The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
why are Romplers hated so much?
Old 13th May 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Lamster's Avatar
 

why are Romplers hated so much?

Hi everyone
Don't want to turn this into another Analog Vs Digital discussion.
although thats what it'll end up being no doubt

I'm one of these saddos that sold all my analog gear back in the late 80's and early 90's for digital gear.
At the time you had to have a DX7 or a Dw8000 or something else digital. Then all these multi timbral modules started coming out D110, K1, M1 and so on.
I can remember trying these things out and getting lost with massive pad sounds that none of my analog gear was capable of.I was never rich enough to have a Jupiter 8 or a Prophet 5 but these digital synths sounded like they were expensive?

At the time you hooked two or three modules up either through your sequencer or if you had the money your Atari 1024st with either Cubase or Notator. add a drum machine , an S900and an R8 with SMPTE and you had yourself a really good little project studio? Then Vst,and Logic came out and we all went ITB. Now everybody says No! OTB is better get analog or virtual analog and Romplers are the worsed thing ever?
I've got an 18u rack full of this stuff and each module in there can do things that still sounds good As well as that they are far more reliable for live work than a computer and some analog gear I could mention so why does everybody hate them so much?
Old 13th May 2013
  #2
They are the perfect thing for live use. As many sounds as you want, lots of great sampled instruments and more than decent synth sounds ready to go in one keyboard (not to mention an internal sampler in my case).

In the studio? Meh... That's when I would use all the analogue toys, huge sample libs and real instruments. Still, there are a few patches I've made on the Triton and Fantom that nothing else can do, and I still use them.
I'm guessing the people who "hate" the most are studio musicians who only want one dedicated instrument for everything. Sadly that just doesn't work live. I used to bring an Andromeda with me on stage a lot, but I was always so worried about it. And it went out of tune a lot during the show, massive temperature changes with lights and all.

On stage I want one keyboard that can do it all. With all the noise from the audience (hopefully) and loud volume, it really doesn't matter much. Just bring something flexible that sounds good enough, and the job is done.
Old 13th May 2013
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Every new iteration makes the previous one look outdated.

Synthesis options like sync, FM, PWM etc. are usually missing. A JV1080 is rather a 4 x 1 oscillator synth than a 4-oscillator synth.

Filters don't always sound great. Advertised polyphony is a bit of a scam - using up 4 samples simultaneously divides the polyphony by 4.

Effects have to be applied in miserly fashion; often there's only 1 insert effect. When you take away those effects in multitimbral mode, the sounds lose much of their luster.

But "hate" is a rather strong word. The JD800/990 is held in high regard, and any other romplers are usually very good as controllers as well. And yes, on stage they're really useful.
Old 14th May 2013
  #4
Lives for gear
 
R3Member's Avatar
I wouldn't doubt it if certain Romplers came in vogue again. Vintage analog gear prices keep rising and rising, so sooner or later there will be a point where the cheapest vintage gear left will all be digital. All it takes is a small group of bands using what they could afford to get popular and suddenly you've got a movement going. Personally, I have no hate for romplers other than the tedious programming and menus a lot of them have. They offer a world of sound not possible on analog gear and you'd be amazed how clever some of the programming is on those older ones. I reprogram sounds I like from the M1 Legecy Edition software (which has all the expansion cards) onto my microSTATION and there's stuff in there I could never even imagine coming up with on my own.
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Abraxis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by R3Member View Post
I wouldn't doubt it if certain Romplers came in vogue again. Vintage analog gear prices keep rising and rising, so sooner or later there will be a point where the cheapest vintage gear left will all be digital. All it takes is a small group of bands using what they could afford to get popular and suddenly you've got a movement going. Personally, I have no hate for romplers other than the tedious programming and menus a lot of them have. They offer a world of sound not possible on analog gear and you'd be amazed how clever some of the programming is on those older ones. I reprogram sounds I like from the M1 Legecy Edition software (which has all the expansion cards) onto my microSTATION and there's stuff in there I could never even imagine coming up with on my own.
It will be interesting to see if this happens. I don't necessarily think it will though. The resurgence of analog has to do with 'dat analog sound' that some tend to prefer over digital. The classic digital romplers can probably be completely recreated in software. Unless there is something about the components on the old keyboards that color the sound somehow. I don't know if that is the case or not, but haven't heard anything to that effect.
Old 14th May 2013
  #6
Lives for gear
 
mike vee's Avatar
The only romplers that made a come back are ones that have some sort of niche market with famous sounds like the M1.

Romplers are just like software (they ARE software) new and better ones come out each year making the older ones increasingly worthless. There are, of course, some exceptions like the JD-990. Analog is something REAL that never gets old.

That's why romplers are basically worthless a few years down the line...because the new ones come out with improved sound quality. analog are always just analogs...the core of the sound doesn't really get outdone over the years.

That being said I have plans for a Motif XS rack. 16 tracks with no CPU hit and REV fx plug full cubase VST integration???? sounds good to me
Old 14th May 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
I don't know if it's romplers per-say, but rather companies like Roland cashing in on vintage analog brands (i.e. Juno, Jupiter) with modern day romplers rather than real analogs. This seems to drive a lot of the hate.

That and they do cost a *lot* when software libraries will get you better sounds for less; at least in the studio. But they are mainly geared for live use...
Old 14th May 2013
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Zoolook's Avatar
I think there is two reasons they're hated. One is that they fall uncomfortably between the two main established 'creative' electronic music tools, which are 'real' synthesis (read: analogue synthesis) and sampling. So, fairly or otherwise, there is a perception that ROMplers are more likely to be used for presets, or maybe the odd tweak of one.

The second reason is many of them had poor filters (often LP only, sometimes lacking resonance) and were hard to program and so people didn't bother.

Personally I think many had some decent characteristic sounds that were unique. Decent examples are the Kawai K4, Ensoniq VFX (very unique sound) and the Kurzweil K2000.
Old 14th May 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Miiko's Avatar
 

They're not hated, that's just the perception you'll get by reading a bunch of comments by analog synth snobs on gearslutz. Romplers are great, and the especially good ones (Roland, Yamaha, Kurzweil) are amazing production tools.
Old 14th May 2013
  #10
Lives for gear
 

I like nexus a lot. Easy to use and sounds good.

Sorry if I'm not a master of synthesis.

I prefer making music.
Old 14th May 2013
  #11
Lives for gear
 

1. Some have really crappy to impossible interfaces if you actually want to synthesize your sounds.

2. 10ish years ago it was harder/more expensive to process them either digitally or with affordable effects (analog or digital) to make them sound crisp or "alive".

3. People looking for excuses why their music isn't good?
Old 14th May 2013
  #12
Gear Addict
 
FabGear's Avatar
There are just some sounds ROMplers can do that can't be done as well on Analog or many Digital Synths. Without ROMplers many of us would still be carrying Yamaha CP70's, Rhodes, or Wurlitzers for Piano sounds. Now we have those sounds and thousands more in an easy to transport package. What's not to like. You can still bring along an Analog Synth to supplement the ROMpler.
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
MJS7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3Member View Post
I wouldn't doubt it if certain Romplers came in vogue again.
If enough people move from the 80's retro trends to the 90's... then maybe it could happen.
People sell their 303s and 808s... and then the Roland JV romplers, etc. suddenly start going for thousands.
"Analog? That's so last year dude. Check this JV 1010 I got for $2000 on eBay: straight up GM swag!"
Old 14th May 2013
  #14
Deleted User
Guest
You can get good rompler sounds as the M1 & Wavestation plugins. The prices have already bumped up on most junk. But people will just get the newest keyboard and there won't be a big difference. I barely use subtractive synthesis, except for pad sounds. They make for terrible sounding bass lines and extremely annoying leads. It almost doesnt matter what you use. Samples will sound better.
Old 14th May 2013
  #15
Lives for gear
 
jaxman12's Avatar
Quote:
That being said I have plans for a Motif XS rack. 16 tracks with no CPU hit and REV fx plug full cubase VST integration???? sounds good to me
The "No CPU Hit" is a great reason to get that module. I sold my Rack ES a few months ago because I was not using it. I found that my VST pianos and East West Platinum sounds blew away the sounds in the Rack ES. However the CPU hit is something you have to consider. The ES had great drum kits, EP's, and a lot of other sounds. The reason I bought the ES was for Acoustic Instrument Emulations. When my VST's sounded better I sold it.

At this point in my journey, I am spending a lot of time with tutorial videos, manuals and every once in a while a seminar at the local music stores to learn as much as I can on how to operate these VST's and my DAW inside and out. It is taking a lot more time than I ever imagined and I have a great background in programming Analogue Synthesizers including Moog Modulars so that part is not a problem.

I would be willing to bet that a lot of people do not like VST's because people in general are not willing to take the time it takes to learn the VST's thoroughly. If you really talk to people and ask them questions, you will find they have not read the manuals or understand how the VST's work. I've heard it on this forum many times that people will not read the manuals. If the VST has a relatively easy interface, they can call up some presets, sound comes out, then they consider that module learned. They will go no further. I have heard people that are in the music industry that make a living at it make the comment, "I Don't Read Manuals". Which tells you what? They don't know how to use it.

Right now my goal is to take the time to learn this software and it is taking a LOT of time. I can see why a lot of people do not like VST's simply because of the time involved to learn them. I'm hoping that in the end all the time I've spent will be worth it.

But to be honest, what I've said is really for another thread.
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Lamster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trapezius View Post
They are the perfect thing for live use. As many sounds as you want, lots of great sampled instruments and more than decent synth sounds ready to go in one keyboard (not to mention an internal sampler in my case).

In the studio? Meh... That's when I would use all the analogue toys, huge sample libs and real instruments. Still, there are a few patches I've made on the Triton and Fantom that nothing else can do, and I still use them.
I'm guessing the people who "hate" the most are studio musicians who only want one dedicated instrument for everything. Sadly that just doesn't work live. I used to bring an Andromeda with me on stage a lot, but I was always so worried about it. And it went out of tune a lot during the show, massive temperature changes with lights and all.

On stage I want one keyboard that can do it all. With all the noise from the audience (hopefully) and loud volume, it really doesn't matter much. Just bring something flexible that sounds good enough, and the job is done.
See this is my point and the wayI think.

I liked the idea of taking out less gear for a gig in the analog days I had a crappy electric piano a vox continental a juno6 2x SH101s a cs15, pro1 sx1000 and a poly 800 the last gig I did years ago was with a Kawai K3, Ensoniq EPS and an Sy55.

To Be honest if I went out tomorrow I'd take the K2000 and the JD800 and maybe the EPS for luck as I threw the disk drive away and shoved my entire library on a 4GB SD ram. I do agree with some of the other comments about programing and the words "Welcome to DX" still sends shivers down my spine.

I think what happened in the old days was you brought a bit of kit and you tweaked it and fiddled with it so there weren't any factory patches left in the thing you tried to get the most out of everything you brought. And you did this with everything you brought. The problem is years later the batteries die and you lose all your sounds and can't find the backup floppies for the atari system you no longer have. So you end up downloading factory or user patches off the internet and that bit of kit seems to lose its creative element only now its so long ago that you programed it that you no longer can remember how to do it and all the manuals are in the same box as those floppy disks you can't find.

I had a discussion on the Juno 60 on a thread and threw in a comment or two about you could use a pad or indeed any sound from anything else in the mix you wouldn't miss the Juno and was then executed for my treachery. I received many lessons of why analogs were better from people that weren't even born when I sold most of mine.

I remember getting so used to the sound of a sampled piano that when I heard a real one again It sounded wrong. I think the same thing has happened with Virtual Instruments they all sound good until you listen to something else?
Old 14th May 2013
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Because haters are going to hate.

Just go make music with whatever works for you.
Old 14th May 2013
  #18
Lives for gear
 
shponglefan's Avatar
Is CPU usage really that big a deal to use Romplers instead of samples? Same with memory. Any Rompler-level sound library should be no sweat for a modern PC.
Old 14th May 2013
  #19
Lives for gear
 
balma's Avatar
The synth is a musical instrument wich can cover multiple areas of musical creativity. There are so many synths, so different between them, that reductionism and clasification is almost necessary to figure out what they can do.
And with classification comes conclusions, gossips, and wrong information.

First thing that comes to the mind of many, when they hear "rompler" is.... piano sounds. Oboes. Emulation of real instruments using samples.
Rigid engines, wich does not allows to tweak and create unusual sounds, cheesy workstations, etc.... menus...

But that does not mean a label must attach to the classic configuration for a rompler:
2 or 4 samples wich can be layered to create sounds.
piano, trumpets, strigs, wood basses, and some drum kits....
maybe a sequencer....
big polyphony to layer several sounds.... etc

I´ve owned and sold dozens of romplers. But one of them, is apart from the rest, It really shines for its complexity and hability to produce almost any imaginable sound.

The EMU command station is a ROMPLER. And it has one of the most splendid engines ever designed since digital synths exist. A single patch, can hold 96 patchcords. The modulation matrix has around 70 sources, and more than 100 different destinations. There are 50 Z-plane filters to choose from, 4-12 chorus effects per single patch, white, pink noise, multiple random generators, crossfading deep programming, 15 LFOS, clock dividers, lag processors.. etc etc.
It also has the hability to link three patches between them to create new sounds....



The sounds you can obtain from a command station, are totally apart from any other instrument classified as "rompler".

Classifying a synth by its engine, can lead to wrong conclusions over synths wich fall into certain category.

The power/capabilities of a synth, are beyond the nature of its engine. It´s the result of creative people at the service of people who also should be creative. And understimating a musical instrument for being a rompler, is a simple prejuice, and a self imposed limitation.
Old 14th May 2013
  #20
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
why are Romplers hated so much?
What exactly is that deep sacral purpose of this thread?
Old 14th May 2013
  #21
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
i think it has been it upon by most above posters... In the late 80's-early 90's, before anyone could really afford a cpu with sequencing software etc.... roland mt32's and korg m1's etc were great for a single musician trying to cover a lot of sonic territory in their bedroom or whatnot. Christ, I had an ensoniq sq80 (some bastard stole), with a roland rackmount rompler, and could approximate what I liked about peter gabriel records etc...

the fact that a lot of these either had no or extremely limited editing capabilities from the front panel, and once you stripped the fx off the 2bus output, they sounded completely anemic, lends to this. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of using those to write, but at the time, they worked. And I marveled at the fact that i could do fretless bass lines and strings and lame orchestral hits and drums all from the same module!

Once I discovered the wonders of sampling when I was 16 or so, I guess I never looked back, and analog gear became more interesting because it was harder to approximate a minimoog with an ensoniq eps then it was to sample a shakahuchi or whatever from a fairlight.... Analog could NOT make those "belly""evolving" digital sounds (ala d50,dx7,m1 etc) which became the vogue at the time. (and yes i know they "could", but not easily for a kid who didn't know how to properly make complex multi-envelopes and properly use ring mod(( or had no idea what PWM even was..)) )... Coincide that with the fact that digital reverb had just entered the affordable period, and everything was lathered in that to sound "expensive".... At the time, people would listen to "DigitalNativeDance" or some "BreathyChiffer" on the d-50 and cream their pants, rather then an undulating organic spine rattling minimoog...

If you were to walk in to the equivalent of a guitar center back then, everyone would be around the dx7 or d-50, and an oberheim xpander would be selling for 150$ because it didn't have onboard reverb nor did it create a piano from crappy 8bit pcm samples! A friend of mine bought a minimoog in 1987 for $10.... TEN DOLLARS!, it was seen as a slide rule compared to osx...

also, most "samplers" today are actually romplers. Case in point: Kontakt. Can't sample. Can "use" an existing sample and you can miraculously script it to whereever you want... but noone is sampling into the front end of it... So that technically is a rompler...(rampler?)
and the fact that most people have never used it for anything other then playing back other peeps programs etc.... (and some of the blame on that lies on Native Instruments for making even extending a keygroup assignment a tremendous chore)

historically, it makes sense. Knowing what we know now, it's obvious. If someone can create great parts and songs and sounds out of a roland u-whatnot, godbless them, but I really don't see them escalating in value in that most exist in kontakt/giga/whatever formats, the filters on them generally were a rat's ass, and if someone pines away for the noisefloor on them, they can easily just add that to it. Granted I haven't sat in front of a "real" Korg M1, and the Korg Legacy version, but I would imagine they were pretty darn close... I can't imagine any reason outside of nostalgia for getting the real deal, .... but as always, again, I am probably wrong. (those DAC's back then just had this "something"...)

but given the definition of "rompler", and the fact that the brilliant kurzweil k2x series falls into it, well, I have no problem with them by definition. It was usually just the lazy execution.
Old 14th May 2013
  #22
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Let me see if I can summarize this for myself... ROMplers are hated because, computers can do it better, with an easier interface and more power, and usually sound better. Also, you can CHOOSE THE SOUNDS YOU WANT on a puter (rom vs ram). Also, they are potentially smaller. And effectively free since most of us already have one that's up to snuff.

I am kind of interested in ones like the Nord Electro (used to own, loved, was stolen) and the Korg SV-1 (friend owns, very nice) that kind of blur this line of ROMpler and virtual analog, with actual knobs controlling many things, no menu diving. That interface is valuable, and, they have good keybeds, and importantly- great sound.

It seems like, buying a "workstation" you would want a newer one with better processing power, and you would mainly use it for performing rather than recording, assuming you had access to computers and acoustic, analog, electroacoustic instruments, good samples, and audio engineering intelligence. Although a band like Radiohead is sidestepping this by running a MIDI keyboard controller (Fatar keys) into a high end and low profile computer rig, Kontakt running on a macbook through a Metric Halo interface, I am assuming they use solid state hard drives. I am seeing more and more computers on stage, these days. I think the tech. is catching up regarding reliability, stability...portability.

I have a friend that uses a ROMpler as his main instrument, but yeah, he's predictably a piano player, and it allows him to compete with drummers and guitarists. So yes, they are great at replacing things like grand pianos, Rhodes pianos, B3 organs, big heavy, expensive, rare and/or old things with big keyboards.

I suppose the value in decent/good but limited built in sounds through a ****ty interface is it's simplicity, and reliability, versus dealing with an 88-key controller and a separate sound module or computer. For gigging that's pretty imporant. As far as people that do multitrack audio recording into boxes like these--as a friend I know said, after moving on to 4-track cassettes and DAWs, "never again."
Old 14th May 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
fooddude's Avatar
 

I am happier with and love my rompler more than my old J60, CS10, M1000, TX81Z, NBSR, ESQ1..combined :D
Old 14th May 2013
  #24
Lives for gear
 
xanderbeanz's Avatar
I want a Yamaha mu100r, it just looks so fun!
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fooddude View Post
I am happier with and love my rompler more than my old J60, CS10, M1000, TX81Z, NBSR, ESQ1..combined :D
that's what i'm talking about, someone who is working/writing/loving with it.... but i would love to know what that rompler is!
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
shreddoggie's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike vee View Post
Analog is something REAL that never gets old.
This week.
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Phaidon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrok View Post
They're not hated, that's just the perception you'll get by reading a bunch of comments by analog synth snobs on gearslutz. Romplers are great, and the especially good ones (Roland, Yamaha, Kurzweil) are amazing production tools.
This.
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post

but given the definition of "rompler", and the fact that the brilliant kurzweil k2x series falls into it, well, I have no problem with them by definition. It was usually just the lazy execution.

This may be the clue actually. The definition of what a ROMpler is and what it can or can not do. So quickly, the Kurzweil K2xxx series would never fall into the ROMPler category for me.

Most of us should remember the history really and that the word ROMpler was never used when these 'ROMplers' were first introduced.
Instruments with samples and synthesis were simply referred to as S&S synths = sample & synthesis. It didn't matter that the sound source was a 'sample' as long as that sample could be transformed with synthesis tools.

Then the word 'ROMpler' points to a certain limitation: 'ROM Player'. This instantly implies to me that it only plays back samples stored in ROM. And personally I think this is where the ROMPler stigma comes from. The reason is, the first batch of ROMplers like the original iconic EMU Proteus or the Kurzweil K1000 series didn't even have a filter, or in the case of Korg M1, the filter was non-resonant, hence a synthesist would instantly be dissapointed that the main synthsis tools are not available or are compromised. We could play a lush string sound with twinkling bells and heavenly oboes, but if it came to editing those sounds beyond recognition not much could be done besides changing the envelopes, layering, applying some LFO...simple stuff that really didn't alter the basic signature sound of the sample. I think it's here where the dislike of ROMplers originates from.

But then when we move on to instruments like the Roland JV1080 (and the subsequent line of JV/XV), or Kurzweil K2000, EMU Morpheus, Yamaha EX5, Yamaha SY77/99 and others, I find it really difficult to label them 'ROMpler', since despite the fact that they use sample data stored in ROM, that sample data can be manipulated using full blown synthesis tools and processes beyond traditional subtractive synthesis.

For example, JV1080 - uses ring mod and distortion in different signal configurations (that's in addition to the multi-mode filter). Kurzweil has those famous DSP algorithms, EX5 has some nifty DSP stuff of its own that can be applied to samples, SY77 can mutilate samples with FM, Morpheus can obliterate samples with those funky filters...etc.

So in this historical context the sample could be transformed beyond recognition, which was not possible with the first generation of, er, ROMplers.
Thus, for me, ROMpler = limits, S&S = creative synthesis.

So, anyway, that's my personal take on this subject - wether accurate or not.

It's a shame though, that some companies have abandoned those advanced synthesis techniques in favour of a simple signal path. Yamaha is a prime example. They had so much packed into those earlier S&S workstations and now, there is not a trace of VA, PM, FDSP, etc. Good thing that Korg still manages to cram so many synthesis options into some of their synths.
Old 14th May 2013 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
Let me see if I can summarize this for myself... ROMplers are hated because, computers can do it better, with an easier interface and more power, and usually sound better.
I disagree. Romplers like 2080 are much easier to use compared to computers. Just going from one sound to the other is pain in the ass with a computer. One day people might realize how practical romplers have been. And I don't see that a computer sounds better. I take a jv2080 over omnisphere and kontakt.

Compare the analog bass from Trillian with the Spectrasonic card in the jv2080 (bass and drums), there is not much of an improvement, IF ANY AT ALL. In fact, the basses on that card are much less annoying.
Old 14th May 2013
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Synth Buddha's Avatar
Myrok is obviously right. Romplers are really only "hated on" by the ******s who spend more time on forums talking about making music than in studios actually doing it. And these types of people are actually rather rare to come across in the real world. Listen to music by "synth legends" like Jean Michel Jarre, Vangelis, Jan Hammer, Herbie Hancock etc and you'll hear massive rompler use, including well known presets - I've heard rompler presets even in Orbital tracks. That's not to say all well known electronic music producers and composers use them, of course, but there are certainly plenty who do.

Romplers can be very useful tools. They have their drawbacks and limitations just like everything else, but if your goal is making electronic music then chances are there are romplers out there that will work really well for you.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 627 views: 100871
Avatar for damoog
damoog 27th April 2019
replies: 83 views: 9895
Avatar for once was...
once was... 27th August 2020
replies: 7411 views: 770132
Avatar for 7Wave
7Wave 3 weeks ago
replies: 451 views: 48789
Avatar for gear_up
gear_up 5 days ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump