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
Mic recommendation for alto vocal in a rock band ? Dynamic Microphones
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Gear Nut
Mic recommendation for alto vocal in a rock band ?

We're a rock band with a female singer.
She's using a Shure 87A or a Shure 58. She prefers 87A slightly.

Now we're relatively loud with two guitar and all, and her mic picks up a lot besides her voice.

With this in mind we got an Audix OM7, but she didn't like it at all.
Also from recordings I didn't really notice that much difference in rejection.

In fact I found that when comparing 58, 87 and OM7 adjusted to the same level the background noise was pretty much identical. In theory 87 being a condenser should be worse but the difference was really negligible.

So we're wondering if it would be worthwhile to invest in something like Neumann KMS 104/105 or DPA d:facto ?
Or for that matter any other mic you guys think might fit well ?

So the primary concern is that it fits the voice, good feedback rejection would be nice too.

Here's a recording from a gig we did couple years ago, so you can hear her voice.

YouTube
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Rent (and/or borrow) and test until you find a mic that you like and that suits your specific condition. The process might be long and tedious, but it will be a lot more productive and efficient than waiting for a bunch of random people tell you their model(s) of the best mic to use.

This is especially true when you consider that nobody here will know what “fits the voice” and “sounds nice” mean to you. Plus many people will not have any real experience testing the microphones they recommend against many of the other “best” microphones that were recommended.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by brk303 View Post
We're a rock band with a female singer.
She's using a Shure 87A or a Shure 58. She prefers 87A slightly.

Now we're relatively loud with two guitar and all, and her mic picks up a lot besides her voice.

With this in mind we got an Audix OM7, but she didn't like it at all.
Also from recordings I didn't really notice that much difference in rejection.

In fact I found that when comparing 58, 87 and OM7 adjusted to the same level the background noise was pretty much identical. In theory 87 being a condenser should be worse but the difference was really negligible.

So we're wondering if it would be worthwhile to invest in something like Neumann KMS 104/105 or DPA d:facto ?
Or for that matter any other mic you guys think might fit well ?

So the primary concern is that it fits the voice, good feedback rejection would be nice too.

Here's a recording from a gig we did couple years ago, so you can hear her voice.

YouTube
I did listen to some of the video. She's a good singer. I'd definitely try a Miktek PM9 on her. You will notice improved rejection. Along with better tone and clarity.
Avoid those neumanns. Not the right mic for what you all are doing.
I can't comment on the DPA,
The 87 is decent but will crap out over time. Not a good long-term stage mic.
Try the Miktek. She will love it.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #4
Gear Nut
Thank you both for the comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Rent (and/or borrow) and test until you find a mic that you like and that suits your specific condition.
That would be great, but the local rental companies don't really have much vocal mic variety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
The process might be long and tedious, but it will be a lot more productive and efficient than waiting for a bunch of random people tell you their model(s) of the best mic to use...
I understand what you mean, but I hoped provided youtube clip would help somewhat, if not on what to choose then at least on what not to consider, like Edva's comment on Neumann.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
I'd definitely try a Miktek PM9 on her. You will notice improved rejection. Along with better tone and clarity.
Not much of a mic expert so I never heard of Miktek, I will do a bit more research on it. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
Avoid those neumanns. Not the right mic for what you all are doing.
Aha, ok, I was suspecting that might be the case, thanks for the info.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by brk303 View Post
Thank you both for the comments.


Not much of a mic expert so I never heard of Miktek, I will do a bit more research on it. Thanks.
Aha, ok, I was suspecting that might be the case, thanks for the info.
You are welcome. You may not be an expert, but you were smart enough to post and ask.
I do consider myself an expert, having been in the profession for over 50 years, and having owned and used many different microphones, on thousands of shows, both as a musician and an engineer, and thousands of hours in studio. I still maintain a sizable collection of mics.
None of that of course necessarily makes an expert, but I do have a passion for music and sound, and mics, and I also believe we each have a duty to help others when we can. All of that is why i spend time here on GS.
I would not ever knowingly steer anyone wrong. The Miktek is an awesome mic for live sound, on a good singer. Singers with poor technique on the other hand will be more exposed than for example on a 58. But just going by the video that you were wise enough to post as an example, your singer would do well on this mic, in the best of my estimation.
Good luck.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk303 View Post
That would be great, but the local rental companies don't really have much vocal mic variety.
Quote:
I understand what you mean, but I hoped provided youtube clip would help somewhat, if not on what to choose then at least on what not to consider, like Edva's comment on Neumann.
I personally would not recommend those Neumann mics for your situation either, but I’ve heard mics that work well in situations where they shouldn’t on paper. Plus, any suggestions we make will be tainted by personal preferences, which might not be a bad thing in and of itself, but testing and discovering for yourself eliminates the guessing and increases your own knowledge and understanding to boot.

There is no disrespect or disagreement with edva’s suggestion and arguments, he’s certainly one of the more knowledgeable and experienced persons here, but you will still have to evaluate the appropriateness of the mic he suggested or buy blind.

Then there is going to be an onslaught of other suggestions from others who may or may not have the knowledge and experience to steer you in the right direction in the first place, and very soon you’re more confused than ever. Mic choice for singers often involve more than just the technical attributes and performance of the mic unfortunately, and this too will have to be taken into consideration.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
I will add for the record that Sam's way would be the ideal way to do it, and in a fully professional situation with an adequate budget, i.e. a large tour, it is sometimes done this way, with a proper audition of several mics to select the most appropriate model.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
I will add for the record that Sam's way would be the ideal way to do it, and in a fully professional situation with an adequate budget, i.e. a large tour, it is sometimes done this way, with a proper audition of several mics to select the most appropriate model.
I’ve even done this in more modest situations...in a day off in NY, London, Paris or any other big city with a big store with lots of stock we might go and try out a precise selection of microphones and/or instruments. Call up a big shop, ask if they have the microphones you’re interested in, setup an appointment, and go test.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
I’ve even done this in more modest situations...in a day off in NY, London, Paris or any other big city with a big store with lots of stock we might go and try out a precise selection of microphones and/or instruments. Call up a big shop, ask if they have the microphones you’re interested in, setup an appointment, and go test.
Excellent and just to further on that, if the Artist or band is famous enough I have seen several times where the manufacturers will send product, and sometimes in the case of for example PA equipment also personnel, to a venue where you can audition the mics or equipment.
Of course, the determination of how famous one must be for this to happen is beyond my ability to predict. I guess that is handled by management. But it can make for an interesting day.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
DistortingJack's Avatar
 

The OM7 is bar none the best mic for rejection in small environments, and sounds very nice (much better treble than the SM58).
I'd actually say it's one of the better-sounding dynamic mics out there, even in a controlled studio environment. However there are some caveats:

– It has to be worked very close (0–2 inches max)
– If the mic isn't aiming exactly at the mouth (not necessarily the front of it, but at least at it) the sound will be bad, and will drop off in volume. You need to treat it like a laser.
– It doesn't work with every voice unless you EQ it, especially with female singers. There are certain midrange frequencies in shouty female voices that just jump out on many microphones, including the OM7.

I'm not the biggest fan of it on my voice without an EQ (although it's much better than a 58).
However, I have a digital mixing system and therefore can make it sound beautifully balanced with a bit of parametric EQ, and the isolation is so good I can actually compress quite a bit without bleed or feedback issues, if required, making my vocal way more controlled. I wouldn't dream of compressing a 58 in a small stage.

If you have a digital console or similar, I strongly suggest you try the OM7 again and try to EQ it. Do make sure the singer stays close to it. The vocal will definitely have the least bleed you can get, which means you can boost it up in volume and add more processing if you like.

I have tried the d:facto and I love it, but nothing (really, nothing) comes close to the OM7 in terms of rejection, and live that makes a bigger difference with a loud band than the added accuracy as long as you've got tone-shaping tools. It was the mic of choice for many insanely loud grunge and shoegaze bands for a reason. I'd use the d:facto only in larger stages and with in-ear monitoring. The linear version I'd use in a studio without thinking twice. But bleed will be an issue in small stages.

If you cannot add a parametric EQ to the vocal, you're going to have to shop around. The best mics for rejection are all dynamics. I'd suggest the Shure KSM8. It lacks air but has the most controlled and assertive midrange you'll ever get live, and the most accurate cardioid polar pattern out of any dynamic vocal mic, making for less, and better-sounding bleed – and those are the most important factors when you don't have processing options around.

The Telefunken M81 would also sound great, and has a very tight polar pattern, but I have issues with its reliability. The grille starts rusting after a while, and the body gets horribly scratched quickly. The M80 is great for male voices, similar in tone to the OM7 but even brighter – it won't sound good with your singer.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
The OM7 is bar none the best mic for rejection in small environments, and sounds very nice (much better treble than the SM58).
Quote:
Originally Posted by brk303 View Post
We're a rock band with a female singer.
She's using a Shure 87A or a Shure 58. She prefers 87A slightly.

Now we're relatively loud with two guitar and all, and her mic picks up a lot besides her voice.

With this in mind we got an Audix OM7, but she didn't like it at all.
Also from recordings I didn't really notice that much difference in rejection.

In fact I found that when comparing 58, 87 and OM7 adjusted to the same level the background noise was pretty much identical.
Seems like it was ruled out by all concerned in the original post...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
The OM7 is bar none the best mic for rejection in small environments, and sounds very nice (much better treble than the SM58).
I'd actually say it's one of the better-sounding dynamic mics out there, even in a controlled studio environment.
Please tell me this is a (very bad) joke...because it renders everything else in the post extremely suspect.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 

all my gear is genre agnostic and does not have a preference for any sex or gender!

try as many different mics from as many manufacturers as you can (although i'm pretty much convinced that you can find a mic which suits your singer even from just a single manufacturer which offers more than 2 mics).

i'd consider the function as much as the sound (if one can separate them at all).



p.s. and then, there are many different preamp designs, sometimes including an impedance (mis-)matching option and mostly an (adjustable) hp filter section which affect the sound...

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 2 weeks ago at 01:44 PM.. Reason: p.s. added
Old 2 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
DistortingJack's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyllys View Post
Seems like it was ruled out by all concerned in the original post...
Yeah, that's why I said to try it again in a specific way, which is often not the way it's tried. It's very easy to misuse this particular model, but it shines when used the way it's supposed to.

The polar pattern is very, very tight. This is obvious by looking at it.



I'm not the only person saying that. It's again the mic of choice for many high-end bands, especially '90s alternative bands that had loud guitars and singers who are sometimes inconsistent with regards to volume.



Review: The Audix OM-7 Microphone - VoiceCouncil Magazine

It has a shaped frequency response, and therefore the tonality won't be for everyone off the bat. A good parametric EQ can take care of that.



If OP can't make it sound like they like with EQ, then I again recommend the Shure KSM8 instead.

Here are the charts for the KSM8 – far less treble information but more accurate midrange and low frequencies, and a wider but more stable polar pattern:



Old 2 weeks ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

Jack...

The point is they gave it a fair trial and rejected it. You can post all the plots and specs you want. They didn't like the sound...and the OP seems fairly knowledgeable.

The point is to address the OPs issues, not to jump in late in the thread and suggest gear that has already been given a fair trial and been rejected.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #16
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
yeah, and the 0M7 does kinda suck, IMHO. Sound is more than just about maximum rejection. And the new Shure KSM 8, while not as bad a tone as the Audix, does sound rather "hollow" to me. ALL ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE, and just my personal opinion, not trying to make an issue out of it. Both are good quality professional mics if you happen to like the way they sound. I just don't. YMMV.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
yeah, and the 0M7 does kinda suck, IMHO. Sound is more than just about maximum rejection. And the new Shure KSM 8, while not as bad a tone as the Audix, does sound rather "hollow" to me. ALL ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE, and just my personal opinion, not trying to make an issue out of it. Both are good quality professional mics if you happen to like the way they sound. I just don't. YMMV.
We agree...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #18
Gear Nut
First of all, thanks everyone for the comments.

About OM7, we will give it another try. I will try to EQ it to see if we can get something we like out of it. I am a bit skeptical but will try.

Regarding other mics mentioned, we decided to not buy blindly based on recommendation.

There is a possibility we'll be able to visit Thomann store in Germany later this year.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk303 View Post
First of all, thanks everyone for the comments.

About OM7, we will give it another try. I will try to EQ it to see if we can get something we like out of it. I am a bit skeptical but will try.

Regarding other mics mentioned, we decided to not buy blindly based on recommendation.

There is a possibility we'll be able to visit Thomann store in Germany later this year.
Your initial take on the OM7 was pretty much right on. At last count you have three "sucks" and one "you can EQ it". If you're looking for something with similar polar response and the shorter distance between grille and element but with better sound quality, take a look at the EV ND96.

https://www.electrovoice.com/binary/ND96_F01U319490.pdf

Pay special attention to the switched reponse feature which pretty much eliminates the need for using channel EQ to compensate for any anomalies.

Good luck.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
DistortingJack's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
Sound is more than just about maximum rejection.
Yeah, if you're at the level where you're playing gigs where you're bringing your own high-end speaker system and the acoustics are good and the stage is large enough that rejection isn't the biggest issue.

If you see the video that OP posted, the stage is tiny, and it looks like it's a house sound system. In my own experience, at that level, rejection and gain-before-feedback are the main issues to overcome. It doesn't matter if your mic sounds like a U67 if you can't turn it up. It doesn't matter if your midrange is tasty if the acoustics of the place make your favourite reverb setting sound like a megaphone.

If OP gets themselves a Neumann KMS 104/105 (which objectively sounds better) and tries to use them in that stage while eating the mic, they are going to sound like a feedback machine.

I'm not sure I would have suggested the OM7 by itself. But OP already has it. And as far as how sucky it sounds, well it is indeed a matter of opinion. I think OP would be very happy to end up sounding like this:



Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
And the new Shure KSM 8, while not as bad a tone as the Audix, does sound rather "hollow" to me. ALL ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE, and just my personal opinion.
See, It truly is subjective, because the KSM8 I would say is the opposite of hollow. It's fat and tubby, and lacking upper treble, certainly in comparison to the Beta 87 which has less low-mids and a lot of lower treble. It does lack the upper midrange spike of the SM58, so if you wish to call that hollow then go ahead. The tonality shows quite clearly on A/B comparisons:



An extended comparison with the SM58:



You might scoff at the music style and the singing and the graphs and whatever on everything I posted. But I don't see anyone posting anything better.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

The whole "rejection" and GBF thing regarding the OM7 boils down to the physical placement of the element closer to the grille rather then pickup pattern or engineering mojo. This allows the mic to be worked "closer" than others. The ND96 uses the same config...but sounds much better.

PS

Posting YouTube videos for proof of sound quality is bogus.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #22
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
Yeah, if you're at the level where you're playing gigs where you're bringing your own high-end speaker system and the acoustics are good and the stage is large enough that rejection isn't the biggest issue.

If you see the video that OP posted, the stage is tiny, and it looks like it's a house sound system. In my own experience, at that level, rejection and gain-before-feedback are the main issues to overcome. It doesn't matter if your mic sounds like a U67 if you can't turn it up. It doesn't matter if your midrange is tasty if the acoustics of the place make your favourite reverb setting sound like a megaphone.

If OP gets themselves a Neumann KMS 104/105 (which objectively sounds better) and tries to use them in that stage while eating the mic, they are going to sound like a feedback machine.

I'm not sure I would have suggested the OM7 by itself. But OP already has it. And as far as how sucky it sounds, well it is indeed a matter of opinion. I think OP would be very happy to end up sounding like this:





See, It truly is subjective, because the KSM8 I would say is the opposite of hollow. It's fat and tubby, and lacking upper treble, certainly in comparison to the Beta 87 which has less low-mids and a lot of lower treble. It does lack the upper midrange spike of the SM58, so if you wish to call that hollow then go ahead. The tonality shows quite clearly on A/B comparisons:



An extended comparison with the SM58:



You might scoff at the music style and the singing and the graphs and whatever on everything I posted. But I don't see anyone posting anything better.
No need to be so combative my friend. Aside from the unavoidable subjectiveness of subjectivity, we are more in agreement than in disagreement. i still don't care for the sound of the 0M7 though
Old 2 weeks ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
Yeah, if you're at the level where you're playing gigs where you're bringing your own high-end speaker system and the acoustics are good and the stage is large enough that rejection isn't the biggest issue..
Sound is never just about rejection regardless of stage size...what’s the point if it sounds like ****e?

Quote:
It doesn't matter if your mic sounds like a U67 if you can't turn it up. It doesn't matter if your midrange is tasty if the acoustics of the place make your favourite reverb setting sound like a megaphone.
Likewise, it does not matter how much your mic can reject if it sounds crappy, and there are better sounding microphones that give excellent gain before feedback performance.

Quote:
If OP gets themselves a Neumann KMS 104/105 (which objectively sounds better) and tries to use them in that stage while eating the mic, they are going to sound like a feedback machine.
It was already suggested that the 104/105 would not be a good idea.

Quote:
You might scoff at the music style and the singing and the graphs and whatever on everything I posted. But I don't see anyone posting anything better.
When I want to know how well a mic will perform in a given situation, I go test it in that situation which is what I suggested the OP does...big room, small room, loud backline etc with the singer in question on the other end of it. YouTube videos and specification sheets don’t tell half the story.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk303 View Post
We're a rock band with a female singer.
She's using a Shure 87A or a Shure 58. She prefers 87A slightly.

Now we're relatively loud with two guitar and all, and her mic picks up a lot besides her voice.

With this in mind we got an Audix OM7, but she didn't like it at all.
Also from recordings I didn't really notice that much difference in rejection.

In fact I found that when comparing 58, 87 and OM7 adjusted to the same level the background noise was pretty much identical. In theory 87 being a condenser should be worse but the difference was really negligible.

So we're wondering if it would be worthwhile to invest in something like Neumann KMS 104/105 or DPA d:facto ?
Or for that matter any other mic you guys think might fit well ?

So the primary concern is that it fits the voice, good feedback rejection would be nice too.

Here's a recording from a gig we did couple years ago, so you can hear her voice.

YouTube
The first thing you do is get control of your stage volume. Getting the guitar amps pointed at the players ears instead of their ankles and away from the singer will be a start. In the event the guitarists have to crank the amps to get "their sound", use smaller amps, get the sound at a lower volume and let the PA do its work.

Searches like this for the right mic are often done in lieu of simply learning how to play for the conditions du jour. Having two guitars playing everything all the time will mask vocals. Mics made to compensate for this ( OM7 etc) tend to sound crappy because they're made to cut through the garbage, not sound good.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 

I have several loud acts with male and female vocalists on my client list. All my female vocalist clients prefer the EV N/D767a's I have, and I expect the 967, 76, ad 96 will fare as well. They also do well on male vocals, but my OM5's are better for aggressive male vocals, and Sennheisers I find really exaggerate male aggression, but make female vocals sound like nagging mother-in-laws.

The 767's also reject bleed/feedback better than my OM5's. The superpower of the OM5's is changing very little when cupped, and so far they've taken a substantial sh|t-kicking very well. Best mic for dudes for me, 767's for the ladies. If she doesn't like a 767 I would start assuming the band needs to quiet down substantially.

Edit: major caveat, OM5's need WAY more gain when there's an analog split. Like 40dB instead of my usual 23dB. Still sound fine, just your saved mixes need adjustment bigtime.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL View Post
I have several loud acts with male and female vocalists on my client list. All my female vocalist clients prefer the EV N/D767a's I have, and I expect the 967, 76, ad 96 will fare as well. They also do well on male vocals, but my OM5's are better for aggressive male vocals, and Sennheisers I find really exaggerate male aggression, but make female vocals sound like nagging mother-in-laws.

The 767's also reject bleed/feedback better than my OM5's. The superpower of the OM5's is changing very little when cupped, and so far they've taken a substantial sh|t-kicking very well. Best mic for dudes for me, 767's for the ladies. If she doesn't like a 767 I would start assuming the band needs to quiet down substantially.

Edit: major caveat, OM5's need WAY more gain when there's an analog split. Like 40dB instead of my usual 23dB. Still sound fine, just your saved mixes need adjustment bigtime.
Does your microphones have built in gender recognition capability...?

Since when did microphones become gender and singing-style specific I wonder?

Some of the stuff that gets posted here is just such ridiculous crap...!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #27
Lives for gear
There is some good information in this thread, but a lot of the discussion/argument doesn’t serve the OP much. If the thread stopped at the #2 post by samc, you would know what you need to know.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Does your microphones have built in gender recognition capability...?

Since when did microphones become gender and singing-style specific I wonder?

Some of the stuff that gets posted here is just such ridiculous crap...!
About the same time that male and female vocals developed different registers. Get to the back of the line for gender equality considerations, and as you know you're the dregs of my ignore list. Knew this one would be narsty...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL View Post
About the same time that male and female vocals developed different registers.
Every good mic I’ve ever used is perfectly useable for either male or female vocals...RE20, MBHO 219, M88, MD 421, Earthworks SR40V...the list goes on...have no problem performing well with either gender and different performing style, your claim is unadulterated BS.

Quote:
Get to the back of the line for gender equality considerations, and as you know you're the dregs of my ignore list. Knew this one would be narsty...
Absolutely idiotic, why are you responding if I’m on your ignore list...how did you see my post?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL View Post
About the same time that male and female vocals developed different registers. Get to the back of the line for gender equality considerations, and as you know you're the dregs of my ignore list. Knew this one would be narsty...
rubbish! are you using different mics to record violin, viola, cello? how about counter tenor?
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
stevehollx / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
6
sgmw / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
6
tenkas / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
4
Reborn / So much gear, so little time
18
Hellequin / Live Sound
13

Forum Jump
Forum Jump