The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Do recording techniques follow technology??? Audio Interfaces
Old 2nd September 2007
  #1
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

Do recording techniques follow technology???

Here’s an interesting question...

Do recording techniques follow technology or does technology follow recording technique? In other words, does technique imply certain technology in the studio. Does technique command technology that would not be there if it wasn’t for the technique?

For instance: I think that the AMS “Non-Linear”, or gated reverb program was a definite response to a musical demand.

i.e: The Phil Collins and David Bowie drum sound, using gated reverb on the drums in the early 1980’s.

Look at it this way, if we are to say that technology has kept up with recording technique, then can we say that multi-track recording has made it possible to make a recording that is that is virtually free of technical errors.

Or is it that multi-track recording has made it possible to make a recording that is virtually free of musical errors.

Obviously, it’s a bit of both. Personally, I lean a lot to the musical side of that issue. I think it’s more important to produce music that is as good as we can make it.

I have always thought of my mixes as being “Sonic Sculptures”. For me, the real adventure in modern popular music mixing, is in projecting my concept of reality in the music I record. I don’t very often strive for technical, virtual reality.

To me, the over-all "Musical-Sense" of a piece of music is the most important thing to consider. I like to let the music tell me what it needs in the way of recording and mixing values.

A good song, or piece of music, seems to have a life of it's own. In other words let the music "Tell us what to do next". In a mix-down session, if we work for hours to try to make a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum sound good, and in our heart if hearts we know it sounds awful, the fact is; the song doesn’t want a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum. Don't try and force it. I don’t think we can ever win out over the personality of the song. The music will always triumph.

Of course, to me.... It’s All About The Music.....

What do you think???

Bruce Swedien
Old 2nd September 2007
  #2
Lives for gear
i think we're fortunate to be able to read comments like these from people like you, on this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
A good song, or piece of music, seems to have a life of it's own. In other words let the music "Tell us what to do next".
in the old days, technology served the purpose of recording a performance.

now, it seems technology has become an integral part of the performance itself. this is good or bad depending on how it's implemented; as you said, if you put the cart before the horse (ie trying to make a gated reverb fit regardless of what's called for), then technology gets in the way.

when SSL Es first came out, RCA in mexico city bought one. went to a string session there, and saw that gates and heavy compression were being used on every channel. all the little lights looked impressive, but it sure sounded like crap.
Old 2nd September 2007
  #3
Lives for gear
 
picksail's Avatar
 

On a musical level, I believe that contemporary music has been redefined by recording techniques/technology.

Beat Detective, sound replacement, vocal tuning and alignment all play a major role in today's pop music. I do feel that this "sound" is derived from hip-hop and electronic music, where quantization and MIDI programming is the "sound". Loops, samples and break-beats implemented into even country music. It's has affected all of popular music. I think it's great.

Hey, we're actually taking live drums and manipulating them to resemble sampled drums. Gotta love the irony.
Old 2nd September 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

While this is just opinion, my take is the core technology is developed for for other applications that can support the huge development costs. NASA and military needs have driven many technology advancements. A little closer to home we have market size or selling volume dominating investment resources. Telephones, PC, and consumer electronics are routinely the tail that wags the recording studio dog.

When markets overlap or interact sometimes the results are interesting. IIRC A computer sound card company started out licensing a library of sounds for the PC sound card market and ended up buying the keyboard company outright as cheaper than making royalty payments.

The beauty of modern technologies with major software components is that writing a new program can teach the digital hardware to do new tricks. It seems like there has been a some adjustment called for due to studio recording gear losing the huge headroom advantage it used to enjoy over consumer media, but the consumer side seems to be regressing while studio gear continues to slowly advance.

IMO when a large company makes investments in pushing the technology, they often have an eye on trying the grab a lion's share of the back end consumer playback market. Developing the digital audio technology wasn't to sell a handful of digital recorders, it was to sell millions of CD players.

There have been several clever engineer/enteprenuers who adapted say a VCR technology to audio recording, but they eventually get eclipsed by technology from yet another different consumer market (computer hard drives). This process will likely continue with new technologies filtering down into lower volume markets.

JR
Old 3rd September 2007
  #5
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

i know it's just a matter of time before i get an a20 in here and unplug the daw forever.

i've forgotten what it's like to compose completely linearly!

i'm working on two songs right now, i think when i wrap them up i'm going to do a recording beatles style, building from the ground up, console pre's only, submixing and bouncing as i go to stay within a small track count limitation (say, 8), and when i mix i'll only use a fixed low and high shelf and a fixed mid peak. that should prove fascinating.

how many people today deliberately experiment with *reducing* their options, with *choosing* serious limitations in order to bring as much energy to bear on the music as possible? maybe "less is more' goes beyond composition and applies to the entire process?

the u.s. has a deeply ingrained cultural myth that an increase in the quantity of choices equates to greater freedom and, therefore, to greater fulfillment. i am questioning this myth deeply, and a lot of recent cognitive science is beginning to uncover that there's a point beyond which increasing the options creates a psychological liability. as it turns out, you can say that 'too much of a good thing' is roughly the same as saying 'too many good things'; more of more is counterproductive to process and happiness.

anyone want to trade a 1" scully for my logic pro 7 dongle?


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #6
Lives for gear
 

I really think a big issue is one that's probably not going to be popular around here, but I know that I fall into. Too many musicians are trying to double as producers and engineers. How can we help it? Most of us started out by just wanting a 4 track to capture ideas and flush them out without spending countless hours with the rest of the band. Or, wasting expensive (at the time) studio time. Then, the gear got better and better. The bar at the low end has been raised to the point where it does make sense to grab a rack of API pres and do it yourself. But, this is sometimes bad for the songwriter/musician. They're spending too much time messing around trying to become a mediocre engineer instead of a great songwriter/performer. Some folks can do this, but most can't.
This is a little off topic, but UBK's post just made me think of this. I know it's something that I've struggled with as well.

later,

m
Old 3rd September 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 

Oh...back to Bruce's post. I think that's technology part is always going to be there in our "gotta have it now and easy" world. The gated reverb example is a good one. Someone did it first and it was hugely successful and aped. Most studios already had gates and reverbs, right. But, the reverb manufacturers just put them together in a preset or fuction that made it easier to setup.
That's no different than any other technology like software. Think about the various things you do with Word or Photoshop or whatever. If a series of steps becomes popular or something that people do, the software guys will develop this into a single button or key stroke. Red eye reduction in Photoshop is one that jumps out at me. So, I don't know if this makes it any better as it could have been accomplished before, like the gated reverbs, but now it's a preset/one step and anyone can do it fairly easily. Lowest common denominator.

later,

m
Old 3rd September 2007
  #8
Gear Maniac
 
Acko's Avatar
 

Bruce, For myself I can apply your sentiment all the way back to the very inception of a composition. When writing, the mood dictates the groove, the groove dictates the bassline, the melody the lyric and so on, I'm not inclined to even allow the technology of my own brain to get in the way of the musical intention. Sure, I have the tools, I've experimented with them sufficiently, but to use them just because I can, I feel would be missing the point and doing a diservice to the the music. So much of this is about instinct, we need to bring our mastery of the tools into the sphere of our musical instinct and be well practiced so that the process may flow naturally.

Jay
Old 3rd September 2007
  #9
Lives for gear
Quite honestly, Bruce, we have gone far too far.

Yes, taking out the odd bum note and redefining the drums, adding reverb and doing all the other things that create a 'soundscape' is fine and dandy, but now we are deep into La-La Land territory. Next week I shall be editing Bach, note for note. It will not be a performance any more, but just a technical excersise.

We have completely lost sight of the performance. Now every drum hit matches the MIDI map, every voice is Autotuned and every BV harmonized.

I went to a great deal of trouble, building a drum room that has wooden curved reflectors on the wall and reflectors on the ceiling and a nice, big, wooden riser, only to have every band and every visiting engineer strive to get the sound of someone beating a cardboard box with a dead herring.

Technology used to follow the music (flangers were built AFTER the Small Faces recorded Itchicoo Park) but now silly things are done simply because they are technically possible. The result is noise and not music.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #10
Gear Head
 
drumzy's Avatar
 

"the u.s. has a deeply ingrained cultural myth that an increase in the quantity of choices equates to greater freedom and, therefore, to greater fulfillment."

don't know if you saw this YouTube - TEDTalks: Barry Schwartz (2005)
but your comment reminded me of it.

too much choice = too much time consumed by evaluating options and deciding what choices to make. that's not freedom, nor is it liberating.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #11
War of the worlds (the original) was made because they could. They had the synths and the multitrack invironment so they did it. It was a statement and the implications of that statement has influenced whole mankind.

In the beginning there are musicians, then there is the musically influenced craftsman who builds a tool. Then there is the musical statement. Then there are more tools untill a person or a group makes it into a political/sociological statement.

Michael Jackson had a facejob. Because he could. Not because he was musically influenced. Sometimes Music and technology can do that.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #12
Lives for gear
 
John Moran's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post

Technology used to follow the music (flangers were built AFTER the Small Faces recorded Itchicoo Park) but now silly things are done simply because they are technically possible. The result is noise and not music.


i'll add that the destruction of the guild system in recording where apprentices learned from experienced engineers and producers in working environments has compounded this problem. just because one can do something doesn't mean it is musically necessary nor valid nor creative. those skills must be developed and learned.

creativity comes from a new idea skillfully put into action and not from a monkey pressing a button on a mass produced box that all the other monkeys have too.

John Moran
Houston, TX
Old 3rd September 2007
  #13
Gear Maniac
 
brad347's Avatar
 

Worth considering with respect to this topic I think is what seems to be a shift in motives for the creation of new technology.

It seems that increasing amounts of new technology are less about "doing something better" and more about "doing something that's just as good (or 'close enough') easier, faster, and cheaper."

It seems that, when something like analog tape recording or the capacitor microphone were invented, it was all about "We can capture this sound more effectively, and as technology improves the sound is getting better and better."

However, it seems that the invention of the integrated circuit, digital recording, CNC manufacturing, etc. seems to be more geared toward "wow, look how small/economical/easy-to-use/flexible we can make this thing!"

This is maybe why people seek out vintage instruments and gear, because often those things seem to have at least aspired to be of the highest quality possible, all else be damned. There are some new products like that as well. Inerestingly, many are copies of or variations on similar vintage pieces.

I'd be interested to hear what Bruce, who has been there through much of the development of the technology we know, would have to say about that (agree or disagree) and how it may color the current question.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Recording techniques follow technology??

For classical music recording techniques, the answer is no.

I like it that way.

Everyone has something (usually junky) to sell. Especially these days.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post

how many people today deliberately experiment with *reducing* their options, with *choosing* serious limitations in order to bring as much energy to bear on the music as possible? maybe "less is more' goes beyond composition and applies to the entire process?


.
I think a lot of people do this and have done this, "indie" bands and others, the most famous probably The White Stripes at this point.

The Beatles were possibly the first to consciously "get back", and then both Lennon and McCartney's first solo albums got back, and I believe many followed their lead. (But they prove that it doesn't really matter, whether pushing the technology or eschewing...).

And then punk, of course, decided to strip back the talent as well as the production and tracks and slickness (much like the Stripes do today).

But I think many more will go down this road as soon as the whole DAW thing wears off.

So much technology that should be making life easier ends up making life harder or just as hard or adds all kinds of drawbacks, (and it's certainly debatable whether the final product is any better or any worse). I was wondering in some thread a few weeks ago whether people are having an easier time with their DAWs and I don't think anyone said "yes".
Old 3rd September 2007
  #16
Lives for gear
 
blackcom's Avatar
 

Bruce, think about this.

Before, when recording metal drums one would record what the drummer could play.

Nowdays, in allmost all modern metal productions all drums are edited to death to sound more machine-like...EVEN when the drummer is awesome to begin with.

Because the avarage 14-year old kid listening to metal actually LIKES qunatized drums (even if he don't really know if himself) everyone has to edit their dums now...it's like a curse, cause the listener "demands" it now as it's possible.

...i, know...i'm a bit off here....but I certainly think technology have changed at least this very aspect of metal recording....
Old 4th September 2007
  #17
Lives for gear
 
yrplace's Avatar
 

Once upon a time (and Bruce was there) the limits of recording technology , say pre 8 track meant that in order to cut the required 3-4 tracks in a 3 hr session you had to have musicians that you knew could deliver. Because if the players weren't good enough, you couldn't fix it later and you didn't get the track and wasted a whole lot of money.

The result was either you could play good enough or they got someone who could. So you had 8-16 (or more) players live in a stuido and with at most 4 tracks available, the engineer had to get a sound with everyone playing and even sometimes singing together. I have done a lot of archive work for the Beach Boys and others and I am always knocked out by how great guys like LA's "wrecking crew" played right from the very first take and that's why they were the first call players for years.

The technology also meant that since you wouldn't be redoing individual instruments the bleed of instruments into the difft mics was a plus in creating the sound making it bigger and much much more "organic".

Oh yes and most of the time no one wore headphones or knew what the track actually sounded like unless they heard a playback.

When 8 track and especially 16 track came along suddenly isolation became a requirement which meant much deader studios, headphones and overdubbing. This isn't to say that records made this way were worse just difft. although many 8 track masters from the period (and 16 trk) do not sound as good becuase the tape machines didn't record as well as the older 3 and 4 tracks.

And of course we could talk about how Pro Tools and the cheap availability of recording systems with more capability than the best pro studio had 20 years ago, has lead to people making records in their living rooms without the help of professional engineers, producers or properly designed studios.

While some good sounding records have been made this way I suppose, for the most part imo it has dramatically lowered the quality of recordings and along with the use of the MP3 has quality of music recocording going backward sonicaly while advancing technologicaly.

From the Edison cylinder to wax, tape , vinyl and digital delivery mediums, the quality of recorded music has steadily improved. Now we are going backwards.

Scary times.........
Old 4th September 2007
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yrplace View Post

And of course we could talk about how Pro Tools and the cheap availability of recording systems with more capability than the best pro studio had 20 years ago, has lead to people making records in their living rooms without the help of professional engineers, producers or properly designed studios.

While some good sounding records have been made this way I suppose, for the most part imo it has dramatically lowered the quality of recordings and along with the use of the MP3 has quality of music recocording going backward sonicaly while advancing technologicaly.

From the Edison cylinder to wax, tape , vinyl and digital delivery mediums, the quality of recorded music has steadily improved. Now we are going backwards.
Are professionally released albums made in living rooms without engineers and producers and the rest? Which ones?

Also, are mp3s worse than 45s or walkmans?

Was the rap explosion of 2 turntables and a mic better? Or the various punk and "lo-fi" trends?

There always seems to be a back and forth thing.
Old 4th September 2007
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP11 View Post
Was the rap explosion of 2 turntables and a mic better? Or the various punk and "lo-fi" trends?

There always seems to be a back and forth thing.
Rap, Punk and lo-fi trends are from the side of the musician, not the engineer. I think that's what gets muddy. Are we talking about the musicians/music or the engineer/producer role? Or, in the modern day DAW recording, is that line so blurred, that it's becoming one? Maybe this is correct with certain artists that use technology as an instrument.

later,

m
Old 4th September 2007
  #20
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

As somebody implied above, technology can be good if it enhances the music but it's bad when its main purpose becomes polishing ugliness into characterless mediocrity.
Old 4th September 2007
  #21
Improvements in technology are always striving to fill a need. Where the soul-searching should begin is: what are "needs"?

Automation in mixing is a "good" need: it makes it possible to sculpt the track in ways that your mere human fingers on a fader could never do. Whereas auto-tuning is just pandering to a singer that can't be bothered to perfect their craft.

There's something that's exhilirating about a fantastic performance, I think the slipperly slope starts when your technology departs from capturing the exhiliarity and seeks to create it, by fraud.
Old 4th September 2007
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Alex Niedt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by picksail View Post
On a musical level, I believe that contemporary music has been redefined by recording techniques/technology.

Beat Detective, sound replacement, vocal tuning and alignment all play a major role in today's pop music. I do feel that this "sound" is derived from hip-hop and electronic music, where quantization and MIDI programming is the "sound". Loops, samples and break-beats implemented into even country music. It's has affected all of popular music. I think it's great.

Hey, we're actually taking live drums and manipulating them to resemble sampled drums. Gotta love the irony.
I'm very happy to read this here. It seems like all I ever come across on Gearslutz is complaints about these things. I think it's wonderful to embrace it and see it as its own creature.
Old 4th September 2007
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Alex Niedt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
A good song, or piece of music, seems to have a life of it's own. In other words let the music "Tell us what to do next". In a mix-down session, if we work for hours to try to make a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum sound good, and in our heart if hearts we know it sounds awful, the fact is; the song doesn’t want a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum. Don't try and force it. I don’t think we can ever win out over the personality of the song. The music will always triumph.
This quote should be a must-read for everyone on the forum.

Sure did take me a while to figure that one out...
Old 4th September 2007
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
technology can be good if it enhances the music but it's bad when its main purpose becomes polishing ugliness into characterless mediocrity.
Lamentably true..

But that seems to be 'the gig' so often these days... there can be a schism between discerning artistic merit and putting food on the table for a studio owner, engineer or producer. Recording "trash for cash" is a common phenomenon and even the big hitter producers have a few less than stellar acts they keep off their discography's.. Gotta pay the rent...

Still a studio experience that has a little educational aspect to it by turning around musicians and sending them off realizing that they might need to develop their playing more, or that drummers need weekly drum lessons or at least do some practice pad work at home between those once a week rehearsals etc.. That has got to help in some small way..

Old 4th September 2007
  #25
Lives for gear
 
beingmf's Avatar
 

thinking about stuff like that a lot recently, may i point out something else:
i think in music, like in every other discipline of art, technology should merely serve the way the artist wants to communicate his feelings. self-reflective "art" (like lo-fi/punk etc.) imho shouldn't be considered "art" cause it's just a questioning of its very own medium (like: go to the cinema only to find yourself reading a report about the creation of the screenplay).
the engineer - as creative as he may be - should only support the artist in his effort to communicate the very best with a yet unknown audience. ok - nothing new, nothing special.
BUT: try to name 10 artists who "have something to say" artistically. and with "artistically" i mean not a "deconstruction" of the past or endless - ironic or not - citations of melodies. i mean something which is not at all arbitrary. starting from there it should be great fun to develop new (?) techniques to achieve 100%. when i don't know/feel what a tune is about, why the artist chose this and that way to play an instrument, i simply won't be able to decide which element is important to work out or why existing technology is not (good) enough.
there's not enough visionaries out there, so maybe we should re-invent the terms "music" (as an art form) and "acoustic wallpaper" (as craftwork, where the only criteria is "oh, that's well done/that sounds nice/that's indeed original").
Old 4th September 2007
  #26
Gear Addict
 
Dale's Avatar
 

there was an article in the june6,2005 new yorker entitled

"the record effect; how technology has transformed the sound of music"
Alex Ross / critic at large

it list three books

"capturing sound; how technology has changed music"
Mark Katz

"setting the record straight; a material history of classical recording"
Colin Syme

"performing music in the age of recording"
Robert Phillips

music performance has changed!!!
Old 4th September 2007
  #27
Gear Maniac
 
Tom VDH's Avatar
 

Straight answer to Bruce's question:

Like you said, I also think it's little bit of both...

I still have a long way to go before reaching the altitude you fly at (knowledge and experience wise) but to me most technology has come to fill a need/gap/demand coming from the industry.

Because some people have such and such recording techniques will often imply that others will come up with potential solutions to solve potential issues implied by those techniques.
Sometimes it is just to make things easier (improved workflow).

Multi-tracks, Digital reverbs and delays, Fx in general, compressors, drum machines, synth and samplers are examples that come to my mind...

But technology obviously influences production techniques in return. How Early Techno or House producers started to use the Roland TR drum machine series, or what Rap producers would do with samplers is imo a good example of how technology can create a whole new stream of techniques.

Now, as with everything, you need the right vision and the right heart to know how to use technology in an artistic way. Give a Stenway to a donkey, I doubt he'll come up with a 'Hit' (...should try though )
AND you also need the right position, because like Jules said the vast majority gotta pay the rent, and in this case you're glad Auto-Tune saved your day...

Thanks for this thread Bruce!
Old 4th September 2007
  #28
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
Whereas auto-tuning is just pandering to a singer that can't be bothered to perfect their craft.

respectfully, that comes across as a bit too sweeping and the judgment is, imo, unfounded.

in my experience --- as an engineer, as a musician and muso, and as a voice student who participated in a lot of group workshops with my teacher --- some people will always have some degree of pitchiness in their vocal delivery, and some will have a *lot*. it is not necessarily lack of effort, or discipline, or understanding of technique, because i watched people pay lots of money and work very hard with a world-class teacher. it is because they just can't hear it, they can't hear the pitch variations to the same degree that others can.

to be fair, there are indeed a lot of musicians (not just singers) who don't really practice, and autotune can be an effective crutch for their performance shortcomings. but i'd argue that everyone, talented and untalented, disciplined and slackass, is equally entitled to make and express their art, and to use whatever tools they see fit to make it sound as close to the vision in their head as they can get it. that this is a "bad" thing in some people's minds is an alien concept to me.

i got a gps that navigates far better than i ever could, i got a sonic toothbrush that cleans my teeth far better than i ever could, so i use these tools to improve my experience and enjoyment of life... what makes music creation so holy and sacred that it is exempt from this same analysis? if anything, i like to think art is beholden to none of our rules and strictures, that expression by any means is laudable and desirable.


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 4th September 2007
  #29
Lives for gear
 

I'll take the stance that technique follows technology, meaning technology precedes new techniques.

The reason is that very early on, the technique, and the technology took divergent paths. The technique is about capturing sound, how to mix in my mind. Musicians aren't the best at this. However, it was musicians that heard a flange and went "whoah, that's an instrument! Let me play with it." A musician heard that tape put on backwards accidentally and said "whoah, that's an instrument! Let me play with it."

As a guitar player, I can say absolutely that genres exist because of modified Marshalls and Mesa Boogie coming into existence. You just can't play super heavy metal on a JTM-45.

Take someone like Queen. They used technology to create something that probably wouldn't have even occured to them did they not know it could be remotely possible. Guitarists don't sit there noodling random stuff all the while imagining a ten part harmony (not without ever having heard such a thing).

Production cliche's, like the backwards cymbal breaking a silence before the beat picks up. It's an instrument now, and musicians ask for it by name. There are drum and guitar sounds we couldn't really conceive of without precise filters and multiband compressors. We could say "It could be better", but nobody could say how until we had that stuff thrown at us.

Technology has not only changed the composition process (edits, arranging), but becomes part of the composition itself.
Old 4th September 2007
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Unclenny's Avatar
Ah, Bruce...you do spark excellent discussion.

In the end, through all of the many permutations of technology, the music will be there.....somehow...in its essence.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
mwagener / High end
40
roon / Low End Theory
5
frist44 / So much gear, so little time
5
mwagener / High end
19

Forum Jump
Forum Jump