The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Gordon vs. Pueblo (vs. Forssell, Pendulum, NPNG, Audio Upgrades...)
Old 28th September 2013
  #91
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adorno View Post
Therefore I have asked here what the design idea is behind the box. There are very good op-amp based designs, no slagging at all, think about Millennia, one octal transistor stage, followed by op-amps,very good preamp. Nothing against INA217 or THAT 1512, think about DAV. But it surprises me if you use that box, you have not asked more in detail.
I only give a $h!t about what's in the box if it doesn't work or doesn't sound good. I buy from companies that will support me if there is a problem.

I buy gear to satisfy a professional purpose. As much as I enjoy the slut part of things, at the end of the day, my gear has to earn me money. Gear that sounds good and works consistently does exactly that. That's all I care about- I'll let the designers design and I will use my time to make recordings.

--Ben
Old 3rd October 2013
  #92
Gear Maniac
 
PuebloAudio's Avatar
 

Rumi has asked if I would review some technical comments he made earlier and provide some input...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
As far as I understand the impedance mismatch happens when you simply split the signal, for example with the help of a half-normalled patchbay. the impedance is then divided by the number of receiving devices. Each device might react differently to an impedance that is too low (for example, when people complain about "the frequency anomalies of the ADL 1500 compressor", they feed it with an inappropriate impedance. The mid frequencies then sag the more the unit compresses. With proper impedance matching it is a wonderful unit, and shows none of that behavior). What you will find out in such a test is how the unit reacts to impedance mismatch, and not how it sounds.
One category of signal transmission relies on matching specified impedances. For example: 75ohm for wordclock, 110ohm for AES, or 600ohm for early analog transmission. Both the source Zout and load Zin must be the specified value, and matched, to realize designed circuit behavior. When they do not match (for example: a 600ohm passive EQ feeding a 10kohm ADC input) it would then be appropriate to use the term "impedance mismatch".

Another category is called "bridging". This is where a low source impedance feeds a much higher load impedance (>1:5 ratio). For mic/preamp interconnection we could have a mic Zout of 50-300ohm driving a preamp Zin of >1kohm. In my opinion, the term "impedance mismatch" is not fitting for this scenario. There are no specified impedances, nor are they intended to be matched.

I know that this is a pedantic note on terminology. But I feel when proper terms are used, better understanding is cultivated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
When you use splitters with transformers you isolate the circuits. The mic and the primary coil of the transformer form a closed circuit together, and each unit forms a closed circuit with their corresponding secondary coil. What the inputs of the units "see" then is the impedance of the secondary coil. So there is no impedance mismatch.
Still, they represent loads to each other (or whatever the correct word is - they are electromagnetically coupled), and that can affect their sound. And furthermore the transformer will add its sound.
Yes, splitting mic signals creates various problems when comparing preamps. For example:
1. A 150ohm Zout mic connected to a 1.2kohm preamp input forms a voltage divider: 1200/(150+1200)=0.89. Signal output is loaded down -1dB.
2. A 150ohm Zout mic connected to a 7kohm preamp input forms a voltage divider: 7k/(150+7k)=0.98. Signal output is loaded down only -0.2dB.
3. The same mic is split across the above two preamps: 1024/(150+1024)=0.87. Signal output is now loaded down -1.2dB. So now the signal-to-noise ratio is erroneously tilted to the worst case, masking the absolute s/n performance of each preamp.

In some cases a mic splitting transformer might present a consistent Z to the mic if the reflected preamp impedances play nice, but there are always parasitics. Another problem is that even the best transformers have inherent distortion figures an order of magnitude worse than modern, high-performance preamps. This masks absolute preamp distortion performance from the tester. Yet another problems is transformers have significantly better CMRR at high frequencies than any transformerless preamp, masking preamp absolute noise performance. And of course the influence of the phantom power networks is removed from the comparison since only one circuit may power the mic at any given time.

And the above is an oversimplification at best. Making accurate comparisons is difficult. Every time I set up a test, I discover new error vectors to deal with. When I am making critical tests, it takes me about 3 days now just to set up. This is a discipline beyond what can be discussed meaningfully in a forum such as this. I would add that such strict tests are mostly useful for the designer in the lab.

Thankfully, for the audio engineer in the studio or concert hall, the performance of Pueblo Audio preamps is obvious enough and easily perceived. As long as real-world recording scenarios are used, there should be no need for uber-scientific procedures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
When someone explained to me that an amplifier doesn't amplify a signal, but makes a (more or less exact) copy of it with higher amplitude, I had the impression that I understand a little more about it all. There is no signal flowing through a unit. It's more like closed circuits that interact and affect each other.
This is correct. To elaborate further, think of a preamp as having three inputs and one output. The first input is noise, emf-emi etc. The preamp must prevent all the bombarding radiation of our modern world from getting into the circuit. Since some portion will couple in, the preamp must try to ignore this residual. Next we have our mic signal, whose current flows into the preamp input impedances and then flows back to the mic. The preamp measures that mic signal and attempts to replicate it with greater amplitude. But where does this replicated signal's current come from?... The third input which is a big, 120v B-flat! The preamp must actually convert this giant, single-pitch sine wave into a complex audio-band signal while preserving the fidelity of the original. Not easy. Then the output must transmit the new signal over distances without distortion while supporting good noise rejection for the destination's input circuitry. This is my conceptual view of how a preamp really functions. I hope it provides readers some food for thought.

Last edited by PuebloAudio; 3rd October 2013 at 10:47 PM.. Reason: spelling, clarity
Old 3rd October 2013
  #93
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuebloAudio View Post
...
Yes, splitting mic signals creates various problems when comparing preamps. For example:
1. A 150? Zout mic connected to a 1.2k? preamp input forms a voltage divider: 1200/(150+1200)=0.89. Signal output is loaded down -1dB.
2. A 150? Zout mic connected to a 7k? preamp input forms a voltage divider: 7k/(150+7k)=0.98. Signal output is loaded down only -0.2dB.
3. The same mic is split across the above two preamps: 1024/(150+1024)=0.87. Signal output is now loaded down -1.2dB. So now the signal-to-noise ratio is erroneously tilted to the worst case, masking the absolute s/n performance of each preamp.

In some cases a mic splitting transformer might present a consistent Z to the mic if the reflected preamp impedances play nice, but there are always parasitics. Another problem with transformers (even the best ones) can have inherent distortion figures an order of magnitude greater than modern, high-performance preamps. Again masking absolute preamp performance from the tester. Yet another problems is a transformer will have significantly better CMRR at hi frequency than any transformerless preamp, masking preamp absolute noise performance. And of course the influence of the phantom power networks is removed from the comparison since only one circuit may power the mic at any given time.

And the above is an oversimplification at best. Making accurate comparisons is difficult. Every time I set up a test, I discover new error vectors to deal with. When I am making critical tests, it takes me about 3 days now just to set up. This is a discipline beyond what can be discussed meaningfully in a forum such as this.
...
Thank you for giving the technical details of why this method of comparing preamps is flawed. There have been arguments that this method is valid, but nobody was able to back it up.
Old 3rd October 2013
  #94
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
Thank you for giving the technical details of why this method of comparing preamps is flawed. There have been arguments that this method is valid, but nobody was able to back it up.
I would argue that it is not invalid; It has flaws.

Valid tests can be done with splitters, but the purpose for testing needs to be narrow, the results will have limited applicability. Those who design the experiment need to limit and control variable effects and everyone involved should understand the limitations.
Old 3rd October 2013
  #95
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick View Post
I would argue that it is not invalid; It has flaws.

Valid tests can be done with splitters, but the purpose for testing needs to be narrow, the results will have limited applicability. Those who design the experiment need to limit and control variable effects and everyone involved should understand the limitations.
I wouldn't call one preamp drastically effecting the other's output a valid experiment. Yes, it's avoidable, but most here aren't going to spend three days to make sure it doesn't happen, assuming they even knew how to do it.
Old 4th October 2013
  #96
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
I wouldn't call one preamp drastically effecting the other's output a valid experiment.
That's hyperbolic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
Yes, it's avoidable, but most here aren't going to spend three days to make sure it doesn't happen, assuming they even knew how to do it.
I agree, the setup matters! But I've done it.

You cannot remove the effects of a split xfmr but you can present a sufficiently equivalent signal to two preamps if their inputs are enough alike, i.e. not very reactive with equal loading at frequency. Phantom must be provided by another hi Z source, not either preamp.

Comparisons with a splitter can validly serve some objectives, it just depends what they are.
Old 4th October 2013
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Wow, Scott, thank you very much for your in-depth explanations!
Yes, that is another important point, that the signal the amplifier has to work with is our mains! A wonder that there is music at the other end at all.

I will soon have 4 channels of Pueblo phantom power, and will use that for all the tests. Removes one variable!

I will likely use 4 refurbished Gefell MV691 mics that Andreas Grosser has modified, and will modify again in the next weeks. I am in the process of getting more Thiersch-reskinned capsules.

I will use amplified sounds (maybe we will use Audio Data instead of ATC monitors, since the ATCs are not the best monitors for comparisons and to hear depth in a recording) as well as recorded sounds. I would like to hear how signals stack in a mix, and also how the mic pres handle room information. For example, the most obvious difference in the Pueblo vs. Forssell files Ben sent me was how the room and space is presented.
So, it would be ideal to record more than one player at once, and maybe they shouldn't be the same distance away from the mics. Hmmm... I will see what I can do.
Old 4th October 2013
  #98
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick View Post
Those who design the experiment need to limit and control variable effects and everyone involved should understand the limitations.
Yes!

I compared some mics today, and while I found out that even the same type of capsule on the same type of mic body sounded different (due to differences in specs and in placement), it nevertheless gave me a lot of new information about how I will use those mics in the future. And that's exactly what I do tests for.
Old 4th October 2013
  #99
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick View Post
That's hyperbolic.
When I get some time, I'll post files to show just how drastic it can be. The difference is not subtle at all.
Old 4th October 2013
  #100
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
When I get some time, I'll post files to show just how drastic it can be. The difference is not subtle at all.
That would only demonstrate that a variable has an effect. No need to make that case. I believe you.

My point is far off the OP topic so I'll say it and then drop it:
Valuable and valid comparisons can be done with a xfmr mic splitter. Limited purposes, carefully controlled.

Suggested reading: design of experiments
Old 4th October 2013
  #101
Deleted 2ef94c5
Guest
Had lunch with Scott on monday and also picked up 2 channels. Scott is a gem of a human who's attention to detail radiates even in an Italian restaurant...

When it comes to audio (and I suspect life in general) "every single thing matters" to Scott. His preamp design is the culmination of a 20+ year effort in determining what is circuit worthy and what is not. The best part of this search is that it comes from a man wearing two hats: an accomplished mastering/recording engineer AND a master technician who i saw first hand playing a critical role in keeping BGM running as consistently as it is very well known for. Every f'n piece of gear there is modded to hell and back by Scott and Beno. Not many other mastering houses in the world operate at this level.

But when i got home and recorded a Martin d28 using 2 Wunder Cm12s into the Pueblo, upon playback i swear that I heard it better than I did live heh I wish I was joking here...

I will post the files when I have time to properly data compress without a disappointing loss of quality (or else its not worth posting). Gimme a few days.

I love this thing! Ordering four more channels next month!
Old 4th October 2013
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
My Pueblo 4 channel units will probably arrive at the studio today, and the ULN-8 came yesterday. The NPNG 4 channel unit should ship next week. Great times!
Old 4th October 2013
  #103
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpr3 View Post
Had lunch with Scott on monday and also picked up 2 channels. Scott is a gem of a human who's attention to detail radiates even in an Italian restaurant...

When it comes to audio (and I suspect life in general) "every single thing matters" to Scott. His preamp design is the culmination of a 20+ year effort in determining what is circuit worthy and what is not. The best part of this search is that it comes from a man wearing two hats: an accomplished mastering/recording engineer AND a master technician who i saw first hand playing a critical role in keeping BGM running as consistently as it is very well known for. Every f'n piece of gear there is modded to hell and back by Scott and Beno. Not many other mastering houses in the world operate at this level.

But when i got home and recorded a Martin d28 using 2 Wunder Cm12s into the Pueblo, upon playback i swear that I heard it better than I did live heh I wish I was joking here...

I will post the files when I have time to properly data compress without a disappointing loss of quality (or else its not worth posting). Gimme a few days.

I love this thing! Ordering four more channels next month!
I am looking forward to your files! Is it not possible to upload .WAVs?
Old 4th October 2013
  #104
Here for the gear
 
andrewk808's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpr3 View Post
Had lunch with Scott on monday and also picked up 2 channels. Scott is a gem of a human who's attention to detail radiates even in an Italian restaurant...

When it comes to audio (and I suspect life in general) "every single thing matters" to Scott. His preamp design is the culmination of a 20+ year effort in determining what is circuit worthy and what is not. The best part of this search is that it comes from a man wearing two hats: an accomplished mastering/recording engineer AND a master technician who i saw first hand playing a critical role in keeping BGM running as consistently as it is very well known for. Every f'n piece of gear there is modded to hell and back by Scott and Beno. Not many other mastering houses in the world operate at this level.

But when i got home and recorded a Martin d28 using 2 Wunder Cm12s into the Pueblo, upon playback i swear that I heard it better than I did live heh I wish I was joking here...

I will post the files when I have time to properly data compress without a disappointing loss of quality (or else its not worth posting). Gimme a few days.

I love this thing! Ordering four more channels next month!
That would be awesome if you had CMC 6's though (mk21 even better!). Of course there is too many factors to form definite opinions on these online uploads. But it's one data point to reference. Nothing you have grounds to review but still worth a listen. I have done many comparison videos just to be mind blown that people don't hear (or want to hear) what I do, at least half the time! Ultimately Pueblo is standing behind their product and if it's totally not what you thought return is an option they allow. But what preamp captures or compliments a certain music or song best with certain mics in certain rooms may vary. Variety, spice of life.
Old 4th October 2013
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Since I continue to be intrigued by Pueblo, this weekend we'll implement a friend's 4 channel unit on orchestra. The curtain of 4 mics across the front will be powered by the mighty Pueblos.

It's always great to experiment and vary the sound.

Mics will be a Schoeps MSTC 64 ORTF stereo mic in the center and the brand new Peluso Km83 re-creation omnis as flanks.

Gettiton--Dapitdown!
Old 4th October 2013
  #106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
I am looking forward to your files! Is it not possible to upload .WAVs?
What I do is cut up the .wavs and zip them up, then post the zips.
Old 4th October 2013
  #107
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuebloAudio View Post
Yes, splitting mic signals creates various problems when comparing preamps.
There is no problem when using an active splitter. The same signal with the same souce impedance is feeding all the connected preamps, like in this test. Because the splitter has no gain, this signal is fully representative for an actuel microphone signal.
Old 4th October 2013
  #108
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
There is no problem when using an active splitter. The same signal with the same souce impedance is feeding all the connected preamps, like in this test. Because the splitter has no gain, this signal is fully representative for an actuel microphone signal.
Is that unit still available? I'd say that if you don't mind the sound that the transformers may impose, it's probably the best way to compare preamps IMO. After attempting to sample match the DAV1 and the Line Audio with the FLEA 49 (none needed -- close enough), the differences were very obvious to me and wouldn't warrant a double blind test.

EDIT: However, the Line Audio and JLM using the MK21 is a different story; they're very similar and I'd do a randomized significant test to rule out guessing between those two, for example.
Old 4th October 2013
  #109
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
Is that unit still available?
Yes. It is the LA Audio MS 424.
Old 4th October 2013
  #110
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
Here is one as "open box":
LA Audio MS424 4-Channel Mic Splitter (Open Box)

Someone has offered me a Studer splitter recently. Maybe I should ask for more information about that. Nevertheless, that would involve another transformer at mic signal level.

The Pueblo mic pres have arrived today!
Old 5th October 2013
  #111
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
There is no problem when using an active splitter. The same signal with the same souce impedance is feeding all the connected preamps, like in this test. Because the splitter has no gain, this signal is fully representative for an actuel microphone signal.
Well, also a active mic splitter has sound or kind of signature. This LA splitter is a good one. But I think the Gordon and the Pueblo are probably able to show more details and with the splitter in front both could not show their real quality.

There is no perfect way for comparison with microphones. But I think experienced users will find a way for themselfs to make a good decision.
Old 5th October 2013
  #112
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar View Post
Well, also a active mic splitter has sound or kind of signature.
Possibly but just like any microphone. So the microphones preamps should not be compared by using microphones since microphones are not perfectly transparent ?

I compared the bypass output of a LA Audio MS424 and a transformer output in this test.
The difference extracted by means AudioDiffMaker peaks to -56 dBFS while the RMS level is -74 dBFS (left) / -81 dBFS (right). Low enough ?

Another method for comparing preamps is using a Disklavier Yamaha, a piano controlled by a MIDI file, which was done by Sound on Sound one year ago (8 preamps x 3 microphones).
Hugh Robjohns, the Technical Editor, concluded:
Quote:
And so there is the message to take away: When used simply to raise the output of a microphone to line level -- without being deliberately overdriven for effect, and when used within their intended gain structure and headroom design limits -- the audible differences between modern preamps are vanishingly small -- regardless of price, topology, or active devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar View Post
There is no perfect way for comparison with microphones.
There are ways good enough for such comparison, unfortunately for the defenders of the preamp myth.
Old 5th October 2013
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
There are ways good enough for such comparison, unfortunately for the defenders of the preamp myth.
You´re right, there are ways of good enough comparisons. No myth.
I often take 2 pairs of microphones as main pairs for an orchestra at the same position feeding 2 different mic preamps.

Then I just switch pair A feeding preamp A to pair A feeding preamp B and vice versa. If you do that several times you get an idea which difference comes from the preamp and which from the microphones.

Other test is just to amplify a repeatable source ....

With no perfect way I meant no absolutely perfect way. But you´re right, There are a lot of really good enough ways.
Old 5th October 2013
  #114
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthcircle View Post
I did a shootout during a sound check between them and my Forssell pres. However, to make sure they were behaving to their absolute highest quality, I plugged the mics directly into each pre. However, that also meant that I wasn't always recording the exact same music/performance/etc... Didn't feel like dealing with the GS "experts" that didn't listen to the test and just want to poke holes in the method.
I think I'm part of the minority here in thinking that you should plug them in, press record, and enjoy them for what they are in order to keep the shootout more informal.

Have you considered doing these tests with two pairs of mics, but the ones connected to the Pueblo preamp further out, so that the ambience sounds about the same in both recordings? This is hardly scientific, but might give a real-world comparison.

BTW, Rumi, congrats on your purchase! Did you get a JR4/P4 or a pair of JR2/2? I put an order in for the latter, and Scott told me he should ship them out by mid-week. They better be good, I just sold some great preamps to make room for them!
Old 5th October 2013
  #115
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabasa View Post
BTW, Rumi, congrats on your purchase! Did you get a JR4/P4 or a pair of JR2/2? I put an order in for the latter, and Scott told me he should ship them out by mid-week. They better be good, I just sold some great preamps to make room for them!
Could it be that we've "met" before?
There are many ways to connect.

Your Hardy still lingers in the back of my head...
I am pretty sure you will be happy with the Pueblo, though.

I bought a JR4/P4/PS34 combo. Pretty impressive stack.
I've compared them briefly to the mic pres in the MIO 2882 (yeah, I know, widely known as absolute audiophile mic pres ), but have to be more thorough before posting any conclusions.
I guess I can understand both camps, the "mic pres make no big difference" as well as the "mic pres are really important" ones. I happen to like mic pres, but I agree that mic choice and especially mic placement are more important (and then there's the musical performance and the instruments, and the room...). Still I have that warm affinity to mic pres.

Now on Wednesday the refurbished ZAG mic pres came back. I'm interested in hearing a comparison between them and the Pueblos, i.e. a Seventies discrete OP-amps mic pre with a current high-end design. Next week there will hopefully be some time for more thorough comparisons.
Old 5th October 2013
  #116
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabasa View Post
Have you considered doing these tests with two pairs of mics, but the ones connected to the Pueblo preamp further out, so that the ambience sounds about the same in both recordings? This is hardly scientific, but might give a real-world comparison.
To my ears, the biggest difference in those files was how much more room information the Pueblo picked up compared to the Forssell. If you move them further back that would likely increase even further. Or am I confusing things here?
Old 5th October 2013
  #117
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I can't endorse judging a mic amp from files. The only reason to do that is because of cost, a lack of "in situ" curiosity or living where you cannot demo anything.

You always have to live with the equipment and use it over a week or two. Compare and contrast by setting up two of the same recording paths. What I mean by that is go to studio where you can make a double set up.

For example, set up two pairs of Schoeps CMC64, each running to a separate mic amp. Record a wide variety of players. Then spend some critical listening time evaluating the two mic amps and their sound.

I form my impression of sound over time, not by making A / B switching comparisons.

The best thing a new recordist can do is to find someone whose work they admire and then listen to what that person tells them. That way you are getting the benefit of how they listen and of how they hear.


On a separate subject, I will have further comment on the Pueblo recordings I'm making next week.
Old 5th October 2013
  #118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Here is one as "open box":
LA Audio MS424 4-Channel Mic Splitter (Open Box)

Someone has offered me a Studer splitter recently. Maybe I should ask for more information about that. Nevertheless, that would involve another transformer at mic signal level.
...
I wonder if they offer a warranty? I don't see an A/C cord or power supply in their pics.

Also, I'm wondering about this model:
ARX MSX 8 Mic/Line Splitter

They have three versions, one of which doesn't have transformer balanced outputs, another one does. All have "electrically balanced splits," which makes me wonder if the non-transformer version is still completely isolated?

Finally, there's the option of up to 40 dB of gain, inferring that it's actually a preamp, possibly contributing more of its own sound.
Old 5th October 2013
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Plush, I lkie your approach.


Quote:
Finally, there's the option of up to 40 dB of gain, inferring that it's actually a preamp, possibly contributing more of its own sound
And if the gain is set to 0 dB (like in most active spliiters) it will have a "sound" either.
Old 5th October 2013
  #120
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Could it be that we've "met" before? Now on Wednesday the refurbished ZAG mic pres came back. I'm interested in hearing a comparison between them and the Pueblos, i.e. a Seventies discrete OP-amps mic pre with a current high-end design. Next week there will hopefully be some time for more thorough comparisons.
What's a ZAG? I couldn't find much information on it on the internet! Can you elaborate a little?

Letting go of a Hardy Twin Servo wasn't a tough decision because I'm more drawn to the sounds of good transformerless designs. I'm curious to hear how the Pueblo preamps compare to GML!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

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


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump