Login / Register
 
Before posting your measurement results
New Reply
Subscribe
#151
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #151
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,039

jim1961 is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
And it´s also stated what gain setting to use (in order to know that the indicated SPL level is the actual SPL level)?
Yes. I am still learning
#152
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #152
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,491

DanDan is online now
Info

I am happy to say that IMO a lot of great info has been revealed or clarified in this recent debate, albeit inadvertently.

I am glad to hear that REW is not limited to 16 Bit resolution, as the manual erroneously states.

I frequently use FM for capture and REW for analysis. From now on I intend to Export between them at 32 Bit. I am assuming Normalise is unnecessary with 32 Float subject to confirmation. I would like to see 32 as the default in future versions of FM and REW.

I am also glad to find out that the Level Meter in FM is the same as in REW.
REW's 0dBFS is equal to Fuzz 94dB

Prompted by questions here I have been a tad surprised to discover excursions over 0dB are quite OK on the FM Mag Y axis. I do hope to see dB FS scales available on both FM and REW in future. Plse correct me if it is currently an option which I haven't found in REW.

I have been recommending the Dayton EMM6 because it comes with an individual Cal file. I do hope it is not noisy as this OMNIMIC seesms to be.
I am guessing this OMNI with onboard Pre and ADC is designed to deliver 0dB FS at 94dB or such. Is the gain actually adjustable? In particular upwards?

We have been recommending the MiniDSP USB Mic/Pre/ADC. Same queries come to mind.

Any users of these combos?

DD
#153
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #153
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,039

jim1961 is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post

I have been recommending the Dayton EMM6 because it comes with an individual Cal file. I do hope it is not noisy as this OMNIMIC seesms to be.
I am guessing this OMNI with onboard Pre and ADC is designed to deliver 0dB FS at 94dB or such. Is the gain actually adjustable? In particular upwards?

DD
While Omnimic doesnt have input meters / levels, it does have auto input level detection whereby you present the mic with the intended level and an auto adjuster takes care of the input level for you. My earlier graphs didnt take this into account, I will post one today that does.

At what dbSPL do you (others) usually run your tests at?
#154
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #154
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,491

DanDan is online now
Range

Glad to hear that Jim.

EDIT synchronous posting! I like the Sweep to get over 90dB SPL C or Z Slow. With peaks that will generally kiss FS in REW or 94dB in FM. If I don't have an SLM handy, Loud enough that ear protection is needed.
If the speakers can't do that sort of level without distortion, then longer sweeps should deliver a similar S/N Ratio. 10S is my norm, but I would have no hesitation in using 20S.

I recommend you take a listen to that mic using audio equipment rather than measuring.
Then, try a measurement using REW. Even with seemingly very low record level REW is capable of great low level resolution, as is FM.

Name:  Screen shot 2012-12-13 at 17.06.08.jpg
Views: 640
Size:  82.4 KB

DD
#155
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #155
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,039

jim1961 is online now
#156
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #156
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,039

jim1961 is online now
I opened REW 5.0 to try to generate my own waterfalls there, but it doesnt seem to want a wav file, wants mdat files.

Is there a way to do this?
#157
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #157
Gear interested
 
Suomela's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 24

Suomela is offline
Jim,

Under File
>Import Impulse Response

As your files seem to be saved as *.OGX, you'll need to change file-extension to *.WAV before importing.


/Suomela
#158
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #158
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,039

jim1961 is online now
Before posting your measurement results-12-13-ir-rew-waterfall.gif Name: 12 13 IR REW waterfall.GIF Views: 189 Size: 241.5 KB ID: 321132" style="margin: 2px" />

OK, I figured it out. Is this better?
#159
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #159
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,039

jim1961 is online now
Before posting your measurement results-12-13-ir-rew-spectrogram.gif Name: 12 13 IR REW spectrogram.GIF Views: 433 Size: 315.7 KB ID: 321134" style="margin: 2px" />

This seems to show whats happening clearer.
#160
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #160
Gear interested
 
Suomela's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 24

Suomela is offline
From what I see the S/N ratio seem to have been considerably improved.

Attached ETC-plot show one of your first IR as green, your latest as red and as comparison a IR recorded by somebody else in blue.

Before posting your measurement results-noise-floor-etc.jpg Name: noise floor etc.jpg Views: 174 Size: 147.8 KB ID: 321143" style="margin: 2px" />

Can't say if your latest IR is good enough for more delicate analysis. Others has to comment on this.


/Suomela
#161
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #161
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,039

jim1961 is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suomela View Post
From what I see the S/N ratio seem to have been considerably improved.

Attached ETC-plot show one of your first IR as green, your latest as red and as comparison a IR recorded by somebody else in blue.

Views: Size: ">Attachment-IRJDSUNE9932123321222xxeww-321143

Can't say if your latest IR is good enough for more delicate analysis. Others has to comment on this.


/Suomela
Thanks. I am seeing some improvement as well. 35db s/n initially to about 60db now. Still not great I guess though
#162
17th December 2012
Old 17th December 2012
  #162
Gear addict
 
Jolida's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 448

Jolida is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
Hi everyone. This is my first thread in this forum …




Since we on a nearly daily basis see posts featuring graphs from REW or other measurement software with scales set as if it was my daughter (she´s one year old …) dictating the limits, I hereby provide you with a very short, but hopefully useful guide to what is considered useful. Please check it out before posting graphs, or the risk is overwhelming that you’re going to be asked to repost them with proper scales. If unsure about what scales to use and what graphs to include, why not simply upload the actual IR-files (either in REW format or exported as wav/aiff if captured in other software), so that others can open/import it into the software preferred and inspect it without limitations. Please label your measurement files/pics properly to avoid confusion.



First up, the one graph everyone knows about and unfortunately (since it’s the least interesting one), often the only one featured in a lot of posts: the Frequency Response curve:


Frequency range:

Well, not much to say about it really; 20 Hz (or 10-15 Hz if subwoofer in larger room) to 20 kHz (using a logarithmic scale) is normal (assuming the measurement mic is accurate to this range, more often; about 15 kHz is the practical limit) but the range can be limited in order to reveal more detail depending on the smoothing used (see below). Unless you know how to accurately center the measurement microphone exactly (millimeters count) between the L & R speaker *, plot L & R speaker separately in full range and plot the sum (L & R measured simultaneously) showing only the lower range (to about 300-500 Hz) since the range above it will suffer from comb filter effects due to the two signals arriving in slightly different time to the microphone.


dB range:

Although there’s no right or wrong here, I personally prefer a 50 dB range (usually +20/-30 if amplitude normalized to 0 dB) since it will fit close to any measured response, even most untreated rooms, and it´s nice to be able to make comparisons without changing the scale. If you prefer another range, use one that fits the curve but not much more ( … unless you deliberately want to make your room look better than it actually is but if so, the next part will interest you even more):


Smoothing (“resolution”):

A FR-curve without smoothing is often not very useful, especially in the midrange and up (and particularly if the room is untreated) since it is hard to read due to the extreme variation in amplitude and this is why we apply “smoothing” to make the curve more readable, but this can also be used to make the curve look a lot flatter than it actually is. A 1/24 octave resolution or higher (1/48 etc.) is what you want to use when doing measurements in critical listening rooms or you´ll miss out important information. Some like to also provide graphs featuring 1/3 octave resolution, and that’s fine as long as a high resolution (1/24 oct or higher) version is also included. A 1/3 oct FR curve alone is seldom very useful, especially if the modal region (below about 200-300 Hz) is the most interesting range. For this frequency range, you can actually turn the smoothing off completely (but do state that this is the case if it´s not clear by the pic).


As a side note; don´t freak out if your response is showing +/- 10 dB or worse. Even in very big, expensive control rooms, a +/- 5 dB response (assuming 1/24 dB resolution) is considered excellent. Also, the FR curve is not the only graph of interest (it´s actually the least interesting one).




Waterfall / Decay / Sonogram

These plots show spectral energy decay. It is used to identify frequency regions that suffer from too long (or too short) decay time. Room modes for example, are easily identified using these plots.


Frequency range:

The most common use of these plots is to identify modes and if so, the range below about 300 Hz is the most relevant but it is also useful to see a full range plot since it might reveal uneven decay times if for example a room suffers from overuse of broadband absorption in the high frequency range resulting in a room with very short decay in the highs compared to the lows.


dB scale:

Again, no strict rules here but to only show a 30 dB range would not reveal the complete picture so I prefer a 60 dB range (since this is what is normally referred to when talking about decay times). By "range" I´m not only referring to the vertical scale but you actually want to see a 60 dB range of decay and if your graph starts halfway up, you´re only seeing the first 30 dBs of decay if the total scale is 60 dB. You want to see a 60 dB decay from the average level of your meassurement, so if normalized to 0 dB, about +10-15 dB (depending on the peak of the meassurement) to -60 dB or lower is a good scale. If your measurement is too noisy, try and redo them using multiple sweeps in order to increase the SNR (oh, and there’s no real benefits in restricting the frequency range when making measurements. Use 10-20 Hz to 20 kHz and a sweep length of about 5-10 seconds, 256k in REW is a good option) and also make sure to play the sweep(s) as loud as possible without pushing the speakers too hard casing them to distort, making any kind of noise except the sweep(s).


Time range:

Again no right or wrongs, but I would suggest that you either choose a 400-500 ms range (and the problematic frequencies will be cut off but who cares; they need attention … ) or simply adjust the range until you see the end of the longest decay.

The same as for FR-curves applies to these plots in terms of L and/or R speaker.


A note on decay time: It´s easy to assume that the decay time can be sourced from these plots but unfortunately, it’s not that easy. The shape of these plots will vary with the setting called "Window" in the control section (try changing it to 1500 ms and see what happens). If decay times are of interest, use the "Topt" option (RTxx or EDT values are close to useless if small acoustic spaces like control rooms is considered) in the "RT60" section of REW. This option ("Topt") checks the slope of the filtered Schroeder integral looking for the most linear fit and this can sometimes be useful above the modal range but sourcing accurate decay times in the modal region is not trivial. Use an appropriate scale. If your highest reading is 0,5 sec, don´t show a 3 second range.




Finally, the perhaps most useful graph but unfortunately, seldom spotted in posts in this forum; the ETC (Envelope Time Curve / Energy Time Curve):

This graph shows the energy plotted over time. The highest spike at 0 dB (assuming normalized) is (hopefully … ) the direct sound from the speaker (only use one speaker at the time when checking the ETC). The rest are reflections from your room (or stuff within it). The use of the ETC is obvious; tracing early reflection points, monitor the ISD-gap (and the termination of it if LEDE/RFZ) and the (semi) diffuse field hopefully following it (unless NE design) etc.


dB range:

30-40 dB (0 to -40 dB for example) is normal, depending on how much energy remains after the direct sound.


Time range:

Usually about 80-100 ms is enough. If there´s no energy above -40 dB after say 40 ms (an extremely “dry sounding” room in other words) , then you might just as well zoom in and make it 40 ms in total for more detail. Unless there´s considerable energy before the direct sound (yes, it can happen, a resonance caused by a speaker on a desk for example), only show a couple of ms before the direct sound.

Note that you can filter the ETC in order to see the energy content of reflections for different frequency bands..



I hope this simple guide will help reduce the amount of graphs posted, featuring … “interesting” scale settings.



Sincerely Jens Eklund




EDIT:

Oh, and all frequency scales should be set to logarithmic, not linear.


EDIT 2: *

Unless you´re doing multiple measurements (perhaps in order to locate a good initial position) in different locations (this is in my opinion not very important if before treatment analysis, since any improvements due to acoustic treatment is likely to be observed in others locations as well but the actual sweet spot is the most important location), it´s a good idea to make sure that the measurement microphone is positioned exactly in-between the left and right speaker. If not, you´ll see the effects of constructive and destructive interference in the frequency response when recording both speakers simultaneously, especially in the higher range. Checking for symmetric response between L & R speaker might be tricky if the microphone is not centered properly.

Setting up the mic centered with accuracy using distance measurements can be fiddly and often leads to less than perfect results so another way is to use acoustics to position the mic in the right position. Generate three sound files consisting of a single period of a sine wave with the frequencies; 2 kHz, 6 kHz and 20 kHz followed by about 50-70 ms of silence. Position the mic as centered as you can and also make sure that the speakers are angled symmetrically towards the mic and play (in loop mode) using both speakers (and make sure they play exactly the same level) the first sound file (2 kHz) and move the mic sideways back and forth (preferably by moving the micstand so you’re not too close to the mic, causing strong reflections from yourself) while observing the level meter and find the position that results in the highest reading. Repeat the procedure with the 6 kHz file, and finally with the 20 kHz file (you might need to increase the level of playback to generate enough SPL for the 20 kHz file). Your measurement microphone is now centered exactly in-between the L and R speaker. You can confirm this by making some measurements and zooming in on the direct sound in the ETC and compare L, R and the combined measurement.


Finally, make sure that you know what type of microphone you´re using in order to aim it in the appropriate direction. If diffuse field type, you should aim it towards the ceiling (the exact angle should be stated in the user manual but if not, try strait up for starters). Note that some mics are labeled as free field, but they actually behave more as diffuse filed. The Behringer ECM8000 and Neutrik 3382 being a few examples. For more info on this topic, see this thread: Why point the mic at the ceiling?
You wrote :-


dB range:

Although there’s no right or wrong here, I personally prefer a 50 dB range (usually +20/-30 if amplitude normalized to 0 dB

How is that done?
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#163
17th December 2012
Old 17th December 2012
  #163
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,614

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolida View Post
You wrote :-


dB range:

Although there’s no right or wrong here, I personally prefer a 50 dB range (usually +20/-30 if amplitude normalized to 0 dB

How is that done?
Before posting your measurement results

#164
17th December 2012
Old 17th December 2012
  #164
Gear addict
 
Jolida's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 448

Jolida is online now
#165
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #165
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 25

caesura is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
Yes I have been trying to get people to do that myself. Actually we are making a video now outlining set up and some of the setting of REW. The first video will be a over view (download, set up and so on) but as time goes on we are going to get more into the "meat" of the program and how it relates to your room.
Would be nice if you guys covered FuzzMeasure as well if you get the chance, since not all of us can use REW. It does not work on MACs with firewire... still.
#166
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #166
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 25

caesura is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post

I frequently use FM for capture and REW for analysis. From now on I intend to Export between them at 32 Bit. I am assuming Normalise is unnecessary with 32 Float subject to confirmation. I would like to see 32 as the default in future versions of FM and REW.

DD
I'm guessing that by FM you mean FuzzMeasure? If that is so, what file format are you exporting from FuzzMeasure that REW can import?

Thanks for your help on this.

-John Eye
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#167
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #167
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,614

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
#168
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #168
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,491

DanDan is online now
Cross Platform

Yes indeed FM= FuzzMeasure.
Both REW and FM seem to be able to Import both WAV and AIFF. I haven't checked fully but both also seem to be able to deal with 32 Bit Audio.
However, I am fully certain that 24 Bit WAV will Export and Import in either direction.
Computers sometimes have a layer of Audio driver software as part of the OS. Settings there can have effect on your measurements.
Take a look into both Sound Preferences and particularly the AudioMidi Setup utility. I would chose 24 Bit 44.1Khz across the board.

The main source of difficulty in transferring data between these softwares, is the default Export setting in FM. It does not encourage you to normalise before Export, and it choses 16 Bit by default. As the internal data is at least 32 Bit, information gets lost when truncating down to 16 Bit. When FM was first written I expect most soundcards and I/O were only 16Bit. Chris is well aware of this issue and I have no doubt that he will use 24 as the default export choice in his eagerly awaited new version of FM.

DD
#169
25th February 2013
Old 25th February 2013
  #169
11B US Army Infantry
 
DozerMayne's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Currently Michigan
Posts: 277

DozerMayne is offline
Regarding the Behringer ECM8000 mic,I am reading, and viewing from videos, conflicting information regarding the direction of the measurement microphone.
Some show and say 90 degrees from source for room measurement(pointing at ceiling).

Then some say, due to the type of mic that the ECM8000 is, to point it directly at the sound source(speakers), because of high frequency roll-off being inaccurate/skewed when pointing at the ceiling.

I am doing a studio build project, and going to be doing before and after measurements. Also making some video of process.
Before making those measurements, I want to clear this up. In the past, with this mic, the ECM8000, I aimed it at the
ceiling, or 90degrees from the source(speakers).
__________________
My "Studio Build" Thread
My Studio Upgrade and Measurement Thread
Moved to PreSonus Studio One Pro, this thing is a time saver and beast..nuff said.
"Funny how you downplay everyone elses success, to relinquish the shame of your own failures." DozerMayne
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#170
25th February 2013
Old 25th February 2013
  #170
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,614

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
#171
25th February 2013
Old 25th February 2013
  #171
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,491

DanDan is online now
Changing

I have noted comments that the current output of ECM's varies in response even more wildly than the earlier incarnations.
Used relatively the mic will be absolutely fine, although somewhat electronically noisey. Due to the wild variations, we simply cannot have any certainty about the Frequency Response and Polar Response unless they are tested, and a Calibration file generated. Failing that, best to ignore results above 10K, in which case it hardly matters where you point it.

DD
#172
16th March 2013
Old 16th March 2013
  #172
Gear nut
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 77

hifitubes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post

Frequency range:

Well, not much to say about it really; 20 Hz (or 10-15 Hz if subwoofer in larger room) to 20 kHz (using a logarithmic scale) is normal (assuming the measurement mic is accurate to this range, more often; about 15 kHz is the practical limit) but the range can be limited in order to reveal more detail depending on the smoothing used (see below). Unless you know how to accurately center the measurement microphone exactly (millimeters count) between the L & R speaker *, plot L & R speaker separately in full range and plot the sum (L & R measured simultaneously) showing only the lower range (to about 300-500 Hz) since the range above it will suffer from comb filter effects due to the two signals arriving in slightly different time to the microphone.
This is intimidating, and I'm hoping someone can elaborate. Will a laser distance tool help to center the mic? Any leads?

This comment seems to suggest that many measurements may be suspect as invalid, if mm matter that much...
__________________
Head-Fi, eBay
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#173
16th March 2013
Old 16th March 2013
  #173
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,614

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitubes View Post
This is intimidating, and I'm hoping someone can elaborate. Will a laser distance tool help to center the mic? Any leads?

This comment seems to suggest that many measurements may be suspect as invalid, if mm matter that much...
Unless you use an accurate laser meter and are very precise when using it, you´ll find it hard to accurately position the mic so that the radial distance to each speaker is exactly the same. At 20 kHz, even a difference of just 8,6 mm will be enough to cause complete cancellation (of the direct sound) since the wavelength is only 17 mm for this frequency.
#174
16th March 2013
Old 16th March 2013
  #174
Gear nut
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 77

hifitubes is offline
Thanks, I will be using laser distance which has 1.5mm accuracy.
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#175
16th March 2013
Old 16th March 2013
  #175
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,614

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitubes View Post
Thanks, I will be using laser distance which has 1.5mm accuracy.
As long as you´re being precise, you´ll be fine.

Also, there´s really no need to worry too much about the combined response, especially above the modal region. I would focus my attention on the separate measurements (and then the exact position is not that critical).
#176
16th March 2013
Old 16th March 2013
  #176
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,491

DanDan is online now
Combined

Hifitubes, is that you Marcel?

We have discussed the centre thing elsewhere on GS. I tested the very exotic pulsed method and a simple pink noise method. Both are easier to do by searching for a null with one speaker phase reversed.
Both should give the same results unless your room is untreated or not treated fairly symmetrically.
To be clear, reverse phase on one speaker (Flux have a free plug-in)
Listen with one ear blocked or use a mic or SLM. There is a very obvious sharply located null at the acoustic centre.

However, as Jens said the individual responses are interesting/needed for all sorts of reasons. But the combined L+R is worth having so that you can view it as a Waterfall below say 300Hz.

There are other ways of considering the measurement process. e.g. some of us would rather see measurements taken at two ear positions, rather than the singular nose ;-)

DD
#177
1st April 2013
Old 1st April 2013
  #177
Gear nut
 
robertopisa's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 122

robertopisa is offline
Hello Jens, thanks for your suggestions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
[snip]
Note that you can filter the ETC in order to see the energy content of reflections for different frequency bands..
[snip]
How can you do that in REW? I cannot find the options for that.

-Roberto
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#178
1st April 2013
Old 1st April 2013
  #178
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,614

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertopisa View Post
Hello Jens, thanks for your suggestions.



How can you do that in REW? I cannot find the options for that.

-Roberto
To filter an impulse; select the tab ”Filtered IR”. In the bottom left of the plot screen, you´ll find a drop down menu where it says “No filter”. Select the filter you wish to apply and then select ETC (if this is what you want to see).
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
Dannibal / Post Production forum!
9
LaChunkyStudio / Post Production forum!
1
Dissdnt_penguin / So many guitars, so little time!
19
GeorgeSkoufalos / Post Production forum!
2
evangelista / Post Production forum!
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.