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
K system? Audio Interfaces
Old 17th August 2007
  #1
Gear Head
 

K system?

i've been reading BOB katz mastering audio book for some time now and i still don't really understand the k system at all. and it seems to be very important. is the idea of changing levels on the monitors on specific genras of music? is that the idea. suchs as -6 for pop and rock and 0 for classical... this is just an example.. i could be wrong... a easier explination would be grand then all the scientfic apporach.

thank you
Old 17th August 2007
  #2
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnk View Post
i've been reading BOB katz mastering audio book for some time now and i still don't really understand the k system at all. and it seems to be very important. is the idea of changing levels on the monitors on specific genras of music? is that the idea. suchs as -6 for pop and rock and 0 for classical... this is just an example.. i could be wrong... a easier explination would be grand then all the scientfic apporach.

thank you
It's a way to get monitors calibrated so that it is a similar volume and metering experience from one system to another. Also there are the 3 different types for different dynamic styles. k-20 would be for more dynamic recordings in the film and classical music industries, k-14 for less dynamic range pop/rock/rnb/hiphop recordings and mastering, and k-12 for the least dynamic range typically in the broadcast industry.
Old 18th August 2007
  #3
Gear Addict
 
StephenMarsh's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I don't know how important a 'standard' which few observe would be to learning the trade of mastering. I understand you wanting to understand what you've read - but I'd advise not getting hung up on any particular element of any book by itself. No offense to the BK devotees out there intended. This may not answer your question but perhaps I can make it moot.

My 2 cents - finish the book, then put it on the shelf - forget about 1/2 of it and sit between your monitors listening to all kinds of things at all kinds of levels. Get used to your room and trust it - free your mind and work on the music. The technical mumbo jumbo - that's a distraction. The heavy listening will teach you what each genre's audience expects to hear in terms of overall level on a release.

It's all about the listening - who's with me?



Rock on--Steph
Old 18th August 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 
gainstages's Avatar
I wouldn't necessarily disregard the k standard. it is a valuable tool, and obviously will become more and more valuable as more and more people adapt to it. It's worth understanding, and I believe it may be worth implementing into your studio depending on your specific situation. I am rebuilding my studio from the ground up right now and am seriously considering implementation myself.

but, at the end of the day, it really is important not to get caught up in the technical aspects (even though it is important to have at least a basic technical understanding). this goes for the gear you use also. bottom line, learn your monitors, learn your room, learn the imperfections in your own hearing, and if it sounds great, it probably is great.
Old 18th August 2007
  #5
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
K-system us designed to provide a fixed monitor gain. This way all mixing will provide a similar dynamic of loudness for all styles of music. By reducing to K-14 or K-12 you need to mix hotter to achieve the same level of percieved loudness as K-20. This will create louder mixes (more compression) while preserving a similar listening level.

Classical and film are done at K-20 because they are not subject to the same desire for loudness as Rock or Metal. In fact these styles of mixing depend of dramatic, wide, dynamics. They still posses loud sections but do not require high RMS.

Reduce the monitor gain to K-14 and you have to mix a louder average level to produce the same dynamic effect at forte (musically speaking, 89+db RMS Engineer speak).

I adopted this method when mixing a film and have had GREAT results. Without a fixed monitor gain I would have had NO idea how loud I was mixing on average.

It has nothing to do with peaks but is all about RMS.

(Kind-of tough to explain in a post. Just do it and see.)
Old 18th August 2007
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
K-system us designed to provide a fixed monitor gain. This way all mixing will provide a similar dynamic of loudness for all styles of music. By reducing to K-14 or K-12 you need to mix hotter to achieve the same level of percieved loudness as K-20. This will create louder mixes (more compression) while preserving a similar listening level.

Classical and film are done at K-20 because they are not subject to the same desire for loudness as Rock or Metal. In fact these styles of mixing depend of dramatic, wide, dynamics. They still posses loud sections but do not require high RMS.

Reduce the monitor gain to K-14 and you have to mix a louder average level to produce the same dynamic effect at forte (musically speaking, 89+db RMS Engineer speak).

I adopted this method when mixing a film and have had GREAT results. Without a fixed monitor gain I would have had NO idea how loud I was mixing on average.

It has nothing to do with peaks but is all about RMS.

(Kind-of tough to explain in a post. Just do it and see.)
This was also done to these same levels in the days of Yor before there was any K attached to everything. For classical you always set to -20, for rock -16 to -12 depending on the 'type' of rock (Pop, MOL, Soft, etc...). All my life my systems has been set to -14 and I just compensate depending on the project.

This was standard stuff in the old days and a 'lost art' today. I'm talking about understanding levels here, which really for our industry should be part of Recording 101, sad really.

Want the best sounds and the best mix, start with the right levels. At least you'll be pointed in the right direction.
Old 18th August 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
This was also done to these same levels in the days of Yor before there was any K attached to everything. For classical you always set to -20, for rock -16 to -12 depending on the 'type' of rock (Pop, MOL, Soft, etc...). All my life my systems has been set to -14 and I just compensate depending on the project.
I thought that fixed mointor gain for music was "new." If this is something people have been using for so long, how can B.K. get away with stamping his name to it?

When you set your gain "back in the day," how did you calibrate the monitors? -20db Pink Noise @ 83db?
Old 18th August 2007
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Masterer's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
I thought that fixed mointor gain for music was "new."
It's as old as the hills. SPL meter and grease pencil... Done. No K's, just good ol' db's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
If this is something people have been using for so long, how can B.K. get away with stamping his name to it?
It's his book. He can call his particular method whatever he want's. If you've never heard of it before you read his book, you're gonna call it what he calls it.
Old 18th August 2007
  #9
Craneslut
 
Brad Blackwood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
It's as old as the hills. SPL meter and grease pencil... Done. No K's, just good ol' db's.
Ahh, you use the 'A-system' there, eh? I'm partial to the 'B-system' myself...
Old 18th August 2007
  #10
Gear Head
 

Personally I think the K-Sytem is a very good in between how it is now (bad) and what we are going for. The real problem these days is the use of PPM meters (peak normalization), eventually, we need to try to go in the direction of a true loudness meter (loudness normalization) and the K-System is the step in between! It's just a way of trying to get a standardized level is this industry, it's ridiculous right now and in my opinion Bob's idea was one in the right direction, trying to make people aware of the problems with peak meters! While a SPL meter might be good, it still doesn't compare to a true loudness meter!

Robin
Old 18th August 2007
  #11
Lives for gear
 
thedigitalgod's Avatar
 

first, i am not a mastering engineer, i am a mix engineer and in a perpetual state of learning. so anything i say should be taken with a grain of salt. with that disclaimer:

no offense to mr katz as he is obviously well-learned in his field, but so many people make what he says the end all to mastering when i have heard of almost none of the things he has worked on. does it mean that its any less of a product because ive never heard it? absolutely not. but mastering is making a recording stand up to other commercial recordings, and (unfortunately) this means standing up to the music we hear on the radio as that is the reference most people have for what things should sound like -- certainly not my preference in music but thats neither here nor there. my point is that mr katz does not really have a reputation for working on those types of projects, so why would we make him the goto for a genre in which he isnt that active? again, no offense to mr katz, but his legacy seems more hype and marketing than real-world relevance. just my take.
Old 18th August 2007
  #12
Gear Head
 

I understand what you're saying and as being his assistant I might be prejudiced. I'm just saying that he is still mastering a lot of albums every day, he's been doing this for decades plus he recorded the most amazing artists throughout the years and the genres he's mastering at the moment are really everything you can imagine. Ranging from metal, to jazz to pop to hiphop to rock to classical, I mean really everything you've ever heard of! I'm not saying you should love all his work, but I don't think you can say that he's not familiar with every style of music because he absolutely is! I just have a lot of respect for him, but hey, everybody is free to have an opinion!

And again, the K-meter is a total different subject and has not much to do with how his masters sound! Again sorry for you guys that don't agree, but this is just my opinion!

Robin
Old 19th August 2007
  #13
Lives for gear
 
thedigitalgod's Avatar
 

im aware i went a bit off topic there. . . sorry. but just to be clear, i in no way mean to take anything from mr katz or suggest that he is anything less than extraordinary at what he does and im certainly not qualified to speak of his K system. my point was really a very broad generalization and probably not suited to this particular topic.
Old 19th August 2007
  #14
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedigitalgod View Post
.... but mastering is making a recording stand up to other commercial recordings, and (unfortunately) this means standing up to the music we hear on the radio as that is the reference most people have for what things should sound like -- certainly not my preference in music but thats neither here nor there. .......again, no offense to mr katz, but his legacy seems more hype and marketing than real-world relevance. just my take.
I can see your point but I would like to offer two counter points.

1) Bob Katz reputation isn't based on his body of "mastering" work but more on his willingness to participate in the education of the masses in regards to mastering and high-fidelity audio quality.

2) The commerical "radio" recordings are a flawed product. Hence the ever-present discussion revolving around the "loudness war." Often the factors that lead to the production of loud averages have little to do with perception of quality. It's more of a McDonalds factor; BIGGER IS BETTER.... MAKE IT LOUDER!

What is best? Market desires or Audio quality?
Old 19th August 2007
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Masterer's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Sometimes you just know a thread is about to go off the rails.
Old 19th August 2007
  #16
Craneslut
 
Brad Blackwood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
2) The commerical "radio" recordings are a flawed product. Hence the ever-present discussion revolving around the "loudness war." Often the factors that lead to the production of loud averages have little to do with perception of quality. It's more of a McDonalds factor; BIGGER IS BETTER.... MAKE IT LOUDER!

What is best? Market desires or Audio quality?
What is best? Doing what the artist desires - that trumps both of your options. I do what the client requests every time.

What does this have to do with Bob's credibility?
Old 19th August 2007
  #17
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood View Post
What is best? Doing what the artist desires - that trumps both of your options. I do what the client requests every time.

What does this have to do with Bob's credibility?
Always do what the client wants. Although, it is the job of a good engineer to explain what sounds better. Sometimes the client doesn't know what's best and it's YOUR DUTY to explain quality differences. Afterward, it's their choice.

ex - I've been on gigs where the singer (client) wants to track vocals with his SM57. Do what the client wants or try to explain the choices?

Quote:
Sometimes you just know a thread is about to go off the rails.
I know it's tough to deal with but sometimes these things happen. In defense of the "bird-walk," there is a direct connection between the K-system and the discussion of mastering for loud RMS.
Old 19th August 2007
  #18
Craneslut
 
Brad Blackwood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
Always do what the client wants. Although, it is the job of a good engineer to explain what sounds better. Sometimes the client doesn't know what's best and it's YOUR DUTY to explain quality differences. Afterward, it's their choice.
'Sounds better', 'best, and 'quality' are all subjective terms. I've had experienced artists on major labels push it until distortion because that's exactly what they wanted their record to sound like.

And frankly, most of my clients know exactly what they want - they aren't hiring me for an education. Assuming the client is too stupid to know what sounds good to them is a dangerous move, imo.

Quote:
ex - I've been on gigs where the singer (client) wants to track vocals with his SM57. Do what the client wants or try to explain the choices?
What if, based on experience, the singer knows the 57 is best for him? You think he'll appreciate your 're-education'?

We should always strive to do what's best for a record, but until my name is in a larger font than the artist's on the album art, it's their call.
Old 19th August 2007
  #19
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
I never implied your clients were stupid. I assume you are more knowledgeable than them. (If you don't know what's best.... why would they pay you?)

Do you never make suggestions to clients? That would be bizzare.

Bottom line... you're right, do what they want! Getting paid depends on it. Does that mean it sounds musical.... who cares, your clients are happy.

Sounds "good" is subjective, you're right again.

When an artist's mix sounds like crap, I always think it's the engineer's poor craftsmanship. I never think, that's what the artist wanted.
Old 19th August 2007
  #20
Craneslut
 
Brad Blackwood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
I never implied your clients were stupid. I assume you are more knowledgeable than them. (If you don't know what's best.... why would they pay you?)
More knowledgeable about how they wish to sound? That's the 'knowledge' we're discussing here.

Quote:
Do you never make suggestions to clients?
Of course I do, but I do so with caution.

Quote:
Bottom line... you're right, do what they want! Getting paid depends on it. Does that mean it sounds musical.... who cares, your clients are happy.

Sounds "good" is subjective, you're right again.
'Musical' is as well. Some of the most revered artists are those I find 'un-misical'...

Quote:
When an artist's mix sounds like crap, I always think it's the engineer's poor craftsmanship. I never think, that's what the artist wanted.
Depends on how it "sounds like crap"...

The point is, you said "commerical 'radio' recordings are a flawed product" which I disagree with - if the artist loves it, then how can it possibly be flawed? Are you going to tell the painter it's "too blue"?

Chris = Nostradamus
Old 19th August 2007
  #21
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
"commerical 'radio' recordings are a flawed product"

So this reads poorly. Do modern "commerical" or "loud" products have the same dynamic content as they were performed? This is the flaw I imply. The reduced dynamic variations, imo, reduce the musicality of the recording.

Quote:
More knowledgeable about how they wish to sound? That's the 'knowledge' we're discussing here.
I don't see it that way. The "knowledge" I was speaking of was the knowledge you have regarding quality audio and sound. Clients often are not fimilar with music playback of your listening enviroment. If they want it to "thump," you can't keep pumping up low frequencies until your reference speakers sound like the subs in their car.

We're splitting hairs here beyond helpfulness. I agree that, for business sake, you have to do what the client wants. You agree that it's the engineers jobs to "carefully" inform the client your opinion about what would sound best.

Fixed monitor gain (K-system) is a good thing.


The End.
Old 19th August 2007
  #22
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Mastering engineers are in the service industry. We exist to serve clients whether in person at attended sessions or by serving their needs via FTP or mail in projects. If I am doing an attended session and the client asks for my opinion I will offer it based on my experience. It is only MY opinion and if the client choses to ignore it that is his or her privilege since they are paying me to do what they want. If I had my druthers I would send about 25% of what I have coming in BACK to the mix engineer and tell him or her to not "pre master" the material before it gets here. It is always the client's project and I am here to help them realize their vision.

As to the "K" system

It is a tool in my audio tool box and is used when needed.

I studied and tried to use the "K" system from the beginning when Bob first posted it and think that it was very wise of Bob Katz to take a bunch of random ways of working and differing practices and try and make it into something that everyone could use. It is a very simple system and if followed will probably make your mixes and mastering sound better. It is however NOT the holy grail of mastering and if followed, to the letter, will NOT make you a top drawer mastering engineer or mix engineer just by using it.

I worked in television early in my audio career. It was my job to make things sound as good as they could when played back on a 3.5 inch speaker, which is what most TV sets of the day had in them. I had broadcast and recording standards that I had to follow but my main duty was to get things to sound the best they could given the limitations of the reproduction equipment of the time. We relied on VU meters for level and I got very good at reading them and knowing what was happening to the sound by watching them but it was the ear-brain-VU meter synergy that really got me going on the path to good audio. I think the same can be said of the "K" system.

Today in mastering we are trying to give things a cohesive feel to the work we do. Using the "K" system can help in this endeavor. It can give you a "standard" to work with and if followed can have an amazing effect on your work. But it is only a tool and is NOT the means to an end.

My monitor chain consists of a pair of ALON IV speakers, a Bryston 4B amplifier and a Benchmark ADC-1. Early on I embraced the "K" system and bought a sound level meter so I could calibrate my monitoring system. I used the "K" system for a while but my attended session clients asked if I could raise or lower the volume to suit their listening requirements and so the carefully calibrated monitor system went out the window with a couple of clicks of the monitor pot. My current DAW is Wavelab version 6.01 and has the "K" system included as part of the metering section. It is a very good system for watching levels and I have it turned on most of the time.

As long as you understand what the "K" system is all about and what it can and cannot do you should be just find using it. Don't, however, use it because you think it will somehow make you a top drawer mastering engineer because it will not. Only hard work, good ears, lot of experience and good people skills will make that happen.

Best of luck!
Old 20th August 2007
  #23
Lives for gear
 
eightyeightkeys's Avatar
The K-System metering is a great little tool. I use it all the time.

As said earlier, according to the genre, you select the appropriate K-Meter. Used as a reference, it works very well. What's not to like ? I use it exclusively for Mastering though as the levels required to achieve even K20 RMS in a mix are too hot for me in the digital domain. You can do it, but the peak levels necessary do get up there.

There are two issues being discussed though. One is the K-System and the other is a standardized monitor level.
Old 20th August 2007
  #24
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
My monitor chain consists of a pair of ALON IV speakers, a Bryston 4B amplifier and a Benchmark DAC-1. Early on I embraced the "K" system and bought a sound level meter so I could calibrate my monitoring system. I used the "K" system for a while but my attended session clients asked if I could raise or lower the volume to suit their listening requirements and so the carefully calibrated monitor system went out the window with a couple of clicks of the monitor pot. My current DAW is Wavelab version 6.01 and has the "K" system included as part of the metering section. It is a very good system for watching levels and I have it turned on most of the time.
Just curious, but why not just turn it up on the way out of the DAW, rather than mess with properly calibrated monitors? If it's just for them to listen to, no harm in turning it up in the software, then turning it back to its proper location when printing.

Dunno, maybe I'm just too lazy to get out of my chair.
Old 21st August 2007
  #25
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
I thought that fixed mointor gain for music was "new." If this is something people have been using for so long, how can B.K. get away with stamping his name to it?

When you set your gain "back in the day," how did you calibrate the monitors? -20db Pink Noise @ 83db?
not in the least bit "new".

but don't confuse film mixing with music mixing.

system calibration (including electrical level) has been around a long time. and good engineers knowing what SPL's do is an old art. mix music too loud and it may end up dark. mix music too low and it may end up too bright. for this, i use the H-System. i can't tell you what it is, but it works for me. I have heard of the 'B-System' and the 'C-System' (though i think he calls it the 'D-System' and now i hear of the 'A-System') and don't look at the meters...only occasionally.

Film Mixing is a whole other ball of cat hair. after system cal, here is a reference steady-state noise and a corresponding SPL. then your monitors are fixed. and again, no meters....except occasionally. nobody i know of in film uses the K-System, but they will use C-Scale Doroughs and not A-Scale.
Old 21st August 2007
  #26
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Film Mixing is a whole other ball of cat hair. after system cal, here is a reference steady-state noise and a corresponding SPL. then your monitors are fixed. and again, no meters....except occasionally. nobody i know of in film uses the K-System, but they will use C-Scale Doroughs and not A-Scale.
That's odd.... I actually came to the K-system while mixing my first film. Creating a K-20 setting for my monitors involved using steady-state noise to a correspoding SPL (83db).

How is this different than what you described above.
Old 21st August 2007
  #27
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachhunt View Post
Just curious, but why not just turn it up on the way out of the DAW, rather than mess with properly calibrated monitors? If it's just for them to listen to, no harm in turning it up in the software, then turning it back to its proper location when printing.

Dunno, maybe I'm just too lazy to get out of my chair.
Point well taken.
Old 21st August 2007
  #28
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joenovice View Post
That's odd.... I actually came to the K-system while mixing my first film. Creating a K-20 setting for my monitors involved using steady-state noise to a correspoding SPL (83db).

How is this different than what you described above.
and have you heard it in the theater?

83 all the way around? that is not how it is done. if for stereo, than, yeah ok. but why 83?

85 is the SPL level. 83, 82, or 79 are used for smaller rooms, depneding on how small. and 79 for TV mostly.

the noise is -20 RMS Pink = Target SPL at the mix position, one speaker at a time, not together.

what does that have to do with the K-System? (btw, i know full well what the K-System is.) This is the common U.S. Film Calibration setting used by many many film people. The standard was established by SMPTE and Dolby adopted it for A-Chain to B-Chain translation.
Old 21st August 2007
  #29
Lives for gear
 
spiderman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
and have you heard it in the theater?

83 all the way around? that is not how it is done. if for stereo, than, yeah ok. but why 83?

85 is the SPL level. 83, 82, or 79 are used for smaller rooms, depneding on how small. and 79 for TV mostly.

the noise is -20 RMS Pink = Target SPL at the mix position, one speaker at a time, not together.

what does that have to do with the K-System? (btw, i know full well what the K-System is.) This is the common U.S. Film Calibration setting used by many many film people. The standard was established by SMPTE and Dolby adopted it for A-Chain to B-Chain translation.
"Why 83db?" Because of the 83 dB SPL reference standard proposed by Dolby's Ioan Allen in the mid-70's. (from link below)

Have not heard in theater. Yes calibrated for stereo, one speaker at a time.

K-system calibration is done for K-20 with pink noise @ -20db RMS used to calibrate each speaker to 83db of SPL. That is according to Katz papers published on his site. K-14 and K-12 would correspond to reduced SPL measurements of pink noise per speaker.

"what does that have to do with the K-System?"
K-system was developed based on the "Magic of 83 with Film Mixes."
For more on the K-system's relation to film's standard for monitor gain I would read this;
Digital Domain - Level Practices (Part 2) (Includes the K-System)
Old 21st August 2007
  #30
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Joe,

I know that link and that page. I read MA about 7 years ago. Mr. Holman and Mr. Katz know a lot, and in things audio, more than me. But about this, they are wrong, it is not 83, it is 85. I even have a friend who works for TH and he knows it is 85. This is SMPTE, DOLBY (including Ray Dolby and Ion Allen) and every Lot and Dub Stage in LA, NYC, Salt Lake City, Chicago, in My room, et alia, and in the theatrical playback. No Film dubbing facility of theatrical size uses 83.

In any event, the K-20 was inspired by Film Calibration, which doesn't use or need it. If it works for you, fine. If you want your mixes to hover around a -20 average, then fine, cal your room. But once the room is cal'd you don't need the meters.

you also have to know that Dolby recommends that you be 16 feet from your speakers. were you 16 feet from your speakers when you ran pink noise?

Mr. Katz knows a lot, works hard to learn more and state things as clearly as he can, he educates a lot of up and coming as well as experienced audio engineers, and satisfies a lot of clients, but the K-System is not 'new'. it may help some younger people who did not learn how to hear dynamic levels learn how to hear them, but it is not necessary. most good engineers can hear when it is squashed to death.

When Kevin O'Connell & Co. mix Spiderman 3; when Scott Millan & Co. mix Bourne Ulitmatum; James Bolt & Co.mix the Simpsons Movie, Lee Dichter mixes a Woody Allen flick, etc, etc, they don't say, "Let's calibrate to 83 and pull up the K-20's to check our mix.". Dolby is there and it is 85 and they mix and turn around and look at the director who says yeah or nay.

One other thing i want to add, i know a Top Flight Mastering Engineer who doesn't use -20, -16, or even -14 = 0 VU, and he turns out World Class, stunning work.
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
roginator / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
47
parissound / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
6
stecel / Low End Theory
11
phelbin / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
8
celebritymusic / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump