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
bounce to disk VS. print new stereo track Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 21st September 2007
  #61
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Mix 1 www.puresoundstudio.com/SAIL1.mp3
Mix 2 www.puresoundstudio.com/SAIL2.mp3

It's the exact same mix, BTD verses RTD. You may not like the mix but listen to the suttle differences between the 2.
Jazzmo -

It would be better to supply samples as the original wav files even if just a small samples of the same portion of the music rather than mp3s. Since we're measuring a potential PT issue, it would be best not to have any other type of processing after the thing that we're measuring that might add another variable to the equation.
Old 21st September 2007
  #62
Here for the gear
 

Cool, good idea, I was just trying to make it an eaiser download. I'll shorten the song to 30 seconds and post again as wav files.

Having said that, I can hear the difference on my computer speakers. To me one is wider, sweeter sounding, more detail and depth.

I'll post again alittle later tonight. Thanks for taking the time to check this out.
Old 21st September 2007
  #63
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Hey Bob, and all, here's 2 mixes, not going to say which is which, but one is BTD and the other RTD. It's a premaster version. The only difference between the 2 is one is BTD, the other RTD in PTHD.

I know i'm new here and you guys don't know we from a tomato, or is it toomautoo? Anyway I love this website, you guys speecck eerr maah raanguuageee!

Ok I have a link to my site err it goess

Mix 1 www.puresoundstudio.com/SAIL1.mp3
Mix 2 www.puresoundstudio.com/SAIL2.mp3

It's the exact same mix, BTD verses RTD. You may not like the mix but listen to the suttle differences between the 2.
PLEASE, JAZZMO----NO MP3's! How can you expect us to make subtle judgments on depth, space and width with an mp3? Can you supply the original 24 bit bounces of both tracks? If you don't have enough bw I'll supply our FTP. I'll be happy to give you my impressions, blind :-).

BK
Old 21st September 2007
  #64
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Ok, I created a PT session to test the addition of a master fader by sending a frequency sweep tone from an audio channel to two aux channels via busses, one of which was reversed in polarity by using the time adjuster plug, the other had the time adjuster plug without polarity reversal to ensure that there was no latency between the tracks. The master fader was added to one of the aux tracks and both were sent to a third aux track to test for null.

They null completely even with a CPU loaded session in the non-dithered mixer.

I don't know that this is an exhaustive test for a master fader addition, but at least as far as this one goes life is good in Digiland. I may test the BTD versus RTD later, but I should get back to "real work".

I reckon I owe someone a beer

Best,
Tom
Old 21st September 2007
  #65
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
PLEASE, JAZZMO----NO MP3's! How can you expect us to make subtle judgments on depth, space and width with an mp3? Can you supply the original 24 bit bounces of both tracks? If you don't have enough bw I'll supply our FTP. I'll be happy to give you my impressions, blind :-).

BK
Jazmo. 30 seconds is too short to make a good judgment. I'd prefer at least 2 minutes. Having been very frustrated by 30 second snippets in my life, I'm speaking from experience.

When you have the 24 bit originals up, please come back. This is now becoming an interesting adventure!
Old 22nd September 2007
  #66
Here for the gear
 

Hey Bob, that sounds cool, I can send you the 24 bit files. My server is limited in file size so here's a 40 second sample wave file for now.

You guy's are way beyond me. Seems you go more by theory than what you hear. It's like unless what you hear matches the theory perfectly, then you can't be hearing what your hearing. That's cool, I respect you scientist engineers out there. I havn't been at this as long as most of you guys , but my experence has been is that there is a grey area in digital audio, that can't quite be explained.

Even with a 40 second sample, can you hear any difference between these 2 files?

www.puresoundstudio.com/TEST1.wav
www.puresoundstudio.com/TEST2.wav

I've just listened to both thru my office computer speakers as wav files, I agree, much better. Seems there is more low end. There is at the very least a difference between the 2 mixes sonicly. Thanks Bob for chiming in on this!!! I could overnight you a 24 bit data CD of both mixes. Love to hear what you think.
Old 22nd September 2007
  #67
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Hey Bob, that sounds cool, I can send you the 24 bit files. My server is limited in file size so here's a 40 second sample wave file for now.

You guy's are way beyond me. Seems you go more by theory than what you hear.
This is not quite true! But if two files null perfectly, and you hear a difference or think you hear a difference, something's rotten in Denmark! So testing for a null is a valid first step in trying to sort out the issues. Frankly, if two files completely null, with no output whatsoever, in my "copious free time" I don't go through any further testing, there aren't enough hours in my day to chase down voodoo.

I'll be happy to listen to your 40 second samples first, but if they null perfectly, please don't ask me if I hear a difference! If they do not null, and one is RTD and the other is BTD, then something is very broken in your Pro Tools system or you patched differently and didn't realize it.

BK
Old 22nd September 2007
  #68
Moderator
 
toolskid's Avatar
 

There's randomly modulating information in the mix so they wont null perfectly.. Try the mix again without said effects/sounds, it might be easier to compare then!
Old 22nd September 2007
  #69
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Hey Bob, that sounds cool, I can send you the 24 bit files. My server is limited in file size so here's a 40 second sample wave file for now.

You guy's are way beyond me. Seems you go more by theory than what you hear. It's like unless what you hear matches the theory perfectly, then you can't be hearing what your hearing. That's cool, I respect you scientist engineers out there. I havn't been at this as long as most of you guys , but my experence has been is that there is a grey area in digital audio, that can't quite be explained.

Even with a 40 second sample, can you hear any difference between these 2 files?

www.puresoundstudio.com/TEST1.wav
www.puresoundstudio.com/TEST2.wav

I've just listened to both thru my office computer speakers as wav files, I agree, much better. Seems there is more low end. There is at the very least a difference between the 2 mixes sonicly. Thanks Bob for chiming in on this!!! I could overnight you a 24 bit data CD of both mixes. Love to hear what you think.
It's amazing the tricks that our ears can play on us, they can be easily fooled & our memory for what audio sounds like even when directly A/B'ing is very short & often unreliable on very fine details. When I first listened through your files, I thought I noticed a touch more low end & width in the file labelled TEST2.wav. On closer listening it sounds like the reverb is slightly different between the tracks.

To verify this I lined up both tracks in Pro Tools down to sample accuracy & then flipped the phase on one. What I heard was the reverb send with the body of the music cancelled. It's not a good idea to include software reverb's operating in realtime for these types of tests. If you want the reverb to be identical between bounces you would need to print the reverb to 2 new audio tracks & delete the plugin, this way it will be identical when using RTD or BTD.

Often the problem with these types of tests is that they aren't done accurately & this can produce different results if not set up correctly. It's no wonder poor old Pro Tools often cops the brunt of so much controversy. Not to say that Pro Tools is perfect, there is some things that can be improved upon (48bit plug-in bus for TDM for example) but the maths is solid, I've tested it very thoroughly & never found anything to be dodgy.

Matt
Old 22nd September 2007
  #70
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
One of the difficulties in testing though is that the testing process can create limitations to help ensure a null result or not. For example in my test above a non-dithered mixer will produce a null result, however a dithered mixer will not.

One can argue that dither is the difference in the case of the dithered mixer, and one could also argue that the null result in the non-dithered mixer case is due to the difference being truncated.

At a level beyond a 24 bit range though I don't think there is a reason for concern.
Old 22nd September 2007
  #71
Lives for gear
 
espasonico's Avatar
 

I once made the test between BTD and RTD at home in my LE system and they nulled but I found that when doing the BTD, if I changed the samplerate on my masterclock ( Rosetta 200 ) during the BTD, the BTD didn´t get affected but if I did during play it obiously changed.

I dont´t know if that makes any sense but I made my own conclusion: The difference in sound between BTD and RTD can be the use of the external clock. That means that if you are mixing something recorded with another clock that the one used for the mix you may hear some differences if BTD because when you BTD, your clock isn´t doing nothing !! but if you RTD, you are relaying on your own clock.

Please correct me if I´m wrong but that makes sense to me ( but maybe I´m an idiot ).
Old 22nd September 2007
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Two points:

1. People often hear with their eyes.

On RTD there is plently of visual stimuli; lights flashing, meters wiggling, waveforms scrolling, etc. enhancing the listening experience of the unwashed neophyte. i.e. "it looks great so it must sound great!" ... BTD is rather visually dull by comparison... so it must not sound as good.

2. The Big Dog (& Lead Dog) is taken for granted, an easy target for criticism.

PT being the Standard Brand by which all other DAWs are compared, will by default attract the most scrutiny, criticism, mythology, etc. Rumors about the big dog (RTD -vs- BTD) usually spread like wildfire, gives the individual a feeling of power over the dog.

JT

Last edited by Jerry Tubb; 22nd September 2007 at 05:05 PM.. Reason: hello my name is jerry, i like to edit
Old 22nd September 2007
  #73
Here for the gear
 

So I'm assuming from what I have read that only one person thought he might have heard a difference, but then thought it was a difference in reverb.

Bottom line is this a a print to 2 track reguardless of being BTD or RTD. The mixes were exactly the same done back to back. I'm getting the impression that maybe some minds are closed to this idea? I mean I don't care eather way if you can't hear a difference, but i'm wondering why nobody is saying anything, other than "it has to pass a test". What about what you hear? Can't you trust your own hearing?

Ok, here's a test. On listening without any testing, take a guess at which one is BTD or RTD. Or there is no difference.
Old 22nd September 2007
  #74
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bangerandmash View Post
Hello all,

i have done some searches regarding this topic on g.s., but it seems hard to find people's specific take on which of the options yields the best sounding stereo file to hand over to a m.e. i am sending off mixes to be mastered, and i have heard about there being another way to get 24 bit stereo files out of pro tools without having to bounce to disk. would anyone care to tell me how to do it and if they think it makes a difference.

if it matters, i am able to hear the difference between the bounce to disk version of a song and the same song being played directly out of pro tools.

thanks in advance for any help.
Hi, from Bob. Not to be a snob, but I just downloaded your files and they are 44.1 K/16 bit. What should come from a BTD or an RTD should be at least 24 bits, so you are truncating both of them. Or did you dither and if so, how? If you used digidesign dither, the return for a BTD will likely be different than the record for an RTD since the "Digidesign dither" likely is only on the output and may not be capturable in RTD. Regardless, there is absolutely no technical advantage to capturing a 1644 file in this case and tons of technical disadvantages. Please at least explain before I listen how they got to be 16 bit because I want to have a halfway decent idea of what I'm listening to?

Were the original session tracks 16 bit? Then you have a dilemma! You must capture the output of the mixer at 24 bit and in that case ONLY a BTD or a record to an external recorder OR converting your session to 24 bit will ensure that you are capturing the full resolution of the mix engine.

BK
Old 23rd September 2007
  #75
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Even with a 40 second sample, can you hear any difference between these 2 files?

www.puresoundstudio.com/TEST1.wav
www.puresoundstudio.com/TEST2.wav
If you hear a difference that is because there is a difference! heh This is the difference between a section of the two files:

http://www.puretone.nl/BTD_RTD_Test_Difference.mp3

36 dB of gain is applied to make things very obvious. As you will notice, the difference does not contain the whole mix. It only contains certain sounds. (About 20 dB down in the original files. Certainly noticeable!).

This difference could be explained either by non-synced modulation effects (That padish kind of sound) or maybe a sound going through an effect that isn't correctly communicating PDC to the host (The guitar sound). The difference in randomized dither (the hiss), etc. There might be other explanations but we would have to know every single detail of your set-up and mix to find out.

Luckily we don't have to do that because what is also obvious is that the vocal or drum sounds are not present in this difference file. (Yes vox and percussion was playing in this section).

Quote:
You guy's are way beyond me. Seems you go more by theory than what you hear. It's like unless what you hear matches the theory perfectly, then you can't be hearing what your hearing. That's cool, I respect you scientist engineers out there.
You must understand that more often than not, there is a very good explanation for discrepancies that people hear. Usually it is a setting somewhere or a simple technical explanation. When you have been on the net for a while and someone you don't know comes with a claim that goes against what you think you know about these systems, the first logical thing to do is to look at the technical aspects to exclude them form the equation.

It is amazing how often people have come with claims of differences in sound between two files that, upon a quick analysis, turn out to be bit for bit identical. (This wasn't the case with your files). So one becomes a bit weary and starts by doing the simple null test before investing time and energy in listening to minute details.

Also with experience you find that, no, you can not trust your hearing 100%. It changes second by second whether we like to admit it or not.

Quote:
I havn't been at this as long as most of you guys , but my experence has been is that there is a grey area in digital audio, that can't quite be explained.
Absolutely: It is the grey matter we all have between the ears. heh This can result in subjective biases, placebo effect or simply a small but important technical step that was omitted. This isn't a criticism. We are all human afterall and if we didn't rely on our judgement most of the time, we could not function. Certainly not in such a subjective field as audio!

Alistair
Old 23rd September 2007
  #76
Here for the gear
 

Wow, I going to learn a lot from you guys.

Here is the exact process that took place with this song.

1) The tracks were produced at another studio using a mix plus system, everything except for the rythem gtr, vocals, conga and bongo.
2) The tracks were imported as 16 bit wav files, converted to 24 bit on import from a DVD.
3) Rythem gtr and vocals were tracked here along with the hand percussion using an apogee ad16X a-d, the 192K slaved to the w/c output of the ad16x.

Mixed @ 24 bit 44.1. All effects were software plugins. Once the mix was complete, one was BTD and converterd to stereo/16bit/wav file after bounce.

The other was set to AES (enc) output of the 192K, I then hooked up a tara labs 1 meter AES cable to connect the output right back into the AES input of the 192K.

Set up 2 mono tracks and printed the mix right back into the same PT session. After it was printed, I then export file as (stereo 16 bit wav)

I burned the 2 mixes to a CD, uploaded them to online file storage and linked them here. Both had digi dither on conversion. I have to re read what you said, it's gettin deep!!

Hey Undertow, I'm not sure what i'm listening to. What did you do and why arn't the other instruments in the mix? What is this telling you?
Old 23rd September 2007
  #77
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Hey Undertow, I'm not sure what i'm listening to. What did you do and why arn't the other instruments in the mix? What is this telling you?
I'm not Undertow, but it's telling me that the patching route that resulted in the BTD and that resulted in the RTD were different. Likely some submix that you mistook, etc.

So, in the end, this proves to be a defective test. Pro Tools is a complex beast, and so by necessity we have to question the routing first.

It is a strike against you that you don't have 24 bit files from the BTD prior to the dithering. There do exist 24 bit files from the RTD because that file has to be brought back into a stereo track in your 24 bit session and so to dither that you had to pass it yet again through another route than the BTD! It's stretching the limits of the legitimacy of the differences or sameness you want to prove.

I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. Should I be listening or have we not proved that the test didn't follow the basic rules?

BK


How to compare BTD and RTD: The stereo mix bus should be undithered and the BTD should record the stereo mix bus in 24 bit.

The RTD should have as its record source the exact same output, and also be 24 bit.
Old 23rd September 2007
  #78
Here for the gear
 

Hey Bob, I'm not trying to prove anything, let me just say that first. I'm just responding to the original poster.

What do you mean by patching? And what does that have to do with the sound quality difference between the 2 listening in stereo thru computer speakers to an MP3 of both mixes? I;m not sure what the guy did and what it means, but I do understand that there is a sound quality difference between the 2.

Sinse there is a certian amout of pre-judging being told ahead of time what this is, why not ask an assistent engineer, or intern, or girlfriend to listen to both mixes without telling him or her what they are listening to. Ask them which one has the most pleasing sound.

That is the real test IMHO.
Old 23rd September 2007
  #79
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Hey Undertow, I'm not sure what i'm listening to. What did you do and why arn't the other instruments in the mix? What is this telling you?
What you are listening to is the difference between the two files. This is done by aligning them accurately to the sample, flipping the polarity of one of the files and sending them both to a bus. All the sounds that are identical get nulled (hence the name "null test") and what is left over is the difference.

There is no point in listening to the individual files. That would just confirm that, as ascertained by the null test, there is a difference in these files. So the question now becomes what is causing this difference.

This could be due to a routing issue as Bob pointed out but it could also be due to plug-ins that are giving a different output each time you play sounds through them. For instance a chorus plug-in that doesn't sync it's LFO to the absolute position in the time line. Or a reverb plug-in that uses a random generator in its algorithms etc.

We are not questioning whether you hear a difference. We are questioning the origin of the difference!

Alistair
Old 23rd September 2007
  #80
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Hey Bob, I'm not trying to prove anything, let me just say that first. I'm just responding to the original poster.

What do you mean by patching? And what does that have to do with the sound quality difference between the 2 listening in stereo thru computer speakers to an MP3 of both mixes? I;m not sure what the guy did and what it means, but I do understand that there is a sound quality difference between the 2.

Sinse there is a certian amout of pre-judging being told ahead of time what this is, why not ask an assistent engineer, or intern, or girlfriend to listen to both mixes without telling him or her what they are listening to. Ask them which one has the most pleasing sound.

That is the real test IMHO.
Not so. Because the writer has proposed that there is some very audible difference between two different methods of capturing files which are identical digital routes through the software!

His PREMISE is to prove that BTD or RTD are different. That immediately allows us to legitimately question any signs or indications that perhaps the patching or routing was wrong, since digitally these are the identical routes! If there are apparent differences between the two files there are only a few explanations:

1- Pro Tools is broken. That's right. If BTD and RTD are different, then Pro Tools is broken and must be fixed! It would amount to an error in coding if these two paths are different, even by a bit!

2- The listener is mistaken.

3- By accident, the route (patch) which the BTD took and the RTD took are different. It is important to look again at the output and input patching. Perhaps a submix was used instead of the mix.

4- And answer the question about how two 24 bit files became 16 bits for what is supposed to be a critical listening test!


That's why I'm reluctant to listen. If I hear and even prove a difference, have we proved anything yet? Because RTD and BTD are functionally in the software DIGITALLY IDENTICAL, any assertion that the two files sound different has to be approached systematically and with NO doubt in the listener's mind that he's listening to a red herring. When he can supply 24 bit files and at least a reasonable assertion that the two routes are identical, then I will very happily listen to and test the files! Until then, it would be unfair to Digidesign to make any comments on this!
Old 24th September 2007
  #81
Lives for gear
 
espasonico's Avatar
 

I´m going to try it again:

BTD doesn´t rely on the clock you are using ( at least that´s what I have been able to prove myself on a LE system )

RTD it does rely on the clock you are using so it makes perfect sense that there are diferences between BTD and RTD if mixing with a diferent clock used in recording !!

All of you can try this: During a BTD on a 44.1 session, while it is bouncing, try to change the sample rate of your external clock to 48kHz and see what happen: nothing. If you change the SR during play you will notice how it changes speed ( that´s obious ).

So following my theory, if you are mixing something recorded thru a DIgidesign 192 and you are clocking to a BigBen for mixing, it should be a diference between the BTD and the RTD because diferent clocks are involved.

I haven´t been able to do that test but my mixes of songs recorded and mixed with the same set-up ( Rosetta 200 as master clock ) have always nulled ( I have done the test a couple of times and decided that was enough for me ).
Old 24th September 2007
  #82
Here for the gear
 

My god, I feel like I have stumbeled into a room of mad scientists! Really, that's what this seems like. But at the same time ,I'm learning a lot, you guys are blowing my mind!!! Nice job!

I've never been to a forum like this and have gotton such in depth technical wizardry. I thought I was a geek about this stuff.

You might be right, I have done my own "listening" blind fold tests and found the Big Ben which is in the AD16X to sound better than the digi internal clock. No null tests here, I'm from the hills, I go by what I hear. But I make sure that it's a blind fold listen, and done over a period of days.

Bob, I really appreciate you taking the time out off your busy schedule on this. And your a master of mastering and digital theory. I've read a lot of your articals on jitter.

But I would'nt say Pro Tools is broken, that there should be no difference between the 2. I use to print to another computer running wave lab and sound forge. Out of the 192K AES into a Lynx AES sound card in my PC.
I just wasn't happy with the way it sounded, the 2 track compared to the original mix session in PT.
Old 24th September 2007
  #83
Gear Head
 

Printing your mix to a new stereo track ALWAYS sounds better than "bouncing to disk". But then, again, dont mix in the box, and then theres only one way to do it!!! Buy at minimum a summing box and call it day!
Old 24th September 2007
  #84
Regarding the different clock issue (when using ext sync for RTD);

This might induce a temporary difference only during the process. As soon as both resulting files are being played back using the same clock (mandatory) again, that difference will dissapear. The beauty of reclocking.

(Of cause everything will change if DAAD chain is involved, but that's beside the scope of this thread)

Peter
Old 24th September 2007
  #85
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzmo View Post
Nice job!
A nice job can't be done if you don't give the 24 bit files or explain how your 24 bit session records/bounces to 16 bit.
Bob has asked twice and you don't respond.

So now we only know that some people think bounce to disk is bad , but it hasn't been shown (probably because it's identical to recording a track).

I guess digital summing/bouncing is the new thing to talk about and it's not nice to hear that there's nothing special about it.
In a few months there will be a new craze in digital audio land.

Cheers, Hans
Old 24th September 2007
  #86
Gear Addict
 

Out of curiosity I did the test :

Made a session with 10 tracks of random material, automated the volume and pan heavily, recorded the result to a track, also bounced the result to disk.

Imported the bounced mix,
flipped phase on one of the mixes and :

tadaa (insert drum roll) nothing (complete cancellation) of course.

So,
That's it I guess ?



Hans
Old 24th September 2007
  #87
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilver View Post
Out of curiosity I did the test :

Made a session with 10 tracks of random material, automated the volume and pan heavily, recorded the result to a track, also bounced the result to disk.

Imported the bounced mix,
flipped phase on one of the mixes and :

tadaa (insert drum roll) nothing (complete cancellation) of course.

So,
That's it I guess ?



Hans
Just out of curiosity, was this done with the non-dithered mixer?
Old 24th September 2007
  #88
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
Just out of curiosity, was this done with the non-dithered mixer?
I think so - that is : I have protools le 6.4 and can't find an option to switch the dithering of the mixer , only audio suite dithering.

Hans
Old 24th September 2007
  #89
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Time to bail out on this thread, there is more 'opinion' then accurate testing going on. It's cool to have an opinion, sure it's a good idea to use your ears, but don't blame the tools if you don't know how they work or how to use them properly.

If you make a ridiculous statement, please be prepared to back it up. I've done all the testing I need to know that Pro Tools is not broken, the maths is repeatable & accurate whether you use RTD or BTD. If you do the testing correctly there is no sonic flaws or differences. The summing is fine, do the blind SSL summing Vs Pro Tools summing test that Digi set up & see how you go.

Matt
Old 24th September 2007
  #90
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilver View Post
I think so - that is : I have protools le 6.4 and can't find an option to switch the dithering of the mixer , only audio suite dithering.

Hans
Thanks Hans.

I believe that the dithered mixer is only available on TDM systems, also LE is a 32 float bus. Before we an "sign-off" on any tests we have to make sure that it works across the board.
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
philosi / Mastering forum
7
poketman / Low End Theory
7
jcool / So much gear, so little time
6
basement / High end
6

Forum Jump
Forum Jump