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
How do old punk records still sound "good" even though the sound quality is "bad" Audio Interfaces
Old 1 week ago
  #61
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
This is in response to the idea that it’s analog tape that made them sound so good.

I started down the home studio path in the late 90’s. First recording was done with a Peavey 6 channel head into a sound blaster card running Cakewalk. Drums were done in an 8x8 untreated roo and guitars were done direct, vocals in the same room. Sounded like complete @$$ but started my 20+ year road to today. I can get a completely usable drum mix without analog tape. I can get great guitars, bass and vocals without tape. I have an Otari MTR10, an older Otari 1/2” 8 track and I just purchased an MCI JH110B and an MCI JH16 2” deck (in the last 3 months) and all I’m looking to gain from them is a change in work flow and some “possible” SUBTLE sonic differences from digital. I have no expectations of them making my music sound sonically levels above what I can do digitally. ITS NOT THE GEAR, IT’s THE PERFORMANCE, INSTRUMENTS, WHAT YOU DO WITH THEM, AND THE ENGINEERS ABILITIES TO CAPTURE IT ALL WITH THE GEAR THEY HAVE. They’ve made great sounding music with 1/4” tape, 1/2” tape, 1” tape, 2” tape, 3m digital, ADATS, Tascam DA88’s, all the legacy converters since it all began, and so on. The best thing you can do for yourself if you want your music to sound better recorded is A) start with great instruments and work on your performances, B) Treat your room, C) Learn mic placement and how to use the gear you have. Think about it, if you produced all the tone and mojo from your instruments that you think tape, mic’s, preamps and compressors are gonna do for you then all you’d need is 100% transparent recording gear to capture it. But then you’d only have to buy enough channels, mic’s, and compressors to capture it all in a recording. Manufactures wouldn’t have “magical” gear to sell you.

Another gem: IF YOU CANT OVERCOME THE SHORTCOMMINGS OF YOUR CURRENT SETUP THEN NEW GEAR WON’T SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS.

I mix completely OTB. I’ve been buying older gear and upgrading capacitors and op amps. The differences are very subtle but do add up with each mod. The difference is, It’s easier and takes less time to get the same results as I could get with the gear unmodded.

Final note: I look for gear to make my life easier, not make me sound better.

Brian
How about that old Otari 32 track some machine... good info. I am onboard with your upgrades/
Old 1 week ago
  #62
Gear Addict
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
How about that old Otari 32 track some machine... good info. I am onboard with your upgrades/
It was an MX80 2” deck with 32 channels. I wanted an MX80 for years because of size and I was familiar with Otari’s. I wanted a 2” 16 track though bit ran across the 32 in my quest. Supposedly Michael Jackson has one. Guess you can make good sounding music on those too.

Brian
Old 1 week ago
  #63
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
It was an MX80 2” deck with 32 channels. I wanted an MX80 for years because of size and I was familiar with Otari’s. I wanted a 2” 16 track though bit ran across the 32 in my quest. Supposedly Michael Jackson has one. Guess you can make good sounding music on those too.

Brian
ya It would be REEL nice to have one.
Old 1 week ago
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Muser's Avatar
you might often be hearing results of John Peel sessions. which may well have been BBC studio recordings.
Old 1 week ago
  #65
Lives for gear
 

tight or ramshackle band/musicianship according to taste. bunch of 57s and tape, any old mixer, preferably not dying, simple mix down, very little outboard. quick as hell, no second guessing - immediate, adrenaline, committed. bang. many of the engineers for great punk recordings were just starting out, finding their feet, and a got a board/mics/tape from someone or other.. not awesome pros with years of experience... punk is all about "f**k that being a requirement".

Also tape isn't a requirement now, but if you're doing without it then you're missing a bit of the adrenaline of the finite resource, the take.. also if you fall down the 'mix in the box' rabbit hole, dicking around with this and that, then you'll also miss something there...

Basically with all the tools we have easily accessible now to polish and make 'good' it's pretty hard to not do that... it's hard to be happy with an obviously bad sound (ie you could 'just' easily improve this, this and this) and thus the spirit is easily lost...

even the band probably wouldn't be happy with the kind of random/badness sound made then... might be a tough sell...

I remember an interview with someone out of Fugazi saying he'd rather tear down the whole band recording setup each night and start again in the morning for the next session, just so it's different and more random interesting things can happen..

Be happy with an obviously bad sound (not an 'artfully crafted' bad sound - I too can't f**king stand the black keys for that kind of fake toss)... that's hard.. go listen to a thousand hours of Daniel Johnston to cleanse your soul of gearslutz membership, and then report back.
Old 1 week ago
  #66
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutetourettes View Post
tight or ramshackle band/musicianship according to taste. bunch of 57s and tape, any old mixer, preferably not dying, simple mix down, very little outboard. quick as hell, no second guessing - immediate, adrenaline, committed. bang. many of the engineers for great punk recordings were just starting out, finding their feet, and a got a board/mics/tape from someone or other.. not awesome pros with years of experience... punk is all about "f**k that being a requirement".

Also tape isn't a requirement now, but if you're doing without it then you're missing a bit of the adrenaline of the finite resource, the take.. also if you fall down the 'mix in the box' rabbit hole, dicking around with this and that, then you'll also miss something there...

Basically with all the tools we have easily accessible now to polish and make 'good' it's pretty hard to not do that... it's hard to be happy with an obviously bad sound (ie you could 'just' easily improve this, this and this) and thus the spirit is easily lost...

even the band probably wouldn't be happy with the kind of random/badness sound made then... might be a tough sell...

I remember an interview with someone out of Fugazi saying he'd rather tear down the whole band recording setup each night and start again in the morning for the next session, just so it's different and more random interesting things can happen..

Be happy with an obviously bad sound (not an 'artfully crafted' bad sound - I too can't f**king stand the black keys for that kind of fake toss)... that's hard.. go listen to a thousand hours of Daniel Johnston to cleanse your soul of gearslutz membership, and then report back.
you could 'just' easily improve this, this and this) and thus the spirit is easily lost... HOW TRUE!
Old 1 week ago
  #67
Here for the gear
Many of these records were recorded with the band playing live together, with only vocals done later. Microphone bleed makes a difference. You can simulate this with a second mic placed farther out in the room. Also I’d consider getting a cheap tape recorder to use for a part, say synth or doubling guitar. This will give your recording a bit more “dirt”. Btw, That Kevin Army interview in Tape Op is fascinating!
Old 1 week ago
  #68
Gear Addict
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.72 View Post
Many of these records were recorded with the band playing live together, with only vocals done later. Microphone bleed makes a difference. You can simulate this with a second mic placed farther out in the room. Also I’d consider getting a cheap tape recorder to use for a part, say synth or doubling guitar. This will give your recording a bit more “dirt”. Btw, That Kevin Army interview in Tape Op is fascinating!
The bleed is the key. I recorded a band recently and we had all the overdubs done except the vocals. They wanted a ruff mix with and without vocals. All I had was the vocal scratch track. They asked why the vocal version sounded so “roomy” and raw. So I plaid the mix and muted and unmuted the vocal track during the song and jaws were dropping.

Brian

Last edited by Brian M. Boykin; 1 week ago at 05:04 PM.. Reason: Spelling
Old 1 week ago
  #70
Here for the gear
The misconception here is that higher quality equipment would make a punk record sound better, and I just don't think that's how it works (except maybe for "pop punk" and such, that's not my kinda thing). I play and listen to the most hardcore styles like powerviolence/grindcore, but there are a lot of styles. The concept is NOT to get a polished poppy sound like a pop song. They're trying to be harsh and noisy, not get on the pop charts, though I guess some bands called punk are/were. There are a wide range of styles, but the bottom line is that in a genre that is based on a raw live sound, a polished studio sound is certainly not the most common goal.
Old 1 week ago
  #71
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
In his opinion vibe and performance trump sonics.
YES!
example

This is vibe!

It appears your own lethargy is getting the best of you.
Unfortunately the zeros, I mean the units are too insecure to get out here.

Old 1 week ago
  #72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredx2098 View Post
The misconception here is that higher quality equipment would make a punk record sound better, and I just don't think that's how it works (except maybe for "pop punk" and such, that's not my kinda thing). I play and listen to the most hardcore styles like powerviolence/grindcore, but there are a lot of styles. The concept is NOT to get a polished poppy sound like a pop song. They're trying to be harsh and noisy, not get on the pop charts, though I guess some bands called punk are/were. There are a wide range of styles, but the bottom line is that in a genre that is based on a raw live sound, a polished studio sound is certainly not the most common goal.
Thanks, you put into words what all my favorite musicians taught me. Perfection is boring.
Old 1 week ago
  #73
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
This is in response to the idea that it’s analog tape that made them sound so good.
It was the tape, it was also that playback was generally vinyl/cassette. (at least when I was listening to punk in the 70's early 80's)

I don't disagree with your statement great sounding music is made on digital as well, but the question "why did they sound great back then" the answer is tape, (why else have digital emulations of tape saturation if it wasn't good) playback device (vinyl) and the fact the bands were really into what they were doing.


At least that was my thought, can't speak for anyone else.

Everyone looks for gear to make themselves sound better AND make their life easier, gear that makes you sound better isn't going to compensate for lack of talent, you still need that.
But you want a good sound/tone from your gear as well.
Old 1 week ago
  #74
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by geob View Post
Thanks, you put into words what all my favorite musicians taught me. Perfection is boring.
Right? There's that one polished studio sound that gets aimed for, but (supposedly) "below" that are so many other possibilities, not just noisy chaos either but a lot of awesome styles. A lot of my favorite bands of all time have a common factor of being produced by the same guy, Kurt Ballou. He's produced a lot of classic and most brutal hardcore bands of the late '90s/early '00s like Orchid, Jeromes Dream, pageninetynine, Gospel, also his own band Converge which is more metal. All super noisy and not traditionally polished, but he is the poster boy of hardcore and metal production. Steve Albini's a good one too, though not half as brootal as Kurt.
Old 1 week ago
  #75
Gear Maniac
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredx2098 View Post
Right? There's that one polished studio sound that gets aimed for, but (supposedly) "below" that are so many other possibilities, not just noisy chaos either but a lot of awesome styles. A lot of my favorite bands of all time have a common factor of being produced by the same guy, Kurt Ballou. He's produced a lot of classic and most brutal hardcore bands of the late '90s/early '00s like Orchid, Jeromes Dream, pageninetynine, Gospel, also his own band Converge which is more metal. All super noisy and not traditionally polished, but he is the poster boy of hardcore and metal production. Steve Albini's a good one too, though not half as brootal as Kurt.
Kurt Ballou interview producing: Kurt Ballou (Converge, GodCity Studio) On The Role of A Music Producer - YouTube

thanks for turning me on to him...
Old 1 week ago
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredx2098 View Post
Right? There's that one polished studio sound that gets aimed for, but (supposedly) "below" that are so many other possibilities, not just noisy chaos either but a lot of awesome styles. A lot of my favorite bands of all time have a common factor of being produced by the same guy, Kurt Ballou. He's produced a lot of classic and most brutal hardcore bands of the late '90s/early '00s like Orchid, Jeromes Dream, pageninetynine, Gospel, also his own band Converge which is more metal. All super noisy and not traditionally polished, but he is the poster boy of hardcore and metal production. Steve Albini's a good one too, though not half as brootal as Kurt.
For years I couldnt stop listening to Front 242 early albums through 1993. First mostly just Front by Front, then Tyranny for you, then caught on to 06:21:03:11 Up Evil, and then finally Geography. Was surprised about Skinny Puppy, wondering what the heck is this crap then finally listening to it at full volume. Then later NIN and Candlebox but they sounded relatively tame by comparison but I like them for awhile at least. I guess hardcore quality EBM Industrial will always be with me and my musical tastes changed over time with a few decades to simmer down.

And today (maybe tomorrow it will be something else) but today it's

Eric Prydz - Generate
YouTube

However, it's just one emotional dimension, and all the previously mentioned bands.. hey they created songs with all kinds of different emotion that was in just 1 song. It wasnt just one feeling in the whole song. They were all over the place. We as a society are at risk of becoming emotionally boring creating 'good' music.
Old 1 week ago
  #77
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by geob View Post
Thanks, you put into words what all my favorite musicians taught me. Perfection is boring.
This can apply to slow songs and ballads.

With fast speed music, perfection in some things like timing and tone setting (to hear instruments) is a necessity, or people would bash your band on youtube comments at the first release and throw bottles at the first live.
Old 1 week ago
  #78
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Kurt Ballou interview producing: Kurt Ballou (Converge, GodCity Studio) On The Role of A Music Producer - YouTube

thanks for turning me on to him...
"I would rather make a unique sounding record than an objectively good sounding record."

I love this quote! Thanks for sharing this video, I haven't seen it. If you like super hardcore stuff I'd recommend Orchid, they're my favorite band of all time, produced by him.
Old 1 week ago
  #79
Gear Maniac
 
Bart Nettle's Avatar
Here we have an example of the cheapest and arguably the first DIY production squeezed onto 4 tracks which became a hit before the Damed or Sex Pistols

Listen

YouTube
Old 1 week ago
  #80
Gear Addict
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33db View Post
It was the tape, it was also that playback was generally vinyl/cassette. (at least when I was listening to punk in the 70's early 80's)

I don't disagree with your statement great sounding music is made on digital as well, but the question "why did they sound great back then" the answer is tape, (why else have digital emulations of tape saturation if it wasn't good) playback device (vinyl) and the fact the bands were really into what they were doing.


At least that was my thought, can't speak for anyone else.

Everyone looks for gear to make themselves sound better AND make their life easier, gear that makes you sound better isn't going to compensate for lack of talent, you still need that.
But you want a good sound/tone from your gear as well.
You make some excellent points but I still don’t think tape is the end all be all to the sound. If you went back in time and only changed the recorder to a digital set up the sound would be very close. Record the entire band at once with all the bleed. Mix it back off the hard drive the same way they did it with the same gear and the difference from tape to digital would be very subtle. I’ve hit tape hard with the decks I have and will be hitting it hard again on the JH16 I just bought and don’t expect the tape saturation to blow my mind or do anything sonically that makes my head explode. I’d actually be interested to know what consoles they used. Less known discrete models than the Neve’s, API’s and MCI’s existed. There’s an argument out there that once opamp IC’s took over that’s when consoles started sounding very similar with less difference between them. But even then, the raw sound is just throwing up mic’s and recording together with all the bleed and mixing it and moving on. I made some pretty raw sounding music in my early years in untreated rooms with lots of bleed. I listen to some punk listed in this thread. Maybe I’m missing something.

Brian
Old 1 week ago
  #81
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
You make some excellent points but I still don’t think tape is the end all be all to the sound. If you went back in time and only changed the recorder to a digital set up the sound would be very close. Record the entire band at once with all the bleed. Mix it back off the hard drive the same way they did it with the same gear and the difference from tape to digital would be very subtle. I’ve hit tape hard with the decks I have and will be hitting it hard again on the JH16 I just bought and don’t expect the tape saturation to blow my mind or do anything sonically that makes my head explode. I’d actually be interested to know what consoles they used. Less known discrete models than the Neve’s, API’s and MCI’s existed. There’s an argument out there that once opamp IC’s took over that’s when consoles started sounding very similar with less difference between them. But even then, the raw sound is just throwing up mic’s and recording together with all the bleed and mixing it and moving on. I made some pretty raw sounding music in my early years in untreated rooms with lots of bleed. I listen to some punk listed in this thread. Maybe I’m missing something.

Brian
I dunno, I reckon tape is the key to getting bearable cymbals when they’re being thrashed and in all the mics. I think it could be a crucial factor, in regards to the thread title topic.
Old 1 week ago
  #82
Here for the gear
Since my recording technique for hardcore is as simple and live as possible I've thought that tape might be cool to look into, but also I reckon that might not fit in on the low end of things...
Old 1 week ago
  #83
Gear Addict
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredx2098 View Post
Since my recording technique for hardcore is as simple and live as possible I've thought that tape might be cool to look into, but also I reckon that might not fit in on the low end of things...
I paid $2k for my JH16. I have a 1/2” 8 track Otari I paid maybe $400 for years ago. I have a Motu 828es I paid $900 for and a Motu 16a I paid $1k for used. I bought 4 reels of used Ampex 456 for $95. If your tech savvy, good with a soldering iron, tape isn’t that much up front as it used to be 10 years ago when I first started looking at 2” decks. Start small and think big if you really want one. Make some test runs on some cheaper tascams or otari’s like I did. If you like it, move on to bigger and better. I threw my old digital set up in the dumpster. 2 Motu 1224’s and a 2408 yet I’ve kept reel to reels 3 times their age. Let that sink in. I can record professional quality audio on a 1977 MCI JH16 and I threw my Motu set up in the trash. Digital will always be disposable as long as computers are disposable. What’s your oldest legacy computer you still have and use? Just food for thought.

Brian
Old 1 week ago
  #84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimi777 View Post
This can apply to slow songs and ballads.

With fast speed music, perfection in some things like timing and tone setting (to hear instruments) is a necessity, or people would bash your band on youtube comments at the first release and throw bottles at the first live.
I'll hit 'em with the compressor!

Seriously, I can do that in audacity. Hit the drums twice, copy and paste 100x and it sounds absolutely perfect ly boring. I'm pretty good at first take bashing out super fast "almost perfectly timed" rhythms with the occasional wrong hit. I don't care if my keyboard breaks because it's so cheap, even if "vintage" or what not. I'll be happy if they're all drinking, then it sounds better
Old 1 week ago
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
I paid $2k for my JH16. I have a 1/2” 8 track Otari I paid maybe $400 for years ago. I have a Motu 828es I paid $900 for and a Motu 16a I paid $1k for used. I bought 4 reels of used Ampex 456 for $95. If your tech savvy, good with a soldering iron, tape isn’t that much up front as it used to be 10 years ago when I first started looking at 2” decks. Start small and think big if you really want one. Make some test runs on some cheaper tascams or otari’s like I did. If you like it, move on to bigger and better. I threw my old digital set up in the dumpster. 2 Motu 1224’s and a 2408 yet I’ve kept reel to reels 3 times their age. Let that sink in. I can record professional quality audio on a 1977 MCI JH16 and I threw my Motu set up in the trash. Digital will always be disposable as long as computers are disposable. What’s your oldest legacy computer you still have and use? Just food for thought.

Brian
I wonder if there are any handheld digital recorders that sound as good as my $15 yellow sports walkman. Digital recorder probably would not survive many drops. However, dropped my walkman on the kitchen floor and sure enough it still works. It's the same kind I dropped many times when running and still worked. I was shocked at how harsh the digital recorder sounded and after an hour listening to it my ears hurt. Kind of left an impression on me, here you have a super high resolution (I can hear incredible detail in the music) but darn I just can't listen to it, and is not warm and bassy and enjoyable. And cell phone music just aint as good as my $15 walkman. It's kind of hilarious when you think about it.
Old 1 week ago
  #86
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
I paid $2k for my JH16. I have a 1/2” 8 track Otari I paid maybe $400 for years ago. I have a Motu 828es I paid $900 for and a Motu 16a I paid $1k for used. I bought 4 reels of used Ampex 456 for $95. If your tech savvy, good with a soldering iron, tape isn’t that much up front as it used to be 10 years ago when I first started looking at 2” decks. Start small and think big if you really want one. Make some test runs on some cheaper tascams or otari’s like I did. If you like it, move on to bigger and better. I threw my old digital set up in the dumpster. 2 Motu 1224’s and a 2408 yet I’ve kept reel to reels 3 times their age. Let that sink in. I can record professional quality audio on a 1977 MCI JH16 and I threw my Motu set up in the trash. Digital will always be disposable as long as computers are disposable. What’s your oldest legacy computer you still have and use? Just food for thought.

Brian
Haha! Legacy computers, good one! Feeling some serious gear envy! I'm not good with a soldering iron, but I have a friend who is. I'm not a big proponent of modifying gear, but if I can get something cheap and it's broken I get it'd be worth a shot.
Lookin at Tascams and the cassette Portastudio looks interesting. It might color the sound in an interesting way for very noisy powerviolence, even some avant-garde folk music on the other side of the spectrum... or could just sound like garbage. I'm not sure how I'd test out stuff like this.
I think it's kinda strange that there isn't any new tape recording equipment being made (that I know of). It seems like a lot of big name producers still use tape. I mean, tube amplifiers, effects, etc. are still produced in abundance and haven't been replaced by digital technology (thank god...), and I feel like those things are sort of analogous (heh).
Old 1 week ago
  #87
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Nettle View Post
Here we have an example of the cheapest and arguably the first DIY production squeezed onto 4 tracks which became a hit before the Damed or Sex Pistols

Listen

YouTube
I'd never heard or even heard of these guys before, but the similarity to the Ramones is striking, and they would seem to be of roughly the same time frame (1976).

A few pages back, somebody mentioned how Never Mind the Bollocks still stands the test of time, and I have to agree with that. (My CD version is a dub from the vinyl.) But if this article is any indication, it's not what I would call a "stripped down" production.

CLASSIC TRACKS: The Sex Pistols 'Anarchy In The UK' |

A REAL studio, REAL producer(s), and at least one musician (Steve Jones) who could really play. The only dodgy bit was making sure they were paid (by the Pistols' manager, Malcolm McLaren), but I suppose that kind of crap has been going on forever, in every genre of music.

I would contrast the album with the first time I heard the Pistols. A friend in high school was originally from Scotland, and had a mate from back home send him a cassette copy of the Sex Pistols' performance on Top of the Pops. It was a bad recording (no doubt made with a microphone held up to the telly speaker), but my first impression was that it was a mess! As a 15 year old kid, I knew practically nothing about the record industry, but my thought was, "These guys need a producer". That's what they got with Chris Thomas and Bill Price.

Geoff
Old 1 week ago
  #88
Gear Nut
 

Yes, I've stopped including Never Mind the Bollocks in my mental collection of punk records for ages now. It is a professionally produced rock album- nothing DIY about it at all.

That's not to say it's not good (it's brilliant!), just that it is a totally different kettle of fish.
Old 1 week ago
  #89
Lives for gear
 
brockorama's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rddsknk89 View Post
but I still run into issues, especially with drums. I don't have the space or budget to record drums, so I use the MT Power Drum Kit plugin. Although that's a great free plugin, I find it hard to make a song even sound like a cohesive song when the drums are all nice midi samples but the guitars, vox, and bass all sound pretty bad Maybe it's impossible to make something sound the way I want using a plugin like that. Cause if I know anything, I know that EQing the top end out of midi drums does NOT make it sound lo-fi
Past To Future Samples has some retro, trashy, genre specific, including punk and disco.

These fun inexpensive kits are for Kontakt. If you are gonna use samples, these might get you to the dirtier place easier, and sit with your other elements in a more natural way.

I mostly use SD3 for anything I want to sound current, however I recently purchased Desert Drums from Space Cabin Audio and have been experimenting with dry 70's type sounds. It sounds great and is a great alter ego to the toontrack stuff.
Old 1 week ago
  #90
Gear Addict
You like the sound of those albums because you like the music. I really think it is as simple as that. Maybe it is a certain fondness for the time or maybe you just have an affinity for that esthetic and/or that attitude. Those who don't like that music (for whatever reason) likely think those albums sound bad.
Neither camp is "right." It's all related to life experiences and inclusion in (or exclusion from) various social groups.
I guess what I am saying is the "sound" itself (and how you feel about it) is really a byproduct of a lot of other factors.
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
lgtre / Newbie audio engineering + production question zone
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump