The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Vaping - There's more to it
Old 3 weeks ago
  #61
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
troll
It is called trolling when it is intentional, not when it is just ignorance and stupidity.

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #62
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Anybody ever been to Phuket, Thailand? A good friend is taking me there for my birthday next week.

Apparently cannabis use there is sketchy?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #63
I was just responding to PsychoMonkeys comment that smokers should pay more towards healthcare: I agree and they already do pay extra through tax and contributions.

Is vaping taxed?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #64
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I was just responding to PsychoMonkeys comment that smokers should pay more towards healthcare: I agree and they already do pay extra through tax and contributions.

Is vaping taxed?
I don't know but legal marijuana is heavily taxed.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #65
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Anybody ever been to Phuket, Thailand? A good friend is taking me there for my birthday next week.

Apparently cannabis use there is sketchy?
I would never go anywhere near pot overseas ( maybe Amsterdam). Better safe than sorry.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #66
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Anybody ever been to Phuket, Thailand? A good friend is taking me there for my birthday next week.

Apparently cannabis use there is sketchy?
In Thailand, you risk a prison sentence of up to 5 years. (And those are not nice prisons). Don't do it!

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #67
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Ok.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #68
Governments probably want to put a break on this vaping thing until they can figure out a way to get a nice solid cut out of it. They're probably beside themselves with worry they're missing out. So it needs to be declared a hazardous risk to the world as we know it, while legislation is drafted and the necessary propaganda...I mean...social conditioning...err..I mean public relations are in place to make state skimming and revenue collection a noble and brave service.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #69
Lives for gear
 

Would people please stop conflating vaping of nicotine with vaping of (black market) THC cartridges.


CDC, September 19, 2019:

"Based on initial data from certain states we know: Most patients have reported a history of using e-cigarette products containing THC."



Also, ask yourselves why there a has been no acute outbreak of lung disease from vaping regulated nicotine products in the UK, or anywhere else in the world.

Further information from Dr Farsalinos (Cardiologist) and leading e-cigarette researcher, from 14m 50s:




^I suggest you also watch the video from 3 min, which details the latest junk science about cardiovascular disease (heart attacks) and e-cigarette use.

Tip: if you read the name Stanton Glantz in a piece of anti-vaping research, then it's almost certainly junk science.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Cars and factories are more toxic than quality tobacco and vaping for sure. Perhaps people who use those shouldn't lecture others.
Both cars and factories are evolving though - safety standards and pollution levels are far better than they ever were in previous years. Meanwhile cigarettes are much the same.

Quote:
I lived in East London mid-90's: we started to have pollution problems. Kids at a local school were becoming ill from traffic fumes and the parents took the authority to court to regulate the pollution...essentially that was the start of the motorway protest movement, original GB Reclaim the Streets (the non-political one) and many other citizen power actions.

I looked out the window one morning and it looked like night; a golden, orange dark night: 900 people were admitted to the hospital with breathing problems.
...so you agree, things have improved (even though the number of cars on the road is way higher)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Responsible tobacco-use and vaping is less harmful than driving and industry at a population level. It is low-hanging fruit whereas real harm-reduction occurs through a sense of deep ecology and responsible consumerism....something that many anti-vapers/smokers fail to cognize.
Arguably yes - but the point is that cars and industry serves a purpose. Banging my head hard against the wall once a night is probably more harmful for me than the occasional cigarette. It contains no positive for me, so I don't do it. Same with smoking. I mean, on a personal level, smoking is a fairly dumb thing to do anyway - spend quite a lot of money to make yourself smelly and potentially give yourself serious diseases. Put like that?!

Quote:
The local council - in cahoots with the local 'media' - and local 'politicians' announced a 'smoking-ban' on beaches recently. One might think that this was 'law' but when citizens investigated they admitted it was a 'voluntary ban' - basically they made it up....meanwhile the real story on the beach is the plastic pollution (visible and invisible), the toxic pollution, etc.
- that is what is causing people and animals and plants to be ill, not smoking.
You won't find any argument from me that microplastics and other pollution are far more serious an issue than smoking on a beach. But maybe they felt that non-smokers had the right to enjoy the beach too? this is one thing you've not managed to excuse - the externality of one person enjoying a cigarette encroaching on others. Personally it really doesn't bother me that much, but I know people for whom it does. I don't really feel that someone should have the right to inflict that on others, which is why I suggested the tongue in cheek personal bubble...

FWIW as I'm sure you're aware councils have the right to change the law (ie "make up" new local laws) - they're called bylaws, they're enforceable by council staff and not police much in the same way a parking fine is (which often makes them unenforceable of course!), and it's done (over here at least) by councillors voting to change the Plan of Management of an area of public land. Preventing people from smoking on a beach, if voted on by your local council, is perfectly legal and in no way "voluntary". They would normally do it if enough people campaigned to do so.

It may not be the real issue of pollution in your area, but if done properly there's nothing fake about it. In your case - maybe there WAS no vote? I dunno, wasn't there! but if I was trying to orchestrate a change like this, I know how to do it properly.

Quote:
Essentially, the whole anti- movement is a distraction from the real issues of the day. I refuse to be led by sheep.
who is the sheep and who is the...fox? It depends on your viewpoint right? Sheep could just be another word for common sense...depending on who you are and what you feel about the issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
health effects of 5G
oh God you're one of them...we have some of them out here too....but they tend to be bored housewives with no real understanding of technology here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I was just responding to PsychoMonkeys comment that smokers should pay more towards healthcare: I agree and they already do pay extra through tax and contributions.
Which I totally forgot (although not contributions; we all pay the same NI). But then you claimed there were health benefits too, that participating in sports could have the same health risks and totally ignored the passive smoking effect...so kinda lost me from there.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #71
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
Tip: if you read the name Stanton Glantz in a piece of anti-vaping research, then it's almost certainly junk science.
Looked him up - there's always one or two crusaders in any medical debate, busy as mice getting ready for winter, chewing up and spitting out papers.

You make some good points in your post.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #72
@ psycho_monkey

Apologies but I don't have time (or inclination) to engage in a lengthy conversation; but this is an interesting thread (thanks to Sounds Great who I hope is enjoying the Phuket sunshine).

From the 1860's on, as the Industrial Revolution faded, my home town was one of the most polluted places in the world, centre of the copper industry, largest steel works in Europe, large oil refinery, chemical plants, nuclear plants, a toxic wastedump post-WWII.

In the 1960's, as a kid, pollution was everywhere: you could see it, taste it, smell it, the pollution permeated every aspect of life.

The difference now is that they've taken the colour and smell away so you can't see the pollution. It's still there but invisible.

Re: 5G - maybe those bored housewives understand phased-array technology.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #73
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
Would people please stop conflating vaping of nicotine with vaping of (black market) THC cartridges.
I honestly don't think people are doing that. It might look that way though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
Further information from Dr Farsalinos (Cardiologist) and leading e-cigarette researcher,
I'm actually not against individuals vaping, nor am I against them smoking tobacco (I lean "libertarian" on that), but I'd say that there's a bit of a red flag that goes up in my tiny dumb head whenever I google a person like that and literally all the search results refer to that person advocating for or against one thing.. in this case against anti-vaping.

I think it's different compared to say for example googling someone like Sean Carroll and almost all hits are on theoretical physics or QFT specifically and only one or two are on atheism. So someone using him as an argument for atheism would to me - admittedly superficially - look different.

Mind you, I'm not saying Farsalinos is wrong, just that the search hits fit a 'pattern'...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #74
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
there's always one or two crusaders in any medical debate, busy as mice getting ready for winter, chewing up and spitting out papers.
I agree with this. I think we're unfortunately (or fortunately) at a time when we can see more research papers and see the errors in how they're conducted. Just because something is called "science" doesn't actually mean it holds up to (correct) peer review scrutiny, or even follows the scientific method to begin with. The health field in general and particularly nutrition I'd say is just filled with questionable research.

The flip side of that though is that not everyone is good at both parsing and understanding research. So it's like we've got both better tools to be public watchdogs against bad research yet on the other hands got more food for our inner Dunning-Kruger tendencies... or biases or whatever... you get the point I think...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Mind you, I'm not saying Farsalinos is wrong, just that the search hits fit a 'pattern'...

You can't judge his research by Google search results.

Read his peer reviewed research and tell me what you think is wrong with that research.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #76
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
You can't judge his research by Google search results.
I didn't say that I could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
Read his peer reviewed research and tell me what you think is wrong with that research.
I watched the video.

Unfortunately I think it would have been much better for him to just focus on the very last minute or two as it provides the by far strongest points. The majority of the video seems odd to me in that it seems to make the case against vaping contributing to cardiovascular diseases yet uses only specifically myocardial infarction as evidence. CD isn't limited to MI and thus it's an implied conclusion that just doesn't follow from the argument.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #77
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post

Re: 5G - maybe those bored housewives understand phased-array technology.
Arthur, I could have guessed your opinion of 5G simply based on your posts re: other similar topics. It would be a fools errand to argue with you on this - your mind is made up.

There are reliable, reasonable sources available (to those with an open mind) that express a view contrary to yours, if one cares to google without bias.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #78
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
... I'd say that there's a bit of a red flag that goes up in my tiny dumb head whenever I google a person like that and literally all the search results refer to that person advocating for or against one thing.. in this case against anti-vaping.

The red flag went up in your head without you reading any of his research.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
... it seems to make the case against vaping contributing to cardiovascular diseases yet uses only specifically myocardial infarction as evidence.
He's got plenty of other research you can read. Also, there are plenty of other vape researchers coming to the same conclusion that vaping nicotine is drastically less harmful than smoking cigarettes.

And he's specifically only talking about heart attacks because he's critiquing one recent piece of dishonest research by Stanton Glantz, where Glantz failed to mention in his research that "the majority of the 38 patients in the study who had heart attacks had them before they started vaping - by an average of 10 years earlier" (Brad Rodu):

USA Today: Study linking vaping to heart attacks muddied amid spat between two tobacco researchers
Old 3 weeks ago
  #79
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
[MENTION=19453]

but this is an interesting thread (thanks to Sounds Great who I hope is enjoying the Phuket sunshine).
Thanks! But I'm not there yet, looking forward to those beautiful sunsets next week.


(found on the internet)
Attached Thumbnails
Vaping - There's more to it-villa-horizon-phuket-sunset.jpg  
Old 3 weeks ago
  #80
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
Honestly everyone, if you can, stop smoking AND vaping, it leads to a very very very horrible outcome. Consuming THC isnt ideal or the same but its the "safer" alternative.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #81
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
The red flag went up in your head without you reading any of his research.
Yes, I know. What's your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
He's got plenty of other research you can read.
Yes, but a lot of the recent discussion relates to US vaping deaths, and in fact he ends his video making very good points about exactly that.

Now, like I said, that other research is irrelevant to the fact that you posted a video in which he implies that there isn't an issue with a broader category of illnesses based on disproving one specific subset not being an issue. That's illogical unless he can deduce that within the argument he made, which he didn't do.

So again, his points at the end were quite good but the rest was just unnecessary, and completely irrelevant to the recent discussion we were having about the alarm over vaping in the US, specifically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
Also, there are plenty of other vape researchers coming to the same conclusion that vaping nicotine is drastically less harmful than smoking cigarettes.
So? I neither dispute they came to that conclusion or that the conclusion is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
And he's specifically only talking about heart attacks because he's critiquing one recent piece of dishonest research by Stanton Glantz, where Glantz failed to mention in his research that "the majority of the 38 patients in the study who had heart attacks had them before they started vaping - by an average of 10 years earlier"
But just because he can disprove Glantz' proposition that vaping may have lead to hart attacks doesn't mean he can take that and make statements about cardiac disease in general. He can target Glantz specifically all he wants to, and he can be 100% successful in disputing Glantz, but that doesn't mean the other conclusion follows.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #82
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Same with smoking. I mean, on a personal level, smoking is a fairly dumb thing to do anyway - spend quite a lot of money to make yourself smelly and potentially give yourself serious diseases. Put like that?!
You can put it like that, but that's sorta picking at obvious things and not at all explaining why people still smoke despite knowing all its health hazards. That's like saying the solution to unwanted pregnancies is abstinence.

Why was it that tobacco spread so fast after its discovery in the new world? It was one of the most (if not the most) traded commodity (in many cases acting as cash) during the 15-17th centuries, and its use was ubiquitous from the lowest to the highest/noble classes.

What was initially a drug used by indigenous Americans for medicinal and spiritual purposes became a daily staple for much of Europe and eventually the rest of the world.

My point I guess, is that it's a complex issue, one that can't be explained away by simple observations, no more in the sense many drinking behaviors are not in the least rational or healthy, some deadly to not only the imbiber but others around that person; yet many still drink with those risks.

How should it be put like? I don't know exactly. I think there's been centuries of societal and cultural influence as to how tobacco got to where it is now (exacerbated by the duplicitous machinations of the modern tobacco industry) , and it's not such an easy thing to rub out willy nilly as if it's an easy matter.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #83
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
The majority of the video seems odd to me in that it seems to make the case against vaping contributing to cardiovascular diseases yet uses only specifically myocardial infarction as evidence.
You're going to have to quote the video because I'm struggling to see where in "the majority of the video" he's making the case "against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease".

I just watched it from beginning to end and from what I can see he only mentions cardiovascular disease (CVD) briefly:

(1) At 3m 08s, he briefly mention CVD 'risk factors' once

(2) Then at 12m 56s he briefly talks about the inverse association of duration of smoking cessation/quitting and CVD, but then quickly goes on to talk about the association between duration of smoking cessation and myocardial infarction.

(3) Then right at the end of the video he again briefly mentions the need for further data/research on "longer duration of e-cigarette use" to "understand the effects of the products on CV health".


So how can it be the case that in the "majority of the video seems odd to me in that it seems to make the case against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease" when he barely mentions CVD in the video. At all other times he talks about myocardial infarction because that is what he's critiquing in the Glantz study.

Please quote where he's making the case "against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease" other than his three brief mentions of CVD listed above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
he implies that there isn't an issue with a broader category of illnesses
How does he imply this? Please quote me where in the video he is implying this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But just because he can disprove Glantz' proposition that vaping may have lead to hart attacks doesn't mean he can take that and make statements about cardiac disease in general.
Again, where specifically in the video does he make a statement or implication about CVD in general, other than the three brief points I've listed above.

Last edited by DanRand; 3 weeks ago at 09:53 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #84
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
You're going to have to quote the video because I'm struggling to see where in "the majority of the video" he's making the case "against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease".

I just watched it from beginning to end and from what I can see he only mentions cardiovascular disease (CVD) briefly:

(1) At 3m 08s, he briefly mention CVD 'risk factors' once

(2) Then at 12m 56s he briefly talks about the inverse association of duration of smoking cessation/quitting and CVD, but then quickly goes on to talk about the association between duration of smoking cessation and myocardial infarction.

(3) Then right at the end of the video he again briefly mentions the need for further data/research on "longer duration of e-cigarette use" to "understand the effects of the products on CV health".


So how can it be the case that in the "majority of the video seems odd to me in that it seems to make the case against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease" when he barely mentions CVD in the video. At all other times he talks about myocardial infarction because that is what he's critiquing in the Glantz study.

Please quote where he's making the case "against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease" other than his three brief mentions of CVD listed above.




How does he imply this? Please quote me where in the video he is implying this.





Again, where specifically in the video does he make a statement or implication about CVD in general, other than the three brief points I've listed above.
Shouldnt base everything on one video. Talk to some actual professionals about it and gather info before disregarding any information and vice versa.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #85
Lives for gear
 

I'm not.

I've been reading peer reviewed nicotine vape research, scientific reviews & research blogs about vaping nearly every day for the past 5 years.

I know what the majority of professionals are saying about vaping nicotine.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #86
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
You're going to have to quote the video
Well let me first say that you have a great choice here: You can either take a glass-is-half-full approach and be happy that I agree with the guy's argument toward the end of the video related to the recent vaping illness outbreak, and that I am against banning vaping in general... or you can keep arguing this relatively minor point, which seems like more of a glass-is-half-empty-want-to-keep-arguing-because-I-don't-want-to-think-I'm-wrong-here... approach...

Your call obviously...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
I'm struggling to see where in "the majority of the video" he's making the case "against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease".

I just watched it from beginning to end and from what I can see he only mentions cardiovascular disease (CVD) briefly:

(1) At 3m 08s, he briefly mention CVD 'risk factors' once

(2) Then at 12m 56s he briefly talks about the inverse association of duration of smoking cessation/quitting and CVD, but then quickly goes on to talk about the association of duration of smoking cessation and myocardial infarction.

(3) Then right at the end of the video he again briefly mentions the need for further data/research on "longer duration of e-cigarette use" to "understand the effects of the products on CV health".

So how can it be the case that in the "majority of the video seems odd to me in that it seems to make the case against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease" when he barely mentions CVD in the video. At all other times he talks about myocardial infarction because that is what he's critiquing in the Glantz study.

Please quote where he's making the case "against vaping contributing to cardiovascular disease" other than his three brief mentions of CVD listed above.

How does he imply this? Please quote me where in the video he is implying this.

Again, where specifically in the video does he make a statement or implication about CVD in general, other than the three brief points I've listed above.
Normally when you have a talk at a conference you state the general topic and thesis at the beginning of the talk, and then you move on to justify it, or prove it, and then wrap it up with your conclusions and reiteration at the end of it.

"the association between cardiovascular disease (heart attacks) and e-cigarette use" gives the impression that the term "cardiovascular disease" means "heart attacks", when in fact it does not. The latter is a subset. If it was all about debunking some other person's study then that's what should have been the description.

In the beginning of his talk starts with talking about the general diseases or risk factors that people attribute to vaping...:

"I'm going to focus on two main issues" followed by briefly questioning a variety of "concerns about e-cigarette and smoking-related disease".. so far no specificity.. followed then by "But I'm going to focus on some studies on two mainly studies and some... eh.. conference presentations.. about the risk.. eh about e-cigarettes increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease". (ends at 2:30)

So that's the beginning of the talk and it is implying that he is about to talk about the risk of e-cigarettes increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease, period. He didn't say "I'm going to disprove studies that claim e-cigs contribute to cardiac arrest incidents" or something similarly specific.

---

Out of curiosity; does he get money from companies that stand to benefit from sales of e-cigs/vapes?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #87
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
I'm not.

I've been reading peer reviewed nicotine vape research, scientific reviews & research blogs about vaping nearly every day for the past 5 years.

I know what the majority of professionals are saying about vaping nicotine.
Fair enough. Ill leave this one nugget here and let you guys to debate it. Everyone is concentrating on the immediate effects of vaping, but the mid to long term is greatly overlooked. Drying of the mucociliary escalator and mucosal membranes are extremely scary and the effects it has on patients is truly unbearable. When someone is telling you they cant breathe and there is literally nothing you can do about it is heartbreaking and the desperation on patients faces is worse than stories about someone dying suddenly.

THC and nicotine have bad side effects on the body but pale in comparison to what the actual vapor and smoke do to the body. Couple that with the fact that the majority of people who vape do it WAY more than people who smoke and you can see why its caused such a state of alarm.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #88
So breathing in chemical laden vapours could pose a health risk. Whowouldofthunkit.

Moderation is the key with most things in life.

I've jacked in the smokes after being a heroic toker for 40 years.
Didn't choose vaping because why would I swap one pointless habit for another.
Oh and when I say heroic, I mean I could inhale the smoke from a small garden bonfire with ease.

Once I've jacked-in the heroin habit I'll be a free man.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #89
Lives for gear
 

So he briefly mentions CVD, but then when critiquing the Glantz study only once refers to CVD in relation duration of smoking cessation. This doesn't fit the characterisation of "the majority of the video".


RE: Funding

I think the institute he works for has received some funding from E-Cigarette companies. But most of his peer-reviewed studies I've read have received no funding.

I can point you to plenty of other research that received no funding from any vape related companies. Cancer Research UK, Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England...



Just one last word on Stanton Glantz though, as his junk science will cost lives if smokers carry on smoking because of his advice not to try vaping. I just can't let that go without some further words. His dishonest and shoddy research has a long history and here is just some of the evidence against him:


Vaping risk compared to smoking: challenging a false and dangerous claim by Professor Stanton Glantz


(^Clive Bates used to run Action On Smoking And Health, a UK anti-smoking organisation)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #90
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
So he briefly mentions CVD, but then when critiquing the Glantz study only once refers to CVD in relation duration of smoking cessation. This doesn't fit the characterisation of "the majority of the video".
Like I said, typically a talk or paper begins with a thesis and is followed by the assertions and reasoning that supposedly support that thesis. The majority of the video seems indeed to be about how vaping doesn't lead to cardiac disease with the argument being that there's no proof that it leads specifically to cardiac arrest.

I said "the majority" because towards the end of the video he actually changes topic and starts talking about the current outbreak here in the US. That section to me seems like a different point he's making, along with a different set of objections to why vaping in general would be the cause.

The video plays as if it has those two points being made. He's conflating CVD with 'heart attacks' and that gives a poor impression for those not paying attention. But I agree with his criticism both of Glantz' paper as well as the argument for vaping itself being the cause for this outbreak.

You're making a hen out of a feather.
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump