The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
AD/DA converter information
Old 14th August 2005
  #1
Lives for gear
 

AD/DA converter information

In this article I will write some stuff about the AD/DA converters on the market. I am doing it partly to educate myself, partly to educate you (hehe) and partly because it's interesting and fun!

There are two different kinds of converters, beautiful sounding and transparent sounding converters. I have a transparent sounding converter (RME Fireface 800) and I want a beautiful sounding converter.

What brands do they use in professional:

A) Recording studios
B) Mastering studios

????

A)

The Sound Kitchen Studios, Nashville
Apogee

Wisseloord Studios, Netherlands
Apogee

Abbey Road Studios, London
Prism

Avatar Studios, New York
Apogee



B)

Specialized Mastering
Apogee
Mytek

York Street mastering
Apogee

Silverbirch Productions, Toronto
Apogee

(Note: I was not very selective when listing these)

BOTTOM LINE: APOGEE PSX-100

The apogee PSX-100 seems very popular in both recording and mastering studios. On one place I read they had tested the Lavry against the Apogee in their mastering studio, the D/A of the Lavry was amazing but not the A/D, for A/D the Apogee was what they wanted. They also thought the Apogees were really good together with the Big Ben! Since they don't sell the PSX-100 anymore I think the Rosetta series Apogee converters are closest to the PSX-100. The Rosetta 200 with its CODA technology is probably the best match of this industry standard of converters today. I also noted there was an interest in the Lavry Blue unit as well as in the Myteks and DSD based converters. My conclusion of this is that if you want to be on the safe side when it comes to converters you should go with an Apogee Rosetta 200 converter in combination with an Apogee Big Ben clock unit. This should give you beautiful sounding conversion!

Let's look at the frequency response and dynamic range of different converters (A/D):

Apogee Rosetta 200
LavryBlue
Lynx Aurora

Apogee Rosetta 200

Frequency response: 10Hz - 20KHz, +/- 0.2 dB
Dynamic range: 114 dB, A-weighted

LavryBlue

Frequency response: 22Hz – 22KHz unweighted
Dynamic range: 114dB, +/- 1dB

Lynx Aurora

Frequency response: 20 Hz - 20 kHz, +0/-0.1 dB
Dynamic range: 117 dB, A-weighted


As you can see the Apogee Rosetta 200 has more low end, while the LavryBlue has more high end. Their dynamic range is about the same. One thing to pay attention to here is the dynamic range of the Lynx Aurora, which is 3 dB higher. This might not seem to be such a huge difference, but actually it's here where you can actually hear/feel a difference between the Aurora and for instance the Rosetta. The Lynx Aurora seem to be both transparent (the standard 20Hz - 20KHz frequency response) and beautiful sounding (high dynamic range), while both the Lavry and the Rosetta seem to touch the sound in their own special way. The extra 2KHz of the LavryBlue should make for instance cymbals and hi-hats in the mix a little extra thin sounding, which feels like "jitter-free" treble. The most important thing with converters is the dynamic range, because a high dynamic range creates a dense, present, deep sounding mix. It's actually the dynamic range of a converter that makes the converter sound beautiful, partly also according to the personal taste which has more to do with the frequency response. If you are the kind of guy that like warm bassy sounding mixes you will actually love the Apogee Rosetta 200, if you are the guy that love mixes with much clearity in the high end you will actually love the LavryBlue converter. If you desperately need both, then go with a Lynx Aurora. On paper it's the best sounding overall.

So what's it gonna be? As I already said, you are on the safe side if you go with the Rosetta 200 plus the Big Ben clock. But if you want to take a risk, with good risk-reward ratio, you should go with a Lynx Aurora converter plus the Big Ben clock.

Good luck with your purchase!
Old 14th August 2005
  #2
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyCrazyMan
One thing to pay attention to here is the dynamic range of the Lynx Aurora, which is 3 dB higher. This might not seem to be such a huge difference, but actually it's here ...
I think that such difference in dynamic range (assuming that converters already reached fairly good result with 114 db) is theoretical and I doubt that it alone will produce better sounding conversion.
Paper specifications are road to hell.

GYang
Old 14th August 2005
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang
I think that such difference in dynamic range (assuming that converters already reached fairly good result with 114 db) is theoretical and I doubt that it alone will produce better sounding conversion.
Paper specifications are road to hell.

GYang
I wouldn't really agree. Even though there are bad sounding products with rather good specifications, when it comes to professional gear on about the same level, I think specifications can be really helpful. But if you focus on the wrong details in the specification I think you can easily make mistakes.
Old 15th August 2005
  #4
Gear Addict
 
Greg Heimbecker's Avatar
wow
Old 15th August 2005
  #5
Gear Guru
 

I am going to run out right now and buy a Rosetta 200 and a Big Ben clock, and if they ask me why I am going to say because a guy on the Internet named TonyCrazyMan told me to.
Old 15th August 2005
  #6
Gear Head
 
Rezman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyCrazyMan
On paper it's the best sounding overall.
Sounds like we're on to something here....
Old 15th August 2005
  #7
Gear Maniac
 

[QUOTE= On paper it's the best sounding overall.
[/QUOTE]

Thats just what I've been looking for! I've always wanted my tracks to sound good on paper
Old 15th August 2005
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq
I am going to run out right now and buy a Rosetta 200 and a Big Ben clock, and if they ask me why I am going to say because a guy on the Internet named TonyCrazyMan told me to.
I take full responsibility for that!
Old 15th August 2005
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioboy6
Thats just what I've been looking for! I've always wanted my tracks to sound good on paper
Hehe, use your ears, that's the best thing. But sometimes a unit can "start sounding better". That's why you want to look at the specifications. For instance if you record with a converter with high dynamic range you will start noticing a difference as soon as you start mix for dynamic balance, when you put compressors on the tracks. It might not make sense to you, but this is how the brain works. heh

Also remember guys that the more potential there is in a converter the more important/crucial the dithering to 16-bit process becomes! You need to pay much attention to this when going for a very professional converter because the difference in sound quality is very dependent on the dithering process! Dithering is really very very important! This might be a reason why they use so many Apogee converters in professional studios, the uv22hr dithering is really good so the combination just seems natural to have! When you then add a Big Ben clock and get a really jitter-free digital signal, it's all good, a must have!

I once again want to remind you about the fact that both the AD and the DA converters are good in the Apogee Rosetta 200! This is often not the case with converters. For instance my RME Fireface 800 has great D/A but not very good A/D. For some reason they put only 109 dB dynamic range on the A/D converter in the Fireface... (it has an attractive price tag though...)
Old 15th August 2005
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Doublehelix's Avatar
 

Quote:
Hehe, use your ears, that's the best thing. But sometimes a unit can "start sounding better".
Agreed. What happens is that we all want to justify our purchase, and never really want to admit that we made the wrong decision...pretty common actually.

I have been re-wiring my studio all weekend getting my Aurora installed. Hopefully will be done by tonight...
Old 15th August 2005
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Jim vanBergen's Avatar
 

Yeah, I bought a Universal Audio 2192 converter based on my experience using it plus I like the sound...I guess it must be a horrible decision because I did not check out the specs....though reviewers seemed to love the unit, and users think it sounds good. But if all the big production and mastering houses use Apogee.... should we all ditch our converters and buuy Apogee? We did not all decide we could ONLY buy original 1073's, Big Red monitors, or original U47's.

I'm waiting to learn something from the post, other than that MY choice of converter evidently sucks.

JvB
Old 15th August 2005
  #12
Lou Judson
Guest
"if all the big production and mastering houses use Apogee.... should we all ditch our converters and buuy Apogee?"

Gee. no! Then there would be no reason to patronize the professional mastering folx - other than great ears, great gear, and the knowlege of what to do with both!

<L>
Old 15th August 2005
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doublehelix
Agreed. What happens is that we all want to justify our purchase, and never really want to admit that we made the wrong decision...pretty common actually....
With the return policies and information availablw now...there is no reason in the world to have to 'suck up' to your gear purchase if you don't think it serves you.

Ego aside...gear is subjective anyway. How many times has someone heard GREAT praise again and again about a certain piece and low and behold...they buy it and it sounds like 'blech' to them...?

You can 'get used' to the way gear sounds, but all that matters is whether you like it or not.

I think many people spend time looking to upgrade thier sound but aren't even sure what that something is or what it is supposed to sound like when they hear it...Converters are the prime example of that.

I remember how the MAJORITY of listeners chose the Mackie Onyx FW Converters (AKM chip) over the Lavry and Apogee when brother Steve (Bang) posted his personal test.
The Mackie had a 'bigger' sound...and therefore many folks just 'liked' the sound a little better.

Better converter?..Cleaner? More honest? Nah..but it doesn't matter does it?

The test meant nothing and concluded nothing...cept' that we should listen with our ears and not our eyes.

I found virtually no difference between my motu 896 HD (The new one) and a Rosetta 200...for straight A/D in a recent test...Am I deaf and dumb? Who knows...but the significance was not worth the rate of exchange for me.

Bottom line for me...I could do my same work with either...meaning I could focus on making the record and not concern myself whether or not my A/D was up to spec!! ..I have enough to worry about!!

Peace and Respect
Old 15th August 2005
  #14
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Gene
I found virtually no difference between my motu 896 HD (The new one) and a Rosetta 200...for straight A/D in a recent test...Am I deaf and dumb? Who knows...but the significance was not worth the rate of exchange for me.
i suppose that your own opinion is the only one that truly matters since you have to live with your own work, but i have to highly disagree. there was a huge difference between my HD192 (a step up from the 896HD) and my Aurora 16. unless the Aurora is just that much better than the Rosetta as well.

regardless, when you are layering 30 - 40 tracks of audio, the "significance" DOES become worth it.

take your favorite song from a major album and run it through your converters at least 4 times, looping through the ins and outs using short xlr cables. you will more easily notice the defects in conversion process each time. i did this with a 3 foot cable on my HD192 and by the fourth run, the overall gain dropped by roughly 4+ db and the high end became grainy and poor. i did the same with my Aurora 16 and 18ft of cable with ZERO drop in gain and only a very slight change in the high end quality.

if you would like, we can pick a major album track and run it though our respective converters and post comparisons. i have a server that can host the files. anyone have an apogee that we can try this with?

daved
Old 15th August 2005
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEastGateMS
i suppose that your own opinion is the only one that truly matters since you have to live with your own work, but i have to highly disagree. there was a huge difference between my HD192 (a step up from the 896HD) and my Aurora 16. unless the Aurora is just that much better than the Rosetta as well.
Hey bro...It's cool with me that you disagree......Different Strokes.

I always try to use my ears...but I never discount anything. I also use my best judgment based on garnered collective experience of those I know and trust...

I have never used the Aurora..so I have no experience to comment.

I also feel it is important to get 'facts' straight if we choose to include them...The 192 and 896HD...use the same converter A/D.
MOTU can verify for you if you wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEastGateMS
regardless, when you are layering 30 - 40 tracks of audio, the "significance" DOES become worth it.
Agreed. I understand completey the idea of stacking tracks...there are many analogies for it...and it is the PRECISE reason we look for better converters...isn't it?
I am satisfied with the extent of my testing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEastGateMS
take your favorite song from a major album and run it through your converters at least 4 times, looping through the ins and outs using short xlr cables. you will more easily notice the defects in conversion process each time. i did this with a 3 foot cable on my HD192 and by the fourth run, the overall gain dropped by roughly 4+ db and the high end became grainy and poor. i did the same with my Aurora 16 and 18ft of cable with ZERO drop in gain and only a very slight change in the high end quality.

if you would like, we can pick a major album track and run it though our respective converters and post comparisons. i have a server that can host the files. anyone have an apogee that we can try this with? daved
Why?

We would have to have the same playback player (versin of CD also)...recording app and D/A, and unfortunately there is no way to bypass the pre section with the 896 and hit converters directly...

Besides..I have no desire for this test as I couldn't afford the Aurora anyhow....even if it did make a difference...and to top it off there are way too many other factors involved anyhow.

I am making a great record right now with my current gear...I would love to make a few changes...but I ain't gonna lose sleep over this today... stike

Peace and Respect...
Old 15th August 2005
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Doublehelix's Avatar
 

Quote:
I am making a great record right now with my current gear...I would love to make a few changes...but I ain't gonna lose sleep over this today...
Amen Brother, that's what its all about, ain't it???
Old 16th August 2005
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
Donny's Avatar
 

I recently got rid of my AD16x after auditioning the Lavrys...I just dont believe in specs...Its all in the application..
Old 16th August 2005
  #18
Lives for gear
 
De chromium cob's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny
I just dont believe in specs...
I don't believe in Beatles-
I just believe in me
heh
Old 16th August 2005
  #19
Gear Addict
 
SpiderM69's Avatar
 

Whay's the Big Ben so important? Doesn't the Rosetta 200 have its own high-quality clock?
Old 16th August 2005
  #20
Gear Maniac
 
Donny's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by De chromium cob
I don't believe in Beatles-
I just believe in me
heh
LOL.. heh ! The thing is people around these boards are obsessed at throwing specs around to justfy that their purchase is better than a competing product...I cant seem to understand why this is...if it works for you ..great but if it doesn't then why the gripe ?
Old 16th August 2005
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEastGateMS

regardless, when you are layering 30 - 40 tracks of audio, the "significance" DOES become worth it.
I LOVE this statement! As a matter of fact the more tracks you add the more significant the converter quality becomes to the overall sound quality, because of two things:

1) Sonic quality of the conversion from analog to digital sound (how well it transforms the actual analog sound picture into digital sound, we all want transparent natural sounding conversion)
2) Dynamic range (how well we hear different instruments in a mix where 30-40 tracks play)

You guys that have mentioned that the Aurora is better sounding than for instance the MOTU 192 might be very true. I think the difference is in nr 1).
Old 16th August 2005
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doublehelix
Agreed. What happens is that we all want to justify our purchase, and never really want to admit that we made the wrong decision...pretty common actually.

I have been re-wiring my studio all weekend getting my Aurora installed. Hopefully will be done by tonight...
Cool!! It will be very interesting to listen to those conversion quality comparisons!!
Old 16th August 2005
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEastGateMS

if you would like, we can pick a major album track and run it though our respective converters and post comparisons. i have a server that can host the files. anyone have an apogee that we can try this with?

daved
Where did you get that idea from?! IT ROCKS!

Do it, do it...!!

BTW, I think your way of testing the quality of the conversion was really interesting! I have to try doing the same with my Fireface! (and I can post clips too)
Old 16th August 2005
  #24
Lives for gear
 

One interesting argument in terms of "using your ears" when choosing a converter is the fact that there are quite many ears involved in the decision making process of professional studios and their ears all seem to tell the same story. So I guess one way is using your own ears, but another way is using other's ears! heh
Old 16th August 2005
  #25
Gear Head
 

[QUOTE=TonyCrazyMan]

Apogee Rosetta 200

Frequency response: 10Hz - 20KHz, +/- 0.2 dB
Dynamic range: 114 dB, A-weighted

LavryBlue

Frequency response: 22Hz – 22KHz unweighted
Dynamic range: 114dB, +/- 1dB

Lynx Aurora

Frequency response: 20 Hz - 20 kHz, +0/-0.1 dB
Dynamic range: 117 dB, A-weighted

/QUOTE]

From the user manual of the Lavry:
Dynamic range (22Hz – 22KHz unweighted) -114dBFS +/- 1dBFS

This spec is for the dynamic range. You can not directly compare unweighted vs A-weighted mesurments.

No mentioning of the frequency response in the manual of the Blue.
The rosetta specs 10-20K att 44,1K.
The spec for the Aurora has other tolerances, again not directly comparable.

I'd be surprised if not all of the units extends well beyond 20kHz if they are running at 96kHz samplerate.

Are you familiar with the Nyquist-limit?

Bottom line: specifications don't mean anything unless you are 100% sure how to interpret them.
Old 16th August 2005
  #26
Lives for gear
 

[QUOTE=Joba]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyCrazyMan

Apogee Rosetta 200

Frequency response: 10Hz - 20KHz, +/- 0.2 dB
Dynamic range: 114 dB, A-weighted

LavryBlue

Frequency response: 22Hz – 22KHz unweighted
Dynamic range: 114dB, +/- 1dB

Lynx Aurora

Frequency response: 20 Hz - 20 kHz, +0/-0.1 dB
Dynamic range: 117 dB, A-weighted

/QUOTE]

From the user manual of the Lavry:
Dynamic range (22Hz – 22KHz unweighted) -114dBFS +/- 1dBFS

This spec is for the dynamic range. You can not directly compare unweighted vs A-weighted mesurments.

No mentioning of the frequency response in the manual of the Blue.
The rosetta specs 10-20K att 44,1K.
The spec for the Aurora has other tolerances, again not directly comparable.

I'd be surprised if not all of the units extends well beyond 20kHz if they are running at 96kHz samplerate.

Are you familiar with the Nyquist-limit?

Bottom line: specifications don't mean anything unless you are 100% sure how to interpret them.
Yes, according the Nyquist Theorem in order to digitally encode the desired frequency bandwidth, the selected sample rate must be at least twice as high as the highest recorded frequency. Thus, an audio signal with a bandwidth of 20 kHz would require a sampling rate of at least 40000 samples/second. In addition, it's of equal importance that no audio signal greater than half the sampling frequency enter into the digitization process. If frequencies greater than half the sample rate are allowed to enter into the conversion process, erroneous frequencies known as alias frequencies would enter into the audible audio signal band as false frequencies and produce audible harmonic distortion. Usually a low-pass filter is placed before the A/D for this. In theory a filter that would pass all frequencies up to the Nyquist cutoff frequency and have infinite attenuation thereafter would be ideal. In practise however such a "brick wall" filter doesn't exist. (I haven't checked out the latest in technology for compensating for this dilemma) For this reason, a slightly higher sample rate must be chosen in order to account for the attenuation slope required for the filter to be effective. A sample rate of 44,1 kHz has been chosen in order to accurately encode an effective bandwidth up to 20 kHz.
Old 16th August 2005
  #27
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
[QUOTE=TonyCrazyMan]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joba

Yes, according the Nyquist Theorem in order to digitally encode the desired frequency bandwidth, the selected sample rate must be at least twice as high as the highest recorded frequency. Thus, an audio signal with a bandwidth of 20 kHz would require a sampling rate of at least 40000 samples/second. In addition, it's of equal importance that no audio signal greater than half the sampling frequency enter into the digitization process. If frequencies greater than half the sample rate are allowed to enter into the conversion process, erroneous frequencies known as alias frequencies would enter into the audible audio signal band as false frequencies and produce audible harmonic distortion. Usually a low-pass filter is placed before the A/D for this. In theory a filter that would pass all frequencies up to the Nyquist cutoff frequency and have infinite attenuation thereafter would be ideal. In practise however such a "brick wall" filter doesn't exist. (I haven't checked out the latest in technology for compensating for this dilemma) For this reason, a slightly higher sample rate must be chosen in order to account for the attenuation slope required for the filter to be effective. A sample rate of 44,1 kHz has been chosen in order to accurately encode an effective bandwidth up to 20 kHz.
Bros, seems we have new digital genius on the board (after Dan and Nika in first place)

TonyCrazyMan, why you don't write a book or white paper

GYang
Old 16th August 2005
  #28
Gear Addict
 

He basically just summarized the most basic points that Dan and Nika are always trying to instill in people (I gave up trying to preach it long ago, it's hard to get people to believe in something that goes a bit against intuition)

A good summary, but I didn't see evidence of "genius" in his post. Sorry. These are the most basic of digital concepts and I think that anyone who doesn't understand at least these things shouldn't be allowed to go near a DAW with a 20 foot pole.
If you'd like to see more digital genies, head over to Dan's forum on PSW. Some good discussions on there.
Old 16th August 2005
  #29
Lives for gear
 

One comparison I have to mention in the context of converter quality and what seems to result in the perception of "beautiful sounding conversion" is once again found in the dynamic range of the conversion. A properly dithered 16-bit recording can have over 120 dB of dynamic range, jitter can detoriorate that range to 100 dB or less depending on the severity of the jitter. In fact what happens with the perception of the sound then is the following:

- Increased "grain" in the image
- Instruments lose their sharp edge and focus
- Apparent loss of level, causing the listener to want to turn up the monitor level (even though high-level signals are reproduced at unity gain)

Even though this is an effect of digital jitter caused by varying time delays in digital audio circuit paths from component to component (most often caused by poorly designed phase-locked loops and waveform distortion due to mismatched impedances and/or reflections in the signal path) you get a good clue of how important the dynamic range of a converter is for creating beautiful sounding conversion. Let's say there are X unknown factors in the conversion quality that compensate negatively for the high dynamic range in the converter (in terms of the perception of the dynamics in practise, it can be anything from the quality of the anti-alising filter to the quality of the error correction = bad signal-error ratio) then it's good if the converter has high dynamic range to begin with.

For example with my RME Fireface 800 with 109 dB of dynamic range in the A/D, the dynamic range is pretty low to begin with when a 16-bit recording can hold over 120 dB dynamic range. I don't know exactly how they calculate the dynamic range (if it's before or after the error correction), but if it is before then a bad dithering curcuitry would be able to further lower the dynamic range of the conversion. I think this is why so many prefer the Apogee converters, through their dithering knowledge they are able to make units with beautiful sounding conversion simply by applying it on a converter chip with high dynamic range. So for instance the difference in sound quality of the A/D between an RME Fireface 800 and a Rosetta 200 should be the following:

The Rosetta 200:

- Less "grain" in the image
- Instruments have sharp edge and focus
- Higher level (you hear instruments in the mix better too)

Can anyone that has done an A/B comparison between the A/D in the RME Fireface 800 and the Apogee Rosetta 200 please confirm this?
Old 16th August 2005
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyCrazyMan
One comparison I have to mention in the context of converter quality and what seems to result in the perception of "beautiful sounding conversion" is once again found in the dynamic range of the conversion. A properly dithered 16-bit recording can have over 120 dB of dynamic range, jitter can detoriorate that range to 100 dB or less depending on the severity of the jitter. In fact what happens with the perception of the sound then is the following:

- Increased "grain" in the image
- Instruments lose their sharp edge and focus
- Apparent loss of level, causing the listener to want to turn up the monitor level (even though high-level signals are reproduced at unity gain)

Even though this is an effect of digital jitter caused by varying time delays in digital audio circuit paths from component to component (most often caused by poorly designed phase-locked loops and waveform distortion due to mismatched impedances and/or reflections in the signal path) you get a good clue of how important the dynamic range of a converter is for creating beautiful sounding conversion. Let's say there are X unknown factors in the conversion quality that compensate negatively for the high dynamic range in the converter (in terms of the perception of the dynamics in practise, it can be anything from the quality of the anti-alising filter to the quality of the error correction = bad signal-error ratio) then it's good if the converter has high dynamic range to begin with.

For example with my RME Fireface 800 with 109 dB of dynamic range in the A/D, the dynamic range is pretty low to begin with when a 16-bit recording can hold over 120 dB dynamic range. I don't know exactly how they calculate the dynamic range (if it's before or after the error correction), but if it is before then a bad dithering curcuitry would be able to further lower the dynamic range of the conversion. I think this is why so many prefer the Apogee converters, through their dithering knowledge they are able to make units with beautiful sounding conversion simply by applying it on a converter chip with high dynamic range. So for instance the difference in sound quality of the A/D between an RME Fireface 800 and a Rosetta 200 should be the following:

The Rosetta 200:

- Less "grain" in the image
- Instruments have sharp edge and focus
- Higher level (you hear instruments in the mix better too)

Can anyone that has done an A/B comparison between the A/D in the RME Fireface 800 and the Apogee Rosetta 200 please confirm this?

actually a 16 bit recording can never have more than 96db of dynamic range.

http://www.teamcombooks.com/mp3handbook/11.htm
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