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
UAD-2 : facts and figures Audio Interfaces
Old 1st September 2008
  #1
UAD-2 : facts and figures

startin this new thread about UAD-2 because the old one is a huge mess now stike
Old 1st September 2008
  #2
Lives for gear
 
animix's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Necola View Post
startin this new thread about UAD-2 because the old one is a huge mess now stike
I'm going to be purchasing mine next week. I will be purchasing it from ADK. I decided to go with ADK because they built my current DAW and have thoroughly tested the UAD-2 with a similar mobo/RAM/ Graphics card with mostly similar audio hardware. I've talked to them a bit about it and confidence levels are pretty high here as far as knowing what to expect. As far as having expectations of running high plugin counts at low latencies, especially on input channels, I think it's unrealistic. I also think that there is going to be a hit to overall performance when using both UAD-1 and UAD-2 cards on the same system.

You're not going to get onboard zero audible latency DSP performance unless you migrate to Creamware (or whatever it's called now), PT, Soundscape, an old Paris system, Fairlight or some kind of digital board with onboard DSP.
Old 1st September 2008
  #3
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Necola View Post
startin this new thread about UAD-2 because the old one is a huge mess now stike
Thank you!!!
Old 1st September 2008
  #4
Lives for gear
 
ProducerBoy's Avatar
 

Well, since this is a facts and figures.

I've noticed two dissapointing things about the 2.5x power claims. First, that claim doesn't apply to a lot of the plugs. Second, UAD-1 almost matches and actually out performs the UAD-2 with Cambridge? That's kinda disappointing to me when you have ten years between products and your next gen card is significantly more powerful with only certain plugs. Granted, the cards run a lot of Neves (where UAD's power rating comes from), but overall... not actually a big improvement with the plug counts.

For instance:

plug count | Mono | Stereo
LA-2A - UAD1 19 17
LA-2A - UAD2 27 23
LA-3A - UAD1 15 13
LA-3A - UAD2 22 20
Plate 140 - UAD1 4 4
Plate 140 - UAD2 6 6

RealVerb Pro - UAD1 9 8
RealVerb Pro - UAD2 9 9

CS-1 - UAD1 10 10
CS-1 - UAD2 16 14
EX-1 - UAD1 49 40
EX-1 - UAD2 50 38

Fairchild - UAD1 12 6
Fairchild - UAD2 21 18
DreamVerb - UAD1 6 5
DreamVerb - UAD2 8 7
RS-1 - UAD1 20 20
RS-1 - UAD2 24 21
Cambridge - UAD1 44 23
Cambridge - UAD2 39 27

PMBand - UAD1 5 2
PMBand - UAD2 8 5
Old 1st September 2008
  #5
Gear Addict
 

ProducerBoy, where did you get these figures from? Unfortunately, I can not see much on the new uaudio.com website, it looks a bit messy in my browser.

Another thing I am really curious about: How much memory does the UAD-2 come with? This sometimes turns into a limiting factor on my UAD-1 when running multiple Delay Modelers and Precision Multibands. Any ideas?

thomas
Old 1st September 2008
  #6
Gear Maniac
 
jdvmi's Avatar
 

I'm interested in hearing how the new "live tracking" feature holds up. It would be great to be able to track with these plugs at a very low latency.
Old 1st September 2008
  #7
Lives for gear
 

UAD instance charts:

http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/charts.html

Some of these figures are updated (but not by much!).
Old 1st September 2008
  #8
Gear Head
 
Hayman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdvmi View Post
I'm interested in hearing how the new "live tracking" feature holds up. It would be great to be able to track with these plugs at a very low latency.
+1

Anyone tried "live tracking" yet? Please report.

Richard
Old 1st September 2008
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProducerBoy View Post
I've noticed two dissapointing things about the 2.5x power claims. First, that claim doesn't apply to a lot of the plugs. Second, UAD-1 almost matches and actually out performs the UAD-2 with Cambridge? That's kinda disappointing to me when you have ten years between products and your next gen card is significantly more powerful with only certain plugs. Granted, the cards run a lot of Neves (where UAD's power rating comes from), but overall... not actually a big improvement with the plug counts.

For instance:

plug count | Mono | Stereo
LA-2A - UAD1 19 17
LA-2A - UAD2 27 23
LA-3A - UAD1 15 13
LA-3A - UAD2 22 20
Plate 140 - UAD1 4 4
Plate 140 - UAD2 6 6

RealVerb Pro - UAD1 9 8
RealVerb Pro - UAD2 9 9

CS-1 - UAD1 10 10
CS-1 - UAD2 16 14
EX-1 - UAD1 49 40
EX-1 - UAD2 50 38

Fairchild - UAD1 12 6
Fairchild - UAD2 21 18
DreamVerb - UAD1 6 5
DreamVerb - UAD2 8 7
RS-1 - UAD1 20 20
RS-1 - UAD2 24 21
Cambridge - UAD1 44 23
Cambridge - UAD2 39 27

PMBand - UAD1 5 2
PMBand - UAD2 8 5
Not so much a 'lot' of plugs as you put it but rather a 'few' plugs. Those plugs also seem to be amongst the oldest plugins made for UAD-1. My guess is its using such old code that wasn't soo compatable with the new SHARC chips that its either very inefficient or having to emulate.

Either way, the latest plugins have even better than 2.5x more instances on the Solo, up to 4x even!.

So I'm sure as more new plugins get created they'll take full advantage of the SHARC's processing abilities first and foremost. This could possibly mean leaving UAD-1 users behind, but I think thats inevitable really.

They've already hinted at new eq's and comps on the way and I doubt it'll be long before they're out.

What concerns me far more is that one thread on the UAD forum from a guy with a pretty high spec quad core computer, using an RME soundcard (hardly a slouch in the driver/latency department) seeing his entire cpu being swallowed up when the UAD-2 quad is in heavy use.

Granted thats at 128ms latency, but still, to have to go upwards of 1024 for the cpu hit to be low?. Hmmmmm
Old 1st September 2008
  #10
Gear Addict
 

yeah, the card seems the most optimal for their Neve plugs. Which is great cause thats really the main reason for the cards imo. So, it would be considered 4X (1073) the power comparing to UAD1 then 2.5X.

So, after digesting all the flurry of info about the cards, the price/performance specs, the varied opinions on here....i've come to these conclusions in my particular situation which might help a few other singer/songwriters...

Now that i know what the UAD2 is and what it can do:

1) Still feel the best setup is combining Native and UAD.

2) Will only consider buying 1 card. At least a Duo based
upon my needs with other native plugs.

3) Will not need to buy the card right away and worry about
1/1/09 deadline to port over plugs with the fees. Will keep current UAD1 card
and continue to use existing plugs on that and use newer plugs
with UAD2.

4) I have been using PT and Cubase for a while and i have decided to go full bore with PT so unless there is complete support (i never was able to get it to work with my current PT setup), then its just a setup i can't totally rely on till its ready.
Old 1st September 2008
  #11
Gear Addict
 

DM1-L: UAD1: 2; UAD2: 15
Since I guess the DM1-L is the "most memory usage per DSP usage" plugin, this suggests that UAD2 has 7.5 times as much memory as the UAD1 (or they use a more memory efficient implementation on the UAD2, probably the truth is somewhere in between). Which also could mean that the DSP speed-up by UAD-2 vs. UAD-1 is less than 2.5.

What I find really neat is that even the UAD-2 Quad (7W) uses less power than the UAD-1 (15W) or UAD-1e (9W). I am not a fan of fans ...

One may discuss whether a DSP speed up by a factor of 2 is a lot in, was that 8 years? Anyway, the possibility to have 4 DSPs in only 1 PCIe slot, using less electrical power than 1 of the old DSPs, sounds to me, in a very literal sense, "pretty cool".

I'll get one when it is < 1000 Euros.
Old 1st September 2008
  #12
Gear Nut
 
lazzaro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermusik View Post
DM1-L: UAD1: 2; UAD2: 15
One may discuss whether a DSP speed up by a factor of 2 is a lot in, was that 8 years?
When I take a look at the board with 4 Sharc chips on it, I can't help but
wonder about replacing them with Virtex-5 SXT(s) of comparable price:

http://www.xilinx.com/publications/x..._62-virtex.pdf

Of course, going this route would mean UA would need to
put together a tool chain that would let your typical plug-in
developer target a DSP FPGA fabric ... but, a lot of progress has been
made on making those sorts of platforms approachable to DSP designers.
When Xilinx put together a benchmark suite to evaluate the Virtex-5 for
their existing customer base, 40% of the test code was DSP, about the
same fraction as networking application test code.
Old 1st September 2008
  #13
Lives for gear
 
animix's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gracejames View Post
yeah, the card seems the most optimal for their Neve plugs. Which is great cause thats really the main reason for the cards imo. So, it would be considered 4X (1073) the power comparing to UAD1 then 2.5X.

So, after digesting all the flurry of info about the cards, the price/performance specs, the varied opinions on here....i've come to these conclusions in my particular situation which might help a few other singer/songwriters...

Now that i know what the UAD2 is and what it can do:

1) Still feel the best setup is combining Native and UAD.

2) Will only consider buying 1 card. At least a Duo based
upon my needs with other native plugs.

3) Will not need to buy the card right away and worry about
1/1/09 deadline to port over plugs with the fees. Will keep current UAD1 card
and continue to use existing plugs on that and use newer plugs
with UAD2.

4) I have been using PT and Cubase for a while and i have decided to go full bore with PT so unless there is complete support (i never was able to get it to work with my current PT setup), then its just a setup i can't totally rely on till its ready.
My primary usage revolves around the Neve EQ's, the 33609, Fairchild, LA-3A, LA-2A, 160 VU, 1176, occasionally the Plate 140 and Roland stuff (rarely-I use hardware verbs) and the Precision EQ, Limiter and Bus comp. It appears that I will get better efficiciency/count with the processors that are least efficient on the UAD-1. That is a step in the right direction IMO.

If you check the UA site, there is a paper there that discusses the history of the UAD-2 development past , present and future. I'm sure that as time goes on, they will further optomize the code and drivers. Basically they are saying that they have a product that will work now and that it was time to get to market.

At some point you've to to launch a product and let the bitching begin so that the public can beta test it and you can become aware of the DAW configurations that aren't working and your tech support staff can help less experienced users troubleshoot pilot error scenarios. It would be impossible to test this product with every possible hardware/driver permutation and DAW configuration and user experiential level while in development. You would be constantly in development because the other hardware that is interfacing with DAWs is also constantly changing and there are an endless supply of clueless dumbasses trying to roll their own DAWs out of cheap crap so it would be like trying to hit a constantly moving target. (Sorry for the elitist rant, but it's true.....and having been a clueless dumbass for years, I can speak from personal experience)
heh
Old 1st September 2008
  #14
Gear Addict
 

I can't quite figure out why the UAD-2 is getting bashed so bad myself. People have been waiting years for this and while it may not be the smoothest product launch around, it seems like UA is being pretty fair here. They're offering vouchers to original UAD-1 owners (let's be real here - how many companies support older products like that?). With computers, you're essentially S.O.L. because they're constantly getting upgraded and consequently enough get devalued very quickly. The UAD-1 has been around for a long time (it's been supported for a long time as well) and I have no doubts in my mind that the UAD-2 will be around for a long time as well.

I was looking at purchasing a UAD-1 for a while, I was almost tempted to jump on their Xtreme pak they had going on for a little more than 2k. Now I can purchase their top of the line Quad model with all of their Neve plugins (which were the most costly anyways) for less money (unless I'm missing something - UA doesn't appear to be very greedy here). If I am to complain about anything it's that it's only PCI-E, but if UA decides to release an Xpander for it to support MBP Express Cardbus technology, I'll be happier than a pig in ****e.
Old 1st September 2008
  #15
adl
Gear Addict
 
adl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
What concerns me far more is that one thread on the UAD forum from a guy with a pretty high spec quad core computer, using an RME soundcard (hardly a slouch in the driver/latency department) seeing his entire cpu being swallowed up when the UAD-2 quad is in heavy use.

Granted thats at 128ms latency, but still, to have to go upwards of 1024 for the cpu hit to be low?. Hmmmmm

He also mentioned that with 256 Samples everything works pretty well. I never even could use UAD1 with 128 Samples so for me it really doesn´t matter as i record with 256 Samples only (i have a ESI [email protected] Soundcard)

Ordered my UAD2 Quad today, will get it Monday / Tuesday next week (live in germany) and will see how good it performs.
Old 1st September 2008
  #16
Lives for gear
 
The dman's Avatar
 

Ordering DUO tomorrowthumbsup
Old 1st September 2008
  #17
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazzaro View Post
When I take a look at the board with 4 Sharc chips on it, I can't help but
wonder about replacing them with Virtex-5 SXT(s) of comparable price:

http://www.xilinx.com/publications/x..._62-virtex.pdf

Of course, going this route would mean UA would need to
put together a tool chain that would let your typical plug-in
developer target a DSP FPGA fabric ... but, a lot of progress has been
made on making those sorts of platforms approachable to DSP designers.
When Xilinx put together a benchmark suite to evaluate the Virtex-5 for
their existing customer base, 40% of the test code was DSP, about the
same fraction as networking application test code.
Fairlight went the FPGA route: Altera FPGA Replaces 64 DSP Devices in Fairlight's New Media Processing Engine

I agree that Xilinx or Altera solutions make much more sense. UA are now on the top Analogue Devices chips. There is no existing upgrade path besides adding more chips per card. By going for a low-end FPGA solution, there is an existing upgrade path that doesn't mean having to recode all the software.

There are current FPGA solutions that chew the Analogue Devices chips as far as processing power is concerned. (The top Xilinx chip offers 192 GFlOPS / 352 GMACS compared to the 1.6 GFLOPS / 0.8 GMACS sustained rate of the AD chips).

Here is a general article on this current FPGA technology and how easy it is to develop applications for them: High-Performance Computing: Delivering Rapid, Actionable Results With FPGAs | Computer Technology Review


Look at the fourth entry on this page: (An item dating from April 2007!). Posts tagged Supercomputer at Engadget

A quick quote: "the dedicated coprocessor / accelerator modules could be landing beside your Intel Xeon CPU. Essentially, the devices plug "directly into the processor socket of dual- or quad-socket servers" in order to provide "high performance application acceleration ranging from 10x to 100x compared to processors alone, while simultaneously reducing overall system power consumption.""

This is where the market is going. SHARC chips are the past.

Alistair
Old 1st September 2008
  #18
Gear Addict
 
Electronique's Avatar
 

Wheres the new plugins???

Im extremely happy with the launch of UAD-2...

Many people here speculated that UAD-1 plugins would NOT work with UAD-2.. They speculated that you would have to purchase your plaugins again.. They speculated that they would use the same processor..??

I think UAD have done a great job.. Unfortunately I wont be able to afford to jump to a Quad before the end of the year.. So I'll be paying the "capped" $250 for all my plugins!!

In an ideal world It would have been free to transfer plugins to UAD-2.. But lets face it. The busniess world is FAR from ideal... But UAD - You have done very well on this I think.. Congratulations on supporting your old customers..
Old 1st September 2008
  #19
Gear Nut
 
lazzaro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I agree that Xilinx or Altera solutions make much more sense. UA are now on the top Analogue Devices chips. There is no existing upgrade path besides adding more chips per card. By going for a low-end FPGA solution, there is an existing upgrade path that doesn't mean having to recode all the software.
In UAs defense, putting together a third-party development platform
based on FPGAs is a leading-edge endeavor ... but I think UA could
have pulled it off. They are geographically in the right place to assemble
the team that could do it, and they have the business model that could
fund it ... it would have solved their platform problem more or less
permanently, whereas moving to SHARC chips really doesn't.
Old 1st September 2008
  #20
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

Someone please report back about the live track mode.


I was looking at the instance chart and i think for my needs, all i will need is one quad card for an entire mix, which is great for me if live mode does what it says
Old 1st September 2008
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Fairlight went the FPGA route: Altera FPGA Replaces 64 DSP Devices in Fairlight's New Media Processing Engine

I agree that Xilinx or Altera solutions make much more sense. UA are now on the top Analogue Devices chips. There is no existing upgrade path besides adding more chips per card. By going for a low-end FPGA solution, there is an existing upgrade path that doesn't mean having to recode all the software.

There are current FPGA solutions that chew the Analogue Devices chips as far as processing power is concerned. (The top Xilinx chip offers 192 GFlOPS/352GMACS compared to the 1.6GFLOPS sustained rate of the AD chips).

Here is a general article on this current FPGA technology and how easy it is to develop applications for them: High-Performance Computing: Delivering Rapid, Actionable Results With FPGAs | Computer Technology Review


Look at the fourth entry on this page: (An item dating from April 2007!). Posts tagged Supercomputer at Engadget

A quick quote: "the dedicated coprocessor / accelerator modules could be landing beside your Intel Xeon CPU. Essentially, the devices plug "directly into the processor socket of dual- or quad-socket servers" in order to provide "high performance application acceleration ranging from 10x to 100x compared to processors alone, while simultaneously reducing overall system power consumption.""

This is where the market is going. SHARC chips are the past.

Alistair
that Fairlight card is $28,000
Old 1st September 2008
  #22
Gear Addict
 
Electronique's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by computa View Post
that Fairlight card is $28,000
Yeah and Ive got two..
I wonder how much I can get for one on Ebay??

Old 1st September 2008
  #23
Lives for gear
 
animix's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Fairlight went the FPGA route: Altera FPGA Replaces 64 DSP Devices in Fairlight's New Media Processing Engine

I agree that Xilinx or Altera solutions make much more sense. UA are now on the top Analogue Devices chips. There is no existing upgrade path besides adding more chips per card. By going for a low-end FPGA solution, there is an existing upgrade path that doesn't mean having to recode all the software.

There are current FPGA solutions that chew the Analogue Devices chips as far as processing power is concerned. (The top Xilinx chip offers 192 GFlOPS/352GMACS compared to the 1.6GFLOPS sustained rate of the AD chips).

Here is a general article on this current FPGA technology and how easy it is to develop applications for them: High-Performance Computing: Delivering Rapid, Actionable Results With FPGAs | Computer Technology Review


Look at the fourth entry on this page: (An item dating from April 2007!). Posts tagged Supercomputer at Engadget

A quick quote: "the dedicated coprocessor / accelerator modules could be landing beside your Intel Xeon CPU. Essentially, the devices plug "directly into the processor socket of dual- or quad-socket servers" in order to provide "high performance application acceleration ranging from 10x to 100x compared to processors alone, while simultaneously reducing overall system power consumption.""

This is where the market is going. SHARC chips are the past.

Alistair
Fascinating information. Thanks for posting this. I'm not disagreeing with your thinking that this is relatively old technology now.

As far as the reasons for using the SHARC's are concerned, they are stated here:

Universal Audio | Navigation Template

Check the "Ask The Doctors" page. This card has been in development for a while and there are always advances happening whle the implementation of a project based on a fixed technology target slips further and further behind due to the exponential nature of processor development. How do you decide on a processor platform using today's technology and then develop it for two + years and expect it to still be anywhere close to what is current at the time of release.....especially when you're factoring in cost vs affordability = profit margin?

These guys have got to feed their families and this can't be done if a product is in constant development trying to play catchup and therefore no processor solution can be decided because nothing will ever be brought to market. I don't work for UA or know any of them personally, but they have always been good to work with and I have been happy with their products since I started using the UAD-1 in 2001

Cheers,
Old 1st September 2008
  #24
Gear Nut
 
lazzaro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by computa View Post
that Fairlight card is $28,000
Very little of that $28,000 makes it to Altera's bank account;
fewer dollars than would make it to Analog Device's bank account
if they had design a similarly-spec'd product using SHARC chips
(otherwise, they would have used the SHARCs :-).

The cost of a product like the Fairlight is mostly the NRE of the IP that
is running on the silicon platform, given the small customer
base for consoles over which the NRE needs to
be amortized. Not to mention that $28000 is what the market
will bear ... price != cost.
Old 1st September 2008
  #25
Gear Addict
 
Electronique's Avatar
 

Damn - UAD-2 Quad = Aus$2,449.. Thats US$2081


I wish our dollar was where it was compared to US, a few months ago..
Old 1st September 2008
  #26
Gear Nut
 
lazzaro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by animix View Post

Check the "Ask The Doctors" page. This card has been in development for a while and there are always advances happening whle the implementation of a project based on a fixed technology target slips further and further behind due to the exponential nature of processor development. How do you decide on a processor platform using today's technology and then develop it for two + years and expect it to still be anywhere close to what is current at the time of release.....especially when you're factoring in cost vs affordability = profit margin?
FPGAs make solving the sort of business issues you describe
here easier, not harder ... indeed the customer risk-reduction of targeting
a design to a logic fabric instead of a CPU architecture is
a major reason why Xilinx, Altera, Actel have stayed in business
for over two decades now. Generation N+1 of these chip families
are designed so that Verilog/VHDL targeted towards generation N
will retarget well to the new parts.
Old 1st September 2008
  #27
Lives for gear
 
animix's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazzaro View Post
FPGAs make solving the sort of business issues you describe
here easier, not harder ... indeed the customer risk-reduction of targeting
a design to a logic fabric instead of a CPU architecture is
a major reason why Xilinx, Altera, Actel have stayed in business
for over two decades now. Generation N+1 of these chip families
are designed so that Verilog/VHDL targeted towards generation N
will retarget well to the new parts.
Well,

I'm obviously not at your level when it comes to this stuff. Are you saying that it would have been just as easy, could have been delivered at the same price point to have gone with a much more powerful architecture back around 2006?

Old 1st September 2008
  #28
wait for the WEISS powerhouse..

haha.. 4 sharc DSPs.. THINK 10!

Weiss :: POWERHOUSE

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazzaro View Post
When I take a look at the board with 4 Sharc chips on it, I can't help but
wonder about replacing them with Virtex-5 SXT(s) of comparable price:

http://www.xilinx.com/publications/x..._62-virtex.pdf

Of course, going this route would mean UA would need to
put together a tool chain that would let your typical plug-in
developer target a DSP FPGA fabric ... but, a lot of progress has been
made on making those sorts of platforms approachable to DSP designers.
When Xilinx put together a benchmark suite to evaluate the Virtex-5 for
their existing customer base, 40% of the test code was DSP, about the
same fraction as networking application test code.
Old 1st September 2008
  #29
Lives for gear
 
animix's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Necola View Post
wait for the WEISS powerhouse..

haha.. 4 sharc DSPs.. THINK 10!

Weiss :: POWERHOUSE
You think I'll be able to get one for $1200.00 street?
heh
Old 1st September 2008
  #30
Here for the gear
 

Man all this conjecture on whether they could've gone with another DSP is silly. They chose one that was cost effective and likely available back when they started to design the new system. Perhaps there is also some other reason, like some ability to retain the current UAD1 as part of the system that might not have been possible had they gone the other way.

In any event being able to load 4 Quad's would make for enough power for any combination of current or future plugs that I can imagine them coming up with, so the system seems to be adequately powered now IMO.

I have 4 UAD-1's and if I wanted, I could combine them with 4 Quads and I don't imagine i'd ever hit the wall on that much additional processing to my Host system.

TRACE
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
Poopants / So much gear, so little time
3
celebritymusic / So much gear, so little time
1
Jonkan / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show and Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
4
Jonkan / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show and Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump