THIS is why plugins are the way forward. - Page 68 - Gearslutz.com
THIS is why plugins are the way forward.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2011
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY View Post
ITB or OTB 3d is done with technique,not gear.

Theres things that need to be done,2 different images(left speaker,right speaker)put together to create the outward and inward deminsions,just like my tv.

3d is not pushing a analog fader up.if subjectively one might feel more energy/presence,that's fine.

But that's not 3d.
wow. For once I actually understand and agree with a post from FLYINGJAY!

I have been all over this thread on the "hardware" side, but the "3D" thing is really frosting my giblets.
Old 15th April 2012
  #2012
Lives for gear
I'm still waiting for a GS thread that demands people PROVE that plugins today sound/perform better than plugins from 12 years ago.

IME this assumption (that plugins have so dramatically improved in the last decade) is patently false.

I still use the plugins on a PT 5 era mix system, and they sound good and can be very useful when outputted thru the console.

I just don't buy the hype that you need the latest/greatest plugs to make a killer record.

FREE plugins from 12 years ago work just fine IMO, and I'm most certain that the end listeners would never know whether you used the latest/greatest or the old (FREE !!!!!) ones.

Old 15th April 2012
  #2013
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
wow. For once I actually understand and agree with a post from FLYINGJAY!

I have been all over this thread on the "hardware" side, but the "3D" thing is really frosting my giblets.
I'm mastering cell phone touch screen...

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 15th April 2012
  #2014
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo View Post
Th

Digital works, and does make records...they just sound terrible
I actually agree,as with the McDonald's scenario,people spend lots of money on digital production.

I also mentioned in the past,the people made there choice.

McDonald's is the fastest most efficient way to eat(check their stocks).

Mp3 is the fastest most efficient way to get music.

I was on YouTube listen to a group called the "THE MOMENTS".the song is GIRLS,as distorted as the uploads were,the vocals still sound so good!check it out!

Again many don't appreciate it,some just can hear it some don't care.

Of all the cheap things made in China,they are world leaders in efficiency.doing business it about budget and profit margin.

Smaller manufactures are killing big manufacturing in many markets.



Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 15th April 2012
  #2015
Lives for gear
 
cavern's Avatar
 

Once Waves comes out with the ONE KNOB TALENT plugin,that will truely be the way forward but it looks like they are having a tough time emulating vintage talent with what they have to work with today.
Heard something about trouble getting quality parts..
Old 15th April 2012
  #2016
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage691 View Post
I'm still waiting for a GS thread that demands people PROVE that plugins today sound/perform better than plugins from 12 years ago.

IME this assumption (that plugins have so dramatically improved in the last decade) is patently false.

I still use the plugins on a PT 5 era mix system, and they sound good and can be very useful when outputted thru the console.

I just don't buy the hype that you need the latest/greatest plugs to make a killer record.

FREE plugins from 12 years ago work just fine IMO, and I'm most certain that the end listeners would never know whether you used the latest/greatest or the old (FREE !!!!!) ones.

The 1176 revisions kill the original(fact).

Search uad 6.2 here on gs.

They use way more dsp also.

Remember trying to run waves renaissance reverb compared to stock daw reverbs?waves smashed CPU to bits.

I believe osx and windows are the reason for poor performance,why?

2 reasons.

My old emu E4 samplers out perform the software version polyphony(notes at once).

Also my 7 year old xbox out performs my i7 8 core,8 gigs of ram laptop when playing the same games.

The emu software(emulator X3)has a way to save CPU,as you eliminate voices,the CPU meter lowers more and more.

But also that lush hardware sound,gets thinner and thinner.

My point,when i7 CPU speed double,I think the roof with get blown off for plugin development!

Though there are some gteat new Plugins now...

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 15th April 2012
  #2017
Gear nut
 
Retrospekta's Avatar
 

the one purchase i regret in my studio which i bought for all the hype that surrounds them and the only thing i ever bought for that reason in audio:

Waves Plugins

if they gave me my money back.. i would promise them i would not tell anybody how useless most of them are... and it cost a lot of money...
Old 15th April 2012
  #2018
Lives for gear
 

Isn't a frosted giblet a vodka drink? LOL

I stated as fact as to what constitutes the jargon words "3D" and "Flat" according to my teachings by older engineers over three decades ago and by the other engineers I've known since. I have yet to run into any engineer who has a different definition but if you do please share it and see if the community agrees. Sound coming out of two speakers has been around for over 50 years. I'd say the jargon about what comes out of those two speakers is fairly entrenched.

I stated as an opinion my personal experiences with both analog and digital that I thought digital's weakness was lack of 3D.

My posts were pretty clear on both of those points. So what exactly are you disputing, that there is fairly old jargon with a clear definition concerning stereo speakers soundfield or that I have a personal opinion based on my own experiences about digital's main weakness?

The point of a forum is to answer a posted question or problem with posibile solutions and/or observations from our own experiences. Other answers from those who have not gotten their hands dirty in the first place or have a financial interest in the answer should be scrutinized more carefully by the readers.
Old 15th April 2012
  #2019
Gear nut
 
Retrospekta's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
Can't speak for anyone else, but I like plenty of music that's two dimensional, and I have no love for a lot of music that's heavy in the depth department.

I think depth is a very real, very identifiable quantity in sound, as are wetness and softness. These are terms of art, useful guideposts in our attempts to qualify and talk about the otherwise abstract and esoteric. I don't think the fact that they're difficult to define with scientific precision makes them less real, it just makes makes them more subjective, more prone to discussion and disagreement.

3D is arguably the simplest of the bunch. You sit between two speakers and listen. Can you visually perceive some sounds as coming from a more distant place than others? Is there a front to back illusion accompanying the left to right illusion? Does a given sound seem to be both upfront and stretching back into the distance? Boom, you got 3D.

Is this really something engineers dispute nowadays?


Gregory Scott - ubk
i find this very agreeable. can you call sound two dimensional anyway??? sound as a whole??? not just one sine.... it is multi dimensional! only 3? i would actually say that the 3 dimensions in a welldone record are easy to hear, and i dare to say a record one listens to and you dont hear this is just a very badly done piece of last decades biggest problem - somebody else mentioned it: compressing the last drop of juice out of everything... these type of engineer should be treated just as somebody that steals a piece of art: its a crime.
Old 15th April 2012
  #2020
Lives for gear
Re: THIS is why plugins are the way forward.

3d is created by the engineer...

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 15th April 2012
  #2021
Lives for gear
 

You may be dodging the point, what happens when one engineer uses BOTH plugs for one mix and hardware for another mix of the SAME material. While they will obviously have a different sound, what happens when you concentrate on the 3D aspect of each mix? That gets to the general point and is more of an apples to apples comparison per individual engineer. If you have not done that yet with your mixes and/or have listened to the two mixes of the same material done by other engineers I think it will open your eyes on the issue.
Old 15th April 2012
  #2022
Gear maniac
As a young and upcoming engineer I've been using plugins and nothing else until recently. I've started to buy some outboard gear, and I'm very happy with the results I'm getting, despite the fact that most of the gear is really low end. (v-Verb Pro, Art VLA 2, JoeMeek SixQ)
I'm sure there are plugins out there that sound better than my units, but I just love tweaking those physical knobs. And I'm certain that my music sounds better because of it. As have other people also confirmed. It's a strange thing, but that's the way it is.

So for me it's about workflow.
Old 15th April 2012
  #2023
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by SveinKB View Post
As a young and upcoming engineer I've been using plugins and nothing else until recently. I've started to buy some outboard gear, and I'm very happy with the results I'm getting, despite the fact that most of the gear is really low end. (v-Verb Pro, Art VLA 2, JoeMeek SixQ)
I'm sure there are plugins out there that sound better than my units, but I just love tweaking those physical knobs. And I'm certain that my music sounds better because of it. As have other people also confirmed. It's a strange thing, but that's the way it is.

So for me it's about workflow.
You talking about workflow,and that's great you enjoy yours!

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 15th April 2012
  #2024
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
You may be dodging the point, what happens when one engineer uses BOTH plugs for one mix and hardware for another mix of the SAME material. While they will obviously have a different sound, what happens when you concentrate on the 3D aspect of each mix? That gets to the general point and is more of an apples to apples comparison per individual engineer. If you have not done that yet with your mixes and/or have listened to the two mixes of the same material done by other engineers I think it will open your eyes on the issue.
And this is where your point vanishes into jargonville. Your subjective interpretation of 3D sound will not diminish the fact that digital is the medium of choice for fidelity, which is all that can account for representing "3D" accurately. If you are having problems with "3D" in the digital domain, you need to check your sample rate, bit depth and pan laws. An analog compressor will do no more for making your mix "3D" than a lawn mower will do for cleaning your gutters. It's just not what it does.
Old 15th April 2012
  #2025
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
You may be dodging the point, what happens when one engineer uses BOTH plugs for one mix and hardware for another mix of the SAME material. While they will obviously have a different sound, what happens when you concentrate on the 3D aspect of each mix? ... per individual engineer. ...

the key here is the phrase "per individual engineer."

there is nothing about the technologies in and of themselves that "creates" the 3D - only the engineer's reaction to, and comfort level with, the technologies.

Some engineers may have come to rely on the non-linearities of the faders and quirks of their consoles, etc. If this is unconscious, the engineer may feel an analog 'advantage'. But anyone who understands what the console is doing and what his digital summer is not doing will have no problem adjusting.


Quote:
If you have not done that yet with your mixes...
This mistaken idea that if other people do what you did, they will get the same result, or have the same experience, is the source of your error. Your experience is not a consequence of the gear you employed, it is a consequence of you interacting with that gear. Other people bring other things to the table and will interact differently.

unless you can post a clip of a mono instrument recorded both A and D and show that -all by itself- one has more "3D" than the other, your assertion will remain in the realm of the subjective.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2026
Lives for gear
 
Mr.HOLMES's Avatar
Interesting this discussion is still going on?

All I can say I worked a long time with plug ins and my impression was it is time consuming to get the result I want.
I went the hybrid route.

And all I can say with a cheap A+H Desk a few Outboard units and two high end mic-pres I get what I want faster.

To me the mix opens up faster.

Not to mention that I have less plug in windows to handle which always made me some kind of nervous. On my DAW inserts you find most often just an EQ and some compression.... the rest is happening outside the DAW.

Better overview beter concentration on the music better result in the end.

Next step is to buy a reasonable HW reverb as main reverb.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2027
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY View Post
The 1176 revisions kill the original(fact).

Search uad 6.2 here on gs.Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Well, maybe that's how it is when you are summing all ITB.

By when run thru my console on individual channels, the differences are insignificant to my ear. We've done the tests here at my studio with a friend's ITB rig that he spent many $ thousands $ on for the latest & greatest plugins.

He was one of the most depressed people i have ever seen in my life when he realized that, when run thru a good console, a 12 year old cracked plugin of an 1176 sounded (when tweaked a bit) pretty much identical to his latest/greatest big $ version. I do have to admit though, they did a REALLY nice job making the graphics look sluttier.

And, of course, once he heard a hardware MC77 on a main vocal insert on the console -- well, let's just say he nearly wet his pants in disbelief.

Now he's refurbing an old soundcraft console and going the hardware route, and trying to ditch the plugs before they are worth about $5 on ebay in a couple of years.

Same as it ever was in plugin fantasyland.

Old 16th April 2012
  #2028
Lives for gear
 

Mizzle, it's not my "subjective interpretation of 3D sound". You listen to two mixes of the same song done by the same engineer using the same tracks and one is done ITB and the other is done with analog gear. Neither is labeled as to how it was done, it's basically an AB listening test and you focus on which mix is more 3D or maybe just plain Flat per the standard jargon definitions of those words I have already posted. I've done this many times with many engineer's work and I reliably pick out the one done with hardware. In fact I've never heard an ITB mix that had more 3D than it's hardware counterpart mix. So while you and Joeq are right in that the INDIVDUAL ENGINEER plays a big part in achieving a 3D mix, I am right also that digital's weakness is 3D. Try it for yourself, get other's in your circle to play along, I've gotten my hands dirty along with others I know and have formed an opinion based on my many listening tests. Lastly, what is subjective about the jargon terms "3D" and "Flat"? I've furnished a standard definition, I've yet to see you share anything different up for scrutiny with the community.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2029
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Mizzle, it's not my "subjective interpretation of 3D sound". You listen to two mixes of the same song done by the same engineer using the same tracks and one is done ITB and the other is done with analog gear. Neither is labeled as to how it was done, it's basically an AB listening test and you focus on which mix is more 3D or maybe just plain Flat per the standard jargon definitions of those words I have already posted. I've done this many times with many engineer's work and I reliably pick out the one done with hardware. In fact I've never heard an ITB mix that had more 3D than it's hardware counterpart mix. So while you and Joeq are right in that the INDIVDUAL ENGINEER plays a big part in achieving a 3D mix, I am right also that digital's weakness is 3D. Try it for yourself, get other's in your circle to play along, I've gotten my hands dirty along with others I know and have formed an opinion based on my many listening tests. Lastly, what is subjective about the jargon terms "3D" and "Flat"? I've furnished a standard definition, I've yet to see you share anything different up for scrutiny with the community.
First off, none of us here can verify the veracity of your claims because you have not even presented the circumstances under which such comparisons were made. Were you participating in blind or double-blind trials?

Secondly, how do you narrow down the criteria so that 3-D is tested without other variables? If you are consistently picking out hardware mixes over software mixes, how do we know that 3-D is the watermark as opposed to any other quality that could be earmarked? Once you identify a hardware mix, it is just as easy to label it with any adjective you please, but that would not corroborate said label as a reason for the difference. For all we know you are reacting to a LF bump from your favorite console or small deviations in L/R output due to a poor playback head alignment, but in your mind "it's more 3-D!".

I would really ask you to ask yourself how to go about objectively clarifying "3-D", since you brought it into the conversation. Can you prove to me that the woodwinds section as captured digitally for the Vienna Philharmonic is somehow distorted in it's psycoacoustic rendering, leaving human subjects without the proper information to infer spatial placement in comparison to analog versions?

You are going to need blank stage charts and participants who are willing to mark them according to where they perceive each instrument to be situated.
They will need to be able to differentiate localization in blind tests comparing analog and digital, and they will need to be checked against the actual stage placements for accuracy. Above that, you will need to prove digital's "flatness" based on a curve that shows the perceived distances on a significant percentage of the digital recordings were clearly shorter and/or lacking in stereo width.

There is plenty separating you from an objective definition of "3D" that can be used to differentiate between the two mediums.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2030
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage691 View Post
Well, maybe that's how it is when you are summing all ITB.

By when run thru my console on individual channels, the differences are insignificant to my ear. We've done the tests here at my studio with a friend's ITB rig that he spent many $ thousands $ on for the latest & greatest plugins.

He was one of the most depressed people i have ever seen in my life when he realized that, when run thru a good console, a 12 year old cracked plugin of an 1176 sounded (when tweaked a bit) pretty much identical to his latest/greatest big $ version. I do have to admit though, they did a REALLY nice job making the graphics look sluttier.

And, of course, once he heard a hardware MC77 on a main vocal insert on the console -- well, let's just say he nearly wet his pants in disbelief.

Now he's refurbing an old soundcraft console and going the hardware route, and trying to ditch the plugs before they are worth about $5 on ebay in a couple of years.

Same as it ever was in plugin fantasyland.

That info is from a 1176 update thread here on gs,its not my opinion.

But the opinion of guys that have both hardware and plugin...

They stated they could not hear a difference after many test.

If guys are willing to test the latest gen of Plugins it becomes ignorance at some point.

Times are changing,old dog don't learn new trick.

I just went over several old mixes,and they sound way better with Vcc and a few other new Plugins.

Also Joeq,we are talking nice analog front end going in.

I'll post some a/b comparisons tomorrow,they will probably on the waves NLS thread!

No kidding man,once I add Vcc and a few other things its freakin magic,then when I bypass them all the mix is really 2d.

If any hardware guys can beat these ITB processed files,I'd be truly impressed.though I still think it would be minute if that.
Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 16th April 2012
  #2031
Lives for gear
 

Not trying to be a smartass here but have you guys tried the new Steinberg Portico plugins.

If these are any example of where plugs are going we are in for some surprises. I assure you these things are very different and anyone whom I have gotten to test them has bought them right away. Even at their very high price tag.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2032
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzle View Post
And this is where your point vanishes into jargonville. Your subjective interpretation of 3D sound will not diminish the fact that digital is the medium of choice for fidelity, which is all that can account for representing "3D" accurately. If you are having problems with "3D" in the digital domain, you need to check your sample rate, bit depth and pan laws. An analog compressor will do no more for making your mix "3D" than a lawn mower will do for cleaning your gutters. It's just not what it does.
Bull**** semantics again.
Digital is a (bad) approximation of analogue environment it is try ing to represent. This is the state of the art. I reduces resolution to a point we hear the result as more 2D. If you try and argue the point you have never tried using analogue.
Some styles of music are designed around that sound (dance...) #D" is not required there. It was made in the 90's on cheap-ass digital hardware (believe me I have done it for years) and that is waht is expected.
Other styles of music will always benefit from a good representation of space. You can try and approximated with spacial processing (reverbs...) but it will not be the same and will take you 10 times the amount of time needed to work with a well recorded and analogue processed track.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2033
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
Bull**** semantics again.
Digital is a (bad) approximation of analogue environment it is try ing to represent. This is the state of the art. I reduces resolution to a point we hear the result as more 2D. If you try and argue the point you have never tried using analogue.
Some styles of music are designed around that sound (dance...) #D" is not required there. It was made in the 90's on cheap-ass digital hardware (believe me I have done it for years) and that is waht is expected.
Other styles of music will always benefit from a good representation of space. You can try and approximated with spacial processing (reverbs...) but it will not be the same and will take you 10 times the amount of time needed to work with a well recorded and analogue processed track.
Three things you apparently do not have a grasp of here:
1) digital is capable of higher resolution than analog. look it up.
2) digital is hardly relegated to the world of dance music. upwards of 90% of all classical music is captured, mixed and mastered digital.
3) digital is not an approximation of analog!
Old 16th April 2012
  #2034
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzle View Post
Three things you apparently do not have a grasp of here:
1) digital is capable of higher resolution than analog. look it up.
2) digital is hardly relegated to the world of dance music. upwards of 90% of all classical music is captured, mixed and mastered digital.
3) digital is not an approximation of analog!
Digital is not an approximation of the real world (analogue)? What is it then? What does digital resolution refers to?
Digital is not a preferred medium in many styles, but is a medium of budget and some convenience. Not fidelity. Classical budgets are not what they used to be. And its expensive dragging an analogue system to a classical concert.
BTW how old are you? You sound very much like my 13 year old son.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2035
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavern View Post
Once Waves comes out with the ONE KNOB TALENT plugin,that will truely be the way forward but it looks like they are having a tough time emulating vintage talent with what they have to work with today.
Heard something about trouble getting quality parts..
Man they are CLEARLY aimed at beginners and song writers who aren't engineers but want to get some results with a knob.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2036
Lives for gear
 
cavern's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArk View Post
Man they are CLEARLY aimed at beginners and song writers who aren't engineers but want to get some results with a knob.
Ahh i see,you didn't get the memo,it was CLEARLY a joke or was it.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2037
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
Digital is not an approximation of the real world (analogue)? What is it then? What does digital resolution refers to?
Digital is not a preferred medium in many styles, but is a medium of budget and some convenience. Not fidelity. Classical budgets are not what they used to be. And its expensive dragging an analogue system to a classical concert.
BTW how old are you? You sound very much like my 13 year old son.
The "real world" is both digital and analog (and more). If you do not think digital is real, you should question what you are really doing as you are entering text into this forum (hallucinating perhaps?) as computers would simply not exist.

Definition time:
"An analog or analogue signal is any continuous signal for which the time varying feature (variable) of the signal is a representation of some other time varying quantity"

That "some other time varying quantity" is in this case audio phenomenon. Both digital and analog mediums are used to represent this audio phenomenon, but the original phenomenon itself is not inherently analog.
A violin is not a representation of itself; it is itself.
Using digital to model analog devices of capture and storage is another story, but is not the sole purpose of the digital medium (though it has become a prominent demand).

Oh, and if I sound like your 13 tear old son, you should probably start listening to him!
Old 16th April 2012
  #2038
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzle View Post
The "real world" is both digital and analog (and more). If you do not think digital is real, you should question what you are really doing as you are entering text into this forum (hallucinating perhaps?) as computers would simply not exist.

Definition time:
"An analog or analogue signal is any continuous signal for which the time varying feature (variable) of the signal is a representation of some other time varying quantity"

That "some other time varying quantity" is in this case audio phenomenon. Both digital and analog mediums are used to represent this audio phenomenon, but the original phenomenon itself is not inherently analog.
A violin is not a representation of itself; it is itself.
Using digital to model analog devices of capture and storage is another story, but is not the sole purpose of the digital medium (though it has become a prominent demand).

Oh, and if I sound like your 13 tear old son, you should probably start listening to him!
Go back to that electronics class you missed and have a read of your books again. Analogue sound (a natural phenomemnon) is being approximated by a staircase digital waveform approximation. Its never exactly the same (given todays tech) but is close enough for deaf mp3 lovers like you.
Sound is analogue in nature - period. And so far digital has not been successful in replicating it entirely in every neuance.
BTW my son (even at 13) I rate much higher then you - he is lacking in experience but is willing to learn - you are a demagogue who is unwilling to accept simple truth.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2039
Lives for gear
 
Muser's Avatar
hmmm.. if you say something is analogue in nature, you're saying that somethings nature, is analogous to something else.

as far as I know, phenomena aren't generally considered things which are analogous to anything. such as sound for example.

but if you transform soundwaves through a diaphram into an electrical signal
then that is what's normally considered an electrical signal, analogous to the phenomena of the original soundwave.
That analogous property, allows you to then transform it back into a physical phenomena again.
Old 16th April 2012
  #2040
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
Go back to that electronics class you missed and have a read of your books again. Analogue sound (a natural phenomemnon) is being approximated by a staircase digital waveform approximation. Its never exactly the same (given todays tech) but is close enough for deaf mp3 lovers like you.
Sound is analogue in nature - period. And so far digital has not been successful in replicating it entirely in every neuance.
BTW my son (even at 13) I rate much higher then you - he is lacking in experience but is willing to learn - you are a demagogue who is unwilling to accept simple truth.
I don't understand your point.

Those staircases are so tiny that you don't hear a difference, if you are an audiophile or just an mp3-lover. So digital has a resolution exceeding the human ear, given by the high dynamic range. Even if 16 bits are not enough, 24 bits are for sure.

So what is this about?
Loading mentioned products ...
Post Reply

Welcome to Gearslutz Pro Audio Forum!

Registration benefits include:
  • Ability to make and reply to posts
  • 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 lifetime access to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20
  • List your eBay auctions 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
Jules / So much gear, so little time!
62

Forum Jump
 
Join FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Search