with marginal output drive capability.

I've never been a fan of the dBu spec by itself because the difference between a 10k ohm load and a 600 ohm load is tremendous. Stating +20 dBu without qualifying the load impedance is not much help and when I see that type of spec I immediately jump to the conclusion that a manufacturer is hiding "weak output drive capability" which infers poor headroom performance.

One of the reasons I like the API style mic preamp is because of the tremendous headroom, it's nowhere near clipping when I'm pushing up near 0 dBfs on my converter inputs.

It's a good thing that we're qualifying headroom as an important sonic variable in this discussion, in my opinion it's really what sets high-end equipment apart from the low cost stuff. I've tested many low cost items that provide decent frequency and distortion characteristics at consumer signal levels but when you start to push them to near their maximum that is where the real differences show themselves. The devices based on consumer signal levels distort where the higher end equipment with greater output drive capability do not (or at least not nearly as bad depending on what your opinion about distortion is).

The headroom was one of the items that caused me to gravitate to the Neve 8816 when I was making my purchase decision. The Neve 8816 was very clean and punchy no matter what I threw at it.
Brett 123
Thread Starter
#14
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Brett 123's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Does this also mean with correct gains staging there should be very small differences in a mix summed through the two ?
#15
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by foldback View Post
It's a good thing that we're qualifying headroom as an important sonic variable in this discussion, in my opinion it's really what sets high-end equipment apart from the low cost stuff. I've tested many low cost items that provide decent frequency and distortion characteristics at consumer signal levels but when you start to push them to near their maximum that is where the real differences show themselves. The devices based on consumer signal levels distort where the higher end equipment with greater output drive capability do not (or at least not nearly as bad depending on what your opinion about distortion is).
That I translate for newbies as "high end gear is foolproof. signal in, signal out. tweak until you have the sound you like. no worries about other stuff."
#16
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 

i don´t know about the SSL A/B
but the AH Zed´s smoke the Mackies (Orion, 8-bus) imo
1st hand experience
try
peace
#17
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #17
Gear Head
 

its not just headroom that makes the difference,
i've used mackie 24-8 for many years and in fact still have it set up in our rehearsal room for monitoring when we track something over there (we track through nice pre's streight into a harddisk recorder)
The mackie is in a way a benchmark for a pretty good budget desk, and it has all the features you'd want. Sonically it is quite ok. But when you deal with acoustic sounds and ambience, this is where you notice a huge difference.
The mackie lacks clarity and detail, and if you try to get it back into the sounds by use of eq, it gets quite hard sounding easily. Lows are not so tight.
Compared to the SSL desks that is. With X-desk you can hear the air around the instruments, tight lows, deep and wide soundstage. There is other products that deliver similar quality sound but, unfortunately, not the mackies

Having said that, if you know what you're doing (and what you should avoid), you can make pretty nice sounding recordings and mixes using a Mackie desk,

michiel
SMOKED SOUNDS - Recording and mixing of intimate, acoustic music
Joystick Audio
#18
1st March 2012
Old 1st March 2012
  #18
Nexialist
 
Stephen Bennett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foldback View Post

I'm very doubtful that the X-Desk is a magical higher quality of sonic reproduction. I don't have one so I can't say for sure.

I am very fatigued by all these "it's SSL so it must be better" or "it's Mackie so it must be crap" sorts of personal statements about sound reproduction.

It would be really informative if someone could post audio files to backup alleged differences, that would be science and qualify as real engineering instead of judging based on price.

I wish you all the best in your recording efforts.
I don't think anyone is saying that - in fact, all I see is some flattering remarks about the Mackie. While it's true that more cost doesn't always equal more quality, more cost plus superb engineering always does.

As I said earlier, the differences are subtle. A stereo mix at unity gain through the two desks wouldn't prove anything. A full mix with stems, live inputs, inserts and master channel FX is where the magic happens.

Who has time to set that up just for demonstration? Especially as the SSL is DB25 connected. Having said that, I'd listen if someone did one.

If the SSL did nothing in my studio I'd sell it - it's not that hard to get your money back.

Regards

Stephen
#19
1st March 2012
Old 1st March 2012
  #19
Gear addict
 
Sudad G's Avatar
 

It depends which kind of sound do you expect. If you want a clear and natural sound with high headroom, then go with SSL.

If you like this typically house and clubsound coloration then the mackies are awsome for that. The mackies are great in comniation with a DAW. So I let run maximum 4 or 6 channels simultaneous on a mackie and record them directly to the DAW as a group or each channel with hot level. I would not summing tracks on the mackies. For summing SSL is much better. Sometimes I let run a stereo channel from the DAW over the mackie If I need to warm up a track or a group of the DAW.

So my conclusion is:

SSL:

- Very high headroom. Great for summing tracks and if you need a neutral sound - high
end sound.
- It lets your signals sounding how they are. Perfect.

The analog mackies:

- Also have a high headroom - but not as high like the SSL.
- Very great for warm up a digital sound from DAW. Gives your track some coloration -
but in a positive and musically way (the mackie sound). For "deep house" and some
"r&b stuff" these mackie mixers are a dream.

Sudad G
#20
1st March 2012
Old 1st March 2012
  #20
Lives for gear
 
The Beatsmith's Avatar
 

What do you guys think of the sound of the X-Desk when 'pushed' or driven?
Brett 123
Thread Starter
#21
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Brett 123's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Here's a question for x desk users -

Is it possible to get more than two headphone sends from the desk ?

From reading the manual , you have main cue mix and then two aux's which I get you could use to make three sends ? Which would be useful .

Thanks,

Brett
#22
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #22
Lives for gear
 
AllBread's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett 123 View Post
Here's a question for x desk users -

Is it possible to get more than two headphone sends from the desk ?

From reading the manual , you have main cue mix and then two aux's which I get you could use to make three sends ? Which would be useful .

Thanks,

Brett
Only other way I can think of is to additional headphone mixes in Pro Tools bussed to interface outputs, return them to X-desk faders, and then use the direct outs to feed a headphone amp (or, of course, if you don't want to spare the faders then send them direct from interface to headphone amp).

Also, cue send is the only stereo send - the two FX aux's are mono out so you can have two mono headphone mixes (not much fun but works) or use them both for a second stereo headphone mix.
#23
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #23
Lives for gear
 
AllBread's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Beatsmith View Post
What do you guys think of the sound of the X-Desk when 'pushed' or driven?
I find that the X-desk is A) a little hard to drive because it has so much headroom and B) doesn't add anything flattering to the sound if you do totally overdrive it. There's no transformer on the input stage to push into for saturation and compression so you'll just be making square waves if you exceed the X-desk's headroom.

There is enough headroom that you can push your preamps harder and then attenuate with the fader before it hits the convertors which can give you that sound when tracking.

The X-desk really shines when outboard inserts and fx are used - as a "summing console" it doesn't have a sound or a vibe but for the price that they are asking it solves a whole lot of workflow problems without degrading your audio in any way. If that's what you're looking for than it's worth it's weight in gold (although I do wish it had more aux sends and returns). It's not going to solve all your problems tracking a band with multiple headphone feeds and what not but it's the perfect "B Room" solution - or at least it has been for me.

I can't wait until I can afford a Matrix!
#24
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 
carlheinz's Avatar
 

Iv'e had very surprisingly good mixes off a mackie 32/8.The thing thats nice about SSL in general is when you insert something tube or colored on a channel or stereo buss and you have many channels going,those details come through clearly.In fact any subtle change in EQ seems to get noticed.Anyone familar with the E series knows the desk did impose a sound vs. the newer super analog consoles which I think are far more transparent but are more articulate in all frequencies.You just need to work harder to get any kind of body or grit out of them if you are mixing aggressive music.I like the fact that the current SSL does not impose any kind of sound on the mix other than it's width/headroom.clarity.You can always find ways of adding dirt grit or goo.You do have to work for it where other consoles cloud up or run out or smooth out or crunch much quicker without any help from outboard.
#25
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #25
Gear interested
 

I've heard the summing amp error arguments on the Mackie 8 bus. Ive run the exact simultaneous signal through 16 tape inputs,peaking at just below 0db, through 16 channels and found no difference in sound quality after summing through the main outputs. I do ,however, hear added distortion and miss the beauty of dedicated signal processors when mixing "in the box". (and I do admit to using Avalon preamps recording into the DAW not the Mackie's... so garbage in, garbage out) I'm suggesting here that most mixers used as carefully as I just described would sound indistinguishable from a six figure SSL or Neve under the same conditions. Especially in a blind listening text. Can anyone here identify which recording in the top 100 was mixed on any particular console... just by listening? Not a chance... but more importantly, can the buying public tell the difference? The real issue here is client perception. Remember...to most recording studio clients, how things look are more important than how they sound. The vast majority couldn't tell the difference even if you tried to point it out to them. I know engineers that have worked in the major studios that have been so jaded by the lack of care shown to the "audiophile" issues they quit. How a piece of equipment held up to a 24/7 schedule was far more important than how it sounded. Money... was always the leading motivator. After decades of recording music I can tell you that WHAT we record is far more important than HOW we record it. ...and of course, relationship will trump ability and talent almost every time. Anyway...by the time your recording hits iTunes you'll never hear even an imagined difference in a mixers summing amps. Pushing levels on masters or the tragic conversion from 24bit to 16bit causes far more signal degradation....but that's another thread.
#26
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
Headroom police. The Mackie 8bus has more headroom than the SSL X-Desk. You guys still haven't figured out this headroom business.

Mackie claims +28 dBu on the main outputs. That's not out of the question since it has 18V rails. All other outputs are +22 dBu (thus likely unbalanced).

Someone incorrectly interpreted the meter scaling of X-Desk (0 dBFS and 24 dBu) as it's max output level. The user manual does not say the output level is +24 dBu. However...

SSL claims the X-Desk is >+24 dBu "headroom." Somewhat meaningless but we can assume they mean max output level.

Now, what advantages does the X-Desk have? Being SuperAnalogue, we can assume it is fully balanced, has no caps, and has a bandwidth near 200 kHz. Mackie likely isn't balanced but I don't know. They also claim 120 kHz bandwidth which is pretty darn good. There's more to it than headroom.

All this info brought to you by reading manuals, not messageboards.

Someone said "I think it could be possible to test the headroom." Yes, they figured this out a hundred years ago? You put a tone on the input, and a scope on the out. You turn it up till it flattens, bam, there's your max output level. It's barely even science. When you guys are pushing all your analog inputs to 0 dBFS = +22 dBu, what you think you're hearing as headroom is really how one piece of gear vs another falls on its face. Some do it better than others. You like distortion and mangling, that's perfectly fine and why analog has a place. But let's be honest about what's occurring and not judge gear this way. Personally, I stay away from that range on everything and you'll find it all sounds pretty good. Analog tape never exceeded +16 dBu so why should you?

Props to comscout for being honest and eloquent about the differences.
#27
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #27
Gear nut
 
Axiom static's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllBread View Post
I find that the X-desk is A) a little hard to drive because it has so much headroom and B) doesn't add anything flattering to the sound if you do totally overdrive it. There's no transformer on the input stage to push into for saturation and compression so you'll just be making square waves if you exceed the X-desk's headroom.

There is enough headroom that you can push your preamps harder and then attenuate with the fader before it hits the convertors which can give you that sound when tracking.

The X-desk really shines when outboard inserts and fx are used - as a "summing console" it doesn't have a sound or a vibe but for the price that they are asking it solves a whole lot of workflow problems without degrading your audio in any way. If that's what you're looking for than it's worth it's weight in gold (although I do wish it had more aux sends and returns). It's not going to solve all your problems tracking a band with multiple headphone feeds and what not but it's the perfect "B Room" solution - or at least it has been for me.

I can't wait until I can afford a Matrix!
Yeah Matrix nice bit of kit, I have had it for about a year or so.......
I previously owned an AWS......

Nice bit of kit, and for the record the X-Desk is a good little machine.

Man this thing is capable of allot considering it's size.
Nice SSL quality build to.

#28
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #28
Gear nut
 
Axiom static's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlheinz View Post
Iv'e had very surprisingly good mixes off a mackie 32/8.The thing thats nice about SSL in general is when you insert something tube or colored on a channel or stereo buss and you have many channels going,those details come through clearly.In fact any subtle change in EQ seems to get noticed.Anyone familar with the E series knows the desk did impose a sound vs. the newer super analog consoles which I think are far more transparent but are more articulate in all frequencies.You just need to work harder to get any kind of body or grit out of them if you are mixing aggressive music.I like the fact that the current SSL does not impose any kind of sound on the mix other than it's width/headroom.clarity.You can always find ways of adding dirt grit or goo.You do have to work for it where other consoles cloud up or run out or smooth out or crunch much quicker without any help from outboard.
Agree 100% the new super analog is crazy clean man. Very transparent like you say.

Ya need the outboard gear to add that Mojo on something like an X-Desk.
Not a bad thing really if this is your choice of working.

Clean sound, and add the mojo later with your choice of gear.

I think this is the big thing with SSL a very clean and transparent sound is what it has.
#29
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Ward Pike's Avatar
THIS made it to "high-end". Well, I guess the chinese proverb is true and we do live in interesting times.
#30
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #30
Gear nut
 
Axiom static's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Pike View Post
THIS made it to "high-end". Well, I guess the chinese proverb is true and we do live in interesting times.
I guess this goes back to the other thread Tone was talking about, Highend Thank you!

Ahh well.

Still happy to have a chat about this.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
johnecon2001 / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
51
Chaylon / So much gear, so little time!
39
Savernake / So much gear, so little time!
10
oortnyc / Live Sound
3
santibanks / Low End Theory
16

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.