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
Vote on the solutions to the loudness war.... Dynamics Plugins
View Poll Results: Vote on Loudness Normalizatoin
No LN, over my dead body.
143 Votes - 41.21%
I want LN, with a consumer option to defeat.
137 Votes - 39.48%
I want LN required and undefeatable in all consumer gear.
28 Votes - 8.07%
No opinion, whatever will be will be.
39 Votes - 11.24%
Voters: 347. You may not vote on this poll

Old 20th November 2009
  #181
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron View Post
Bob -
Without repeating the numerous points made in other posts regarding this - got to say I'm in the camp that thinks the LN idea is seriously flawed, and as currently proposed I'm without a question opposed to it.

An infinitely better solution to the loudness war to me - and one that does not require any new technology or cooperation from any manufacturer - is for the artist to simply issue 2 versions of the material - one crushed to whatever extent they wish it to be, and one left more dynamic to whatever extent they think a possible more audiophilic audience will want it at. Due to the way that music is primarily distributed and purchased offering two versions of the same release with extremely minimal additional expense is finally possible - as it only costs a small amount of additional mastering time, and a small additional fee from the digital aggregator for handling an additional release. This way the audience can preview the downloads as they each sound and choose the one that fits their needs best. I've already been doing a bit of this for some clients - mainly to provide a less crushed hi-res version for vinyl cutting - but it would be very easy to do this to provide different versions for download as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Bob is not interested. I already asked that in the BK Rocks A/B thread but he completely ignored my comments :(
Old 20th November 2009
  #182
Mastering
 

In addition, Alistair, using a peak meter with the goal of getting the peak to the top IS the same as peak normalization.

Your films which hit near full scale peak got there because you're using up almost all the headroom, not because they were intentionally peak normalized. As you know, you work with a fixed monitor gain which will give you 20 dB of digital headroom over 83 (85) dB SPL.

As for hearing the hiss in your film's monitor room, you must not be using quiet enough DACs or monitor control electronics, OR possible you are listening with a lot of faders open in your desk. In my control room, SMPTE monitor gain is dead-quiet, unless you put your ears very near the monitors.

As for the concept "using up all the bits", you're making a peak-oriented argument which is unrelated to perceptual signal to noise ratio. Years ago, when specifying tape recorders' signal to noise ratio, some whack jobs would specify it referenced to the 3% harmonic distortion point so they could claim 67 dB instead of the not-so-pretty 55 dB from 0 VU. But from the ear's point of view, the noise floor is perceived relative to the loudness, which the VU is much closer to than the peak.

Make a live recording of a jazz trio, direct to 2-track. Do two takes. On the first pass the drummer's peak hits -10 dBFS peak. On the second pass, where you did not change any gains, the drummer's peak hits full scale. The perceived signal to noise ratio of both of these recordings will be the same, governed by your monitor gain, not by the maximum peak level of the recording. It is entirely unnecessary to normalize the lower one to full scale peak for the "sake of the bits".

BK
Old 20th November 2009
  #183
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjg View Post
Silly Alistair. But, give him a few more years and he's probably able to connect the dots as well!

Obviously those who don't agree with you just haven't been thinking it through long enough.
The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems.

I'll get back to you tomorrow and see if it has subsided. Or increased.


DC
Old 20th November 2009
  #184
Gear Nut
 
BillytheMTN's Avatar
 

The current loudness trend is much like a child who disparately wants to get noticed and does so by being loud and acting out. Leave them alone or ignore them and they eventually (usually) get tired and realize that there are better ways to get noticed that don't make you look like an ass. If you feel strongly about this issue take it upon yourself to reverse the trend. No regulation is needed. By the way, this is supposed to be art = no rules.
Old 20th November 2009
  #185
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Bob is not interested. I already asked that in his BK Rocks A/B thread but he completely ignored my comments :(
Perhaps by oversight? From my experiences BK does in fact truly "Care" - with a captial C - I really do think his motivation is that he likes high fidelity in audio presentations, and feels frustrated that this gets compromised so many times these days due to the pressures for the release to "compete" with the average levels of other releases.

That doesn't change my feelings towards his proposal is flat out to lunch in that it added layers of complexity to the end listeners' playback equipment which more likely than not will actually degrade the quality of the audio - all the while still failing to actually do it's mission due to the fact that perceived "loudness" regardless of whatever hotshot meter you have reading can NOT be exactly quantified - and all the while also taking away the artist's ability to have their music presented more exactly in the way they have chosen.

If the practice instead became common of two versions of differing average levels being issued for a release - as either a package or a choice for the end listener - then we'd actually have increase in choice without having to go bother with any muckety muck attached to new players, or having to embed metadata of a questionable quantifier describing the releases "loudness".

So - I'm all for increased fidelity, and I'm all for increased choice. BK's proposal as far as I can tell would actually be detrimental to both. Artists releasing multiple versions instead allows both of these quests to be easily met.

Got to say it would be interesting to see what version - dynamic or crushed - would garner the greater amount of sales. I have a feeling in the case of something like "Death Magnetic" where the crushing has been done to a truly unpleasant point the dynamic version would win - where as in most other cases I think it would be the reverse.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 20th November 2009
  #186
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
Poor isn't the word - Unnatural would be a better word.

Different music is designed to sound at different measured "loudness." What people consider louder or softer cannot be properly measured using current ITU specs. As a matter of fact, most of the industry doesn't really have a clue. When rap music measures 3 dB louder than rock music, most listeners would say that they are equal loudness.
I brought up this weakness early in the game as well. Mr. Dennis's points are definitely very important. But consider this, Bob D., if the hip hop was produced to be sound good and right to the listener at a particular SPL it's going to end up a lot closer to its intent in a LN system and sounding with a lot less extra distortion than in the current peak-normalized system.

Quote:

If current standards or something close to that were used to detect loudness, and 14 dB of compensation was applied you would destroy the difference in styyles of music.
Not so much. Styles which rely on a similar ratio of rhythm to melody and tend towards the electric will fall in a similar vein. However, styles which are very acoustic, especially with little or no percussion, will end up played somewhat louder than their intent.

However, the current totally random and distorted situation is much worse. I've made a study of many different peak-normalized mixed and mastered genres and they end up all all over the map, with much further relationship from their intended reproduced loudness than any LN system will produce. See page 171 of the second edition of my book.

Think about that, carefully do the comparative research.
Old 20th November 2009
  #187
Here for the gear
 

I voted #4. That is because I'm pragmatic: as long as LN is not standard on _all_ replay equipment there will still be a reason to master at high RMS levels. But since no one is in charge of the playback system behavior, I don't think that LN for music can ever be pushed.

What I do believe however is that in the future consumers will start to ask for LN, so it will be 'pulled'. I also believe that musicians will start to demand larger dynamics on their recordings in about two years time. The reason for this is the following: I am in the largest and most active EBU committee ever, writing a Loudness Normalization standard for European broadcasting. Similar work is going on in the US, Asia, Brasilia and Australia. Within about 1 years time this recommendation will be finished and we already know that several governments will enforce it by law. We strive for world wide harmonization of the standard and at the moment it seems we will get there - which is an incredible fact in itself. Our standard for loudness normalization will be based upon the ITU BS.1770 recommendation that is already known in the world as 'LKFS' (all meter manufacturers support it already). There is still some work going on to improve its performance on real high dynamic content, but 99% of it is finished and works pretty good.

Again, I do not believe that LN using LKFS will ever be an enforced standard for music systems. But it will be enforced in television broadcasting. Since all programs will be normalized using the same LKFS meter, commercials have access to the same dynamic range as movies. It will make no sense anymore to hyper-compress commercials for loudness since its loudness will be harmonized by the LKFS meter anyway. One still has the option to use hyper-compression, but it will be just an artistic tool like any other tool we have. If you do not want to stand out, you use hyper-compression. If you want to get attention for some louder parts, you better use a larger dynamic range.

In 2008 we performed a preliminary tests at a major commercial mixing facility in Amsterdam. Although in the beginning the engineers were very skeptical, after an hour they became extremely enthusiastic for the new options the meter gave them. They were able to use dynamic contrasts for their commercials, just like in movies. In the end the engineer told us that now he finally had a dynamic voice, dynamic sound effects and dynamic foley, but he was irritated by the squashed sound of the music. It did not match the rest of the sound track. "As soon as this meter becomes a standard" he told us "I will ask music studios for special 'commercial masters' that are much more dynamic than they normally offer."

These guys have the money and they will start a pull for dynamic masters. Next the musicians (and hopefully the audience) will wonder why the tune sounds so much better in the television commercial than on their CD. I have a hope that this may open up some ears. And if the viewer never needs to touch the remote of his TV set anymore, I do hope that he will start looking for options to have that same experience with his music catalogue. Than maybe in the end there will be a more general demand for LN.

Don't you think it's ironic that the place where the loudness war started (commercials) will be the place where the loudness peace begins?

All the best,
Eelco Grimm

Grimm Audio
Fairytapes
Utrecht School of Music Technology
EBU P/LOUD committee
Old 20th November 2009
  #188
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron View Post
Bob -
Without repeating the numerous points made in other posts regarding this - got to say I'm in the camp that thinks the LN idea is seriously flawed, and as currently proposed I'm without a question opposed to it.

An infinitely better solution to the loudness war to me - and one that does not require any new technology or cooperation from any manufacturer - is for the artist to simply issue 2 versions of the material - one crushed to whatever extent they wish it to be, and one left more dynamic to whatever extent they think a possible more audiophilic audience will want it at. Due to the way that music is primarily distributed and purchased offering two versions of the same release with extremely minimal additional expense is finally possible - as it only costs a small amount of additional mastering time, and a small additional fee from the digital aggregator for handling an additional release. This way the audience can preview the downloads as they each sound and choose the one that fits their needs best. I've already been doing a bit of this for some clients - mainly to provide a less crushed hi-res version for vinyl cutting - but it would be very easy to do this to provide different versions for download as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
It's a good idea in theory but not very practical. Most record companies have enough trouble keeping track of one version of a particular record! A client and I have been talking about the "single version" and the album version of a song. Then we got into the issue of consumers taking or downloading one cut from the album version... In general it's safer to have one version, you really don't have as much control as in the days of the album.
Old 20th November 2009
  #189
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
It's a good idea in theory but not very practical. Most record companies have enough trouble keeping track of one version of a particular record!
That's absurd. Labels have been putting out CD, vinyl, cassette, single, EP, extended, radio edit, clean, dirty, DVD, SACD, VHS, remastered, "special" edition, "bonus", re-remastered, import, compilation, etc. etc. versions of what is essentially the same release for ages. They WANT to sell multiple versions of the same thing if they can actually do it!!

Quote:
A client and I have been talking about the "single version" and the album version of a song. Then we got into the issue of consumers taking or downloading one cut from the album version... In general it's safer to have one version, you really don't have as much control as in the days of the album.
For my own label's release - for which every track on the CD is crossfaded (as it's a "concept" album with similar song to song flow as things like DSotM) - we did in fact release a separate version for downloads which are not crossfaded so that it would work better for single and shuffle play situations. With digital aggregators these days it's extremely easy to do this if you wish.

I provide uncrossfaded versions for clients for the same purpose all the time as well. And I've provided separate versions at different average levels for clients already as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 20th November 2009
  #190
Gear Nut
 
Axon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron View Post
That's absurd. Labels have been putting out CD, vinyl, cassette, single, EP, extended, radio edit, clean, dirty, DVD, SACD, VHS, remastered, "special" edition, "bonus", re-remastered, import, compilation, etc. etc. versions of what is essentially the same release for ages. They WANT to sell multiple versions of the same thing if they can actually do it!!
Not at the same time, of course. And a lot of those examples you mention aren't exactly optional, like radio edits and imports. Three aren't audio formats, three are dead or moribund formats... So, by "multiple" versions of the same thing, you really just mean "three".

So far, out of all the people on this thread who have been putting words in music labels' mouths, I find Bob's word-stuffing to be the most convincing.
Old 20th November 2009
  #191
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axon View Post
Not at the same time, of course.
Not true at all - most labels release multiple formats at once, as well as rebundled promo releases.

Quote:
And a lot of those examples you mention aren't exactly optional, like radio edits and imports. Three aren't audio formats, three are dead or moribund formats... So, by "multiple" versions of the same thing, you really just mean "three".
Lots and lots of folks are doing CD, digital download, vinyl formats released simultaneously. Lots are issuing versions for videos as well. Plus some of them are ordering radio edits, TV tracks, acapellas, extended versions, and remixes. So the idea that a label can't keep track of a regular and just one more "audiophile super high-fidelity dynamically restored ultra plus" version at the same time is giving these folks less credit than they deserve.

Honestly - it's so simple that even a major label A&R person could handle it! (my version of the GEICO cave man).

Also - more and more releases are issued directly by the artist. If the issue is important to them enought that they want to have multiple versions of their album out now all they have to do is append the title of the album and pay a small extra fee for a second release to the digital aggregator. It's really that simple.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 20th November 2009
  #192
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eelco Grimm View Post
I voted #4. That is because I'm pragmatic: as long as LN is not standard on _all_ replay equipment there will still be a reason to master at high RMS levels. But since no one is in charge of the playback system behavior, I don't think that LN for music can ever be pushed.

<SNIPPED FOR BREVITY>

Don't you think it's ironic that the place where the loudness war started (commercials) will be the place where the loudness peace begins?

All the best,
Eelco Grimm
Very interesting read. Welcome to the forum Eelco!

Alistair
Old 20th November 2009
  #193
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron View Post
Not true at all - most labels release multiple formats at once, as well as rebundled promo releases.
I was just filling in a work order today with:

CD US (Clean/Explicit)
CD Japan
CD Web Only
CD B-Sides
CD Video Versions
CD Single Edits
CD Special
LP Cutting Master

And that is just one release, so I have a feeling multiple versions are used.

Someday, of course, we will be required to also make a K-10^28 version or the state board of equalization will take away my license.


DC
Old 20th November 2009
  #194
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post

Someday, of course, we will be required to also make a K-10^28 version or the state board of equalization will take away my license.
I was just writing a letter to the Guvenator asking for him to appoint me to the position of Head of the California State Commision on Dynamics in Audio. I'm sure you guys won't mind the 7 figure salary I'm asking being provided for with just a tiny bump up to your property taxes.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 20th November 2009
  #195
Gear Nut
 
Axon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
I was just filling in a work order today with:

CD US (Clean/Explicit)
CD Japan
CD Web Only
CD B-Sides
CD Video Versions
CD Single Edits
CD Special
LP Cutting Master

And that is just one release, so I have a feeling multiple versions are used.
Clearly, this is a possibility which you, of course, relish.
Old 20th November 2009
  #196
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axon View Post
Clearly, this is a possibility which you, of course, relish.
I like your website. Interesting stuff.

DC
Old 20th November 2009
  #197
Gear Nut
 
Axon's Avatar
 

I'm finding a lot of parallels in this discussion with an argument over Spotify and ReplayGain I had (with several common characters between the two threads) earlier this year. A thread which I'm trying pretty hard to bite my lip over right now.

I'm going to try to avoid stuffing too many words in other listeners' mouths, or music companies, so I'll say here what is my direct experience: I listen predominantly on the computer, all of my music from a variety of genres goes through a loudness normalizer (ReplayGain), and I could not live without it. I quite regularly switch from a symphony or a chamber music piece to some rock or electronic music with very consistent and acceptable loudness for both genres. Given that the most brickwalled stuff ReplayGains to about -17db, and I apply a -3db preamp after that, this is roughly equivalent to having 20db of headroom. No hiss with IEMs at normal volume levels, light hiss at very loud volumes. Vinyl needledrops 6db too quiet? No problemo.

So I daresay that I have more experience with how such a LN-requiring system actually sounds than 95% of the commenters on this thread. And my experience is that it unquestionably allows for greater musical interest across all genres and improves my listening experience.

Last edited by Axon; 20th November 2009 at 03:25 AM.. Reason: Bit lip.
Old 20th November 2009
  #198
Gear Nut
 
Axon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
But, bad habits die hard, your only hope for better more dynamic music is coming from a new generation of artists and producers.
LULZ!

I'm not disputing that some artists are influenced by such artistic concern for dynamics, but to say that such a fragmented minority of people represents "hope" is like saying that vitamin C is an effective treatment for swine flu. Much indie music is demonstratively rebelling against such concerns.

I've got a folder full of tracks downloaded from Pitchfork over the last few months. The ReplayGain values vary from about -2db to -17db. If anything, new music is demonstrating an increased need for LN, not less. And extrapolating from that (if I may engage in some light word-stuffing), as some artists care more about quality, and other artists care about destroying it, the possibility of vast loudness differences will less and less be pooh-poohed as some bizarre oldies/hiphop mix, and will be more and more a real issue for people who like listening to all good music in a single genre. The lack of LN in such a situation only serves to artificially fragment a market for no good reason.
Old 20th November 2009
  #199
Lives for gear
 
Bubbakron's Avatar
 

Why is Blue ray around and SACD is dead????
Old 20th November 2009
  #200
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
A bill that is in a similar vein as what is being proposed here:
H.R.6209: Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Interesting to see those pro and those against.
Old 20th November 2009
  #201
Gear Nut
 
Axon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
A bill that is in a similar vein as what is being proposed here:
H.R.6209: Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Interesting to see those pro and those against.
I would like to point out that, while I did vote for #3, a legal requirement could (and most likely would) be a very bad thing. There's a risk that a technically bad solution might get mandated. There might be rent seeking to placate politically connected companies/individuals to bypass loudness restrictions. The technical situation, in terms of problems and solutions, is moving far too quickly to justify a permanent political solution.

A legally nonbinding standardized recommendation is absolutely the best way to dictate this sort of behavior, if it is there to be dictated.

I pointed out a related point to Bob in the form of a riddle, which for various not-very-good reasons I do not feel comfortable sharing atm.
Old 20th November 2009
  #202
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axon View Post
Mon dieu! Bob would need smelling salts.

The engineer would be breaking rocks in the hot sun if the forces of art legislation have their evil ways over that one. Kind of a cool song though. Like MGMT, I enjoy it but it hurts my ears.


DC
Old 20th November 2009
  #203
kjg
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Very interesting read. Welcome to the forum Eelco!

Alistair
+1

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, Eelco.
Nice to see you posting here.

Klaas-Jan
Old 20th November 2009
  #204
Lives for gear
 

Another problem I see with "loudness normalization" is that it could make matters even worse, leading to intentional frequency domain manipulations, awkward sounding but defeating the loudness calculation algorithm.
Any loudness evaluation algorithm would weigh frequency bands - e.g. 1/3rd octave bands - like the ISO 532 or ITU BS.1770 standards for calculating loudness level.

So anybody with a competitive edge could then weigh his spectrum antagonistically to the used weighing algorithm, in order to work around the algorithm.
A "spectral war" in the making?
Old 20th November 2009
  #205
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Another problem I see with "loudness normalization" is that it could make matters even worse, leading to intentional spectral distortions.
Do you really think that distortion is not part of the current 'war'?

All the best,
Eelco Grimm

Grimm Audio
Fairytapes
Utrecht School of Music Technology
EBU P/LOUD committee
Old 20th November 2009
  #206
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eelco Grimm View Post
Do you really think that distortion is not part of the current 'war'?
...
Even if it is, how can we address that problem in the algorithms? If you take their weapon of dynamic distortion away, the "warriors" will concentrate on what weapon is left in their hands. Maybe we need to attack the soldiers more than the weapons?

And a possibly OT question to you who is familiar with the international committee's work: Probably the different international bodies have used slightly different equal loudness curves for their proposed algorithms? Are there ethnical/regional differences in average frequency dependent loudness perception on this globe? In my purely anecdotal experience there is.

Thank you for your efforts in dealing with this problem.
Old 20th November 2009
  #207
Lives for gear
 

Loudness normalization will turn down professional music and turn up homebrew music.

Is this what you want?
Old 20th November 2009
  #208
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Even if it is, how can we address that problem in the algorithms?
We can't. There will always be differences between good and bad taste. I don't have a problem with that as long as no one dictates its taste to everybody else. With Peak Normalization hyper-compression is dictated to everyone. With LN you can do whatever you like to your own taste. The differences with RMS levels are more severe than with distortion levels. 10 dB level difference really is more than the difference between 0.1% or 20% distortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
And a possibly OT question to you who is familiar with the international committee's work: Probably the different international bodies have used slightly different equal loudness curves for their proposed algorithms?
No. We need to use a world wide standard and currently there's only one: ITU BS.1770. Please browse the AES archive for papers about its development and you will see that the relatively simple weighting curve of BS.1770 outperformed quite complicated psycho-acoustic algorithms. There were two algorithms performing better, but only by a small margin. The differences were within the statistical spread of subjective loudness judgement - which can be quite high on music btw. Because of this spread the perfect solution does not exist by definition, but of course we would already be very glad with a decent solution.

All the best,
Eelco Grimm

Grimm Audio
Fairytapes
Utrecht School of Music Technology
EBU P/LOUD committee
Old 20th November 2009
  #209
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eelco Grimm View Post
...With Peak Normalization hyper-compression is dictated to everyone...
I respectfully disagree. That statement is also made by BK but I can't see the causality at all. In Classical and Jazz peak normalization (relative to whole album) is SOP in CD-Mastering yet no hyper-compression is happening on an epidemic scale like in other genres.
Also in vinyl mastering there always was peak normalization, yet no hyper-compression.

That thesis "peak normalization = hyper-compression" doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

And regarding distortion: I meant frequency domain manipulation, awkward EQ settings, just to defeat the weighing curves of the loudness calculation algorithms.
Old 20th November 2009
  #210
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eelco Grimm View Post
There were two algorithms performing better, but only by a small margin. The differences were within the statistical spread of subjective loudness judgement - which can be quite high on music btw.
Kinda like one person liking it and another not liking it?


Best Regards
Patrik
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
ianshepherd / Mastering forum
18
Quad / The Moan Zone
4
kenjkelly / Mastering forum
7

Forum Jump
Forum Jump