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
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 25th April 2014
  #3901
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
In video... I want a film look and I am willing to shoot a certain way (narrow depth of field and lots of latitude) to ensure I can distort the image in post to look like film.. because I PREFER IT.
Agreed. There are days when I just want my P67 and RVP 50 for still photography, too. What you're talking about is an artistic judgement.

Ditto when you're doing something, say, with a guitar pedal. That's an artistic choice, and that's all there is to it. Ditto a particular kind of overload on an old 7027A guitar amp, or an old setup with a small forest of 6L6GC's in it, and a 6SN7 driver stage. (these just for instance, there are many choices)

What we're talking about here is not the artistic side. I prefer not to meddle in the artistic side, the goal is to have an artist who knows what to do there, after all.

What we ARE talking about is the delivery side. For that, one should have added the desired distortions, nonlinearities, noises, what-have-you BEFORE it goes to the final medium, be it LP, CD, or whatever (ok, look, I invented a great lot of the perceptual coding genre, and I said in 1988 that its ONLY FOR FINAL DELIVERY WHEN YOU NEED TO REDUCE THE BIT RATE, and yes, I'm shouting). If you want the CD to sound like an LP, add the proper colourations BEFORE you put it on the CD or it won't sound like an LP. Really.

That's still an artistic choice. What we are talking about here is how to deliver the "gold standard" to the end user. Redbook may not be perfect (18 bits, for example, for a dead-quiet listening room and a good stereo system, is more appropriate), but it's pretty (*&(& close, and we presently lack any evidence that there is a problem, aside from various sighted tests and anecdotal views.

This does not mean that 20 bit 64kHz sampling (my choice, sadly not available in the real world, for final delivery) is wrong, or that 96kHz sampling rate is wrong, or whatever. It does mean that the results, whatever they are, are going to be marginal, not "night and day" or something of that sort.

But when we see arguments like the noise-shaping argument here, or the poorly veiled (and dead wrong) insinuations about interaural time delay resolution, or the like, those things are WRONG, and can be shown to be wrong.

Adding a lot of mistaken "information" to the debate does not improve the quality of the debate. Engaging (I'm not necessarily addressing this to the person quoted above, please!) in intentionally argumentative behavior is not going to improve the debate. Creating false positions for people in order to defend them is not going to improve the debate. Accusing people of being bad scientists is not going to improve the debate. Making silly post-modern or deconstructionist claims about science DOES NOT CHANGE HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS.

So, if you don't mind, just state any subjective impressions as subjective, and state the conditions, be prepared to stipulate to any weaknesses.

So, if you don't mind, if people have stipulated to having a sighted preference, let them have it, as long as there isn't a scientific or mathematical claim behind it.

Thank you.

jj
Old 25th April 2014
  #3902
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
there is a difference between saying 'there is a lot we don't know' and saying that 'what we do know is wrong'. To say the latter, you need to provide evidence that is better than the evidence that established the scientific knowledge in the first place.
What you're dealing with here, joeq, is an exercise of 'argumentum ad ignorantum', meaning "an argument from ignorance. It is a fallacy created by a false dichotomy of "since we don't know everything, we don't know anything".

The quote you replied to pretty much defines the polite end of the genre.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3903
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I
The thread has already delivered; I'm not going to waste my time responding to your demand for 'proof'...I'm not interested in your now predictable opinion. I'm happy for readers of the thread to make their own minds up based on what has been posted.
So, you refuse to cite actual evidence.

That's typical, and the appeal to 'make up their own minds' based on your character assassination is also very typical of someone who hasn't anything to offer beyond character assassination.

Produce the evidence for your insinuations of misconduct. You talked the talk, now walk the walk.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3904
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I wasn't sure what your point was or why you didn't say more. Can't read yer mind.
I've been very busy today, when I get a chance I will explain the whole test and results. It was actually a perfect blind abx test with results that were not quite what I expected.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3905
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
That's still an artistic choice. What we are talking about here is how to deliver the "gold standard" to the end user. Redbook may not be perfect (18 bits, for example, for a dead-quiet listening room and a good stereo system, is more appropriate), but it's pretty (*&(& close, and we presently lack any evidence that there is a problem, aside from various sighted tests and anecdotal views.

This does not mean that 20 bit 64kHz sampling (my choice, sadly not available in the real world, for final delivery) is wrong, or that 96kHz sampling rate is wrong, or whatever. It does mean that the results, whatever they are, are going to be marginal, not "night and day" or something of that sort.
But we can have the 20 bit 64K sampling. It's handily contained within Pono's 24 bit 96 or 192K sampling. Neither you nor I will be able to tell it from 20 bit 64K sampling, but it will be just fine, and the source files for Pono will also play back just fine on traditionally implemented converters, and converters without funny 'euphonic' filters that apply gentle roll-offs, and for that matter weird broken converters like the ones without reconstruction filters. The data will be there and available.

What we cannot have is a switch from 16/44.1 to 20/64. It is an arbitrary change and not big enough for anyone to buy into. It would suffice, but it's not gonna sell, plus what if we want to do things like measurement and analysis of recorded music? What if we play things back over the equivalent of radio station compression?

But we can have 24/96K pretty easily (if necessary, by upsampling) and there'll be a certain amount of 24/192K which Neil Young is excited by, provided a story is made around it that is enough to engage the interest of our extremely jaded and mercurial culture. And now we've got that. So far from being unattainable, you SHALL have your 20 bit 64K sampling, contained within a somewhat wasteful pile of excess bits. Bits are cheaper and cheaper…

Yes, it will be marginal improvements, yes the hype is outrageous, but at the same time think about it: if the claim is 'hey, this is better than vinyl!' that isn't actually so outrageous a claim. By many standards it ought to be better than vinyl. It's coded marketing to say that, for the particular traits through which people prefer vinyl, Pono competes with THAT world and beats vinyl.

Again, we return to 'if you can't wrap your head around a strong preference for the sound of vinyl playback, this is going to be tough to even talk about'. The marketing for this is not towards CD fans, but towards CD apostates, and it turns out there are a hell of a lot of them out there now.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3906
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonwagner View Post
If we do perceive in any of the ways you suggested, a double blind test wouldn't stop those ways from working. So while we might not know if we are perceiving things beyond what we currently know, we can know for sure if it matters to what we experience via a double blind test. Which doesn't require a blindfold so it won't affect your eyelashes.

If you have to know what you are listening to in order to perceive a difference, it's confirmation bias.
Iv'e missed digital clicks and pops on edits I've done after having listening to them soloed many times and not caught every one of them until past 7-10 or eve way more listens. That doesn't mean that I didn't hear them or feel them the very first time. I just didn't cognitively recognize it that session. On another day with more sleep or what ever it may have bothered me right off the bat.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3907
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
Of course it is possible we hear with the hair on our arms, or something. Who knows, maybe we have eight more sense science has yet to discover. And of course "science" doens't "know everything." (These kind of arguments always make it sounds as if "science" is the professor on Gilligan's island or something) But that's not the argument for Pono. You seem to be suggesting "Pono is good because there might be other forms of hearing." This doesn't strike me as a very good argument. "You should buy my device because it might be very useful for some as yet undiscovered superpowers you might possibly have."

That's kind of backwards.
Really? That's what you've got? Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I didn't even mention Pono. Go back and read EXACTLY what I said.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3908
Lives for gear
 

Is it the CD's they don't like or is it the audio that's on the CD's? As I understand it, you can't have a brickwalled mess on vinyl, because it doesn't work within the mechanical limits of the medium. The medium is actually worse, but the material on it is better. What's to stop people releasing smashed masters at 192/24?

Chris
Old 26th April 2014
  #3909
Lives for gear
 

Double, again...
Old 26th April 2014
  #3910
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Really? That's what you've got? Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I didn't even mention Pono. Go back and read EXACTLY what I said.
I did read exactly what you said, and got what you said. You just didn't say very much. Go back and read exactly what I said. Sorry EXACTLY what I said.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3911
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
? Why would people not want to have that conversation?

Right now there is no evidence of what you speak.

When evidence arrives, I know I will change my perspective. I haven't experienced anything other than my own confirmation bias, when it comes to noticing differences. But if I'm wrong, I am happy to admit it and take in the new info. I'm sure most people agree.

Anything that can be experienced can be tested.
I didn't come here to prove anything. That's your area of interest, Mr. Scientist. What I propose is further questioning of what it is we think we know. You don't like that. It makes you uncomfortable because it's not always something solid you can point to at first. Apparently you guys think that we have achieved the best possible sound resolution and delivery that could ever possibly be achieved.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3912
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I didn't come here to prove anything. That's your area of interest, Mr. Scientist. What I propose is further questioning of what it is we think we know. You don't like that.
Science loves this, it's the whole point of it. The issue is when someone tries to use "there's probably stuff we don't know" as proof of an alternative theory just because "it might not, not be true".

Chris
Old 26th April 2014
  #3913
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I didn't come here to prove anything. That's your area of interest, Mr. Scientist. What I propose is further questioning of what it is we think we know. You don't like that. It makes you uncomfortable because it's not always something solid you can point to at first. Apparently you guys think that we have achieved the best possible sound resolution and delivery that could ever possible be achieved.
But we have. We are just arguing about whether to use it, and whether it's morally wrong to deliver more than we'll actually use.

Almost everybody here is agreeing on some form of PCM digital delivery medium in excess of 16/44.1K. jj would like 20/64. I'd get along fine with 24/48 and would cheerfully go with 24/96. Either of these are widely considered workable delivery mediums.

The ONLY reason people are arguing so strenuously that 16/44.1 is even effective, is that Neil Young and his people are making claims about 192K. And it doesn't seem to help that they're not REALLY making claims for extended treble response at all, but greater effective word length out of the 24 bit audio they can easily deliver.

We have achieved that best possible sound resolution. Anything vinyl can do or DSD/SACD can do, 24/96 can do. If SACD has 'energy' from waste noise up above 20K, 24/96 could capture that and do a good enough job of reproducing it that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference (if handled well, dithering to 24 bit etc).

It's funny how much of a mess this thread is, because the fact is we HAVE the ultimate formats right within our grasp and only inertia prevents them from being popularized. Now, they are being popularized, and people are upset over the marketing angles. But the end result is going to be just fine.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3914
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
But we have. We are just arguing about whether to use it, and whether it's morally wrong to deliver more than we'll actually use.

Almost everybody here is agreeing on some form of PCM digital delivery medium in excess of 16/44.1K. jj would like 20/64. I'd get along fine with 24/48 and would cheerfully go with 24/96. Either of these are widely considered workable delivery mediums.

The ONLY reason people are arguing so strenuously that 16/44.1 is even effective, is that Neil Young and his people are making claims about 192K. And it doesn't seem to help that they're not REALLY making claims for extended treble response at all, but greater effective word length out of the 24 bit audio they can easily deliver.

I have listened to and recorded at 192. It sounded better. Sorry, f***ing shoot me.

We have achieved that best possible sound resolution. Anything vinyl can do or DSD/SACD can do, 24/96 can do. If SACD has 'energy' from waste noise up above 20K, 24/96 could capture that and do a good enough job of reproducing it that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference (if handled well, dithering to 24 bit etc).

It's funny how much of a mess this thread is, because the fact is we HAVE the ultimate formats right within our grasp and only inertia prevents them from being popularized. Now, they are being popularized, and people are upset over the marketing angles. But the end result is going to be just fine.
I've recorded at and listened at 24/192. It sounded/felt more life like and tactile. Sorry.The CPU and storage was ridiculous so I don't use it.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3915
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
...and there'll be a certain amount of 24/192K which Neil Young is excited by, provided a story is made around it that is enough to engage the interest of our extremely jaded and mercurial culture.
"a story is made" = "a lie is told"
so because you call them "jaded", it's OK to lie to people in order to "engage" them?

Besides, 192 is only 'breaking the surface' you need 384 to really soar into the heavens. Try "making a story" around that!

Quote:
yes the hype is outrageous, but...
No. There is no "but". Doing wrong in a 'good cause' is still doing wrong. Neither you nor the Pono people have the right to bull**** people for their "own good". Or even for the "good of society". Hype eventually wears off, and when it does, the bill comes due. The public will not be forgiving of those who led them on.

Quote:
It's coded marketing to say that, for the particular traits through which people prefer vinyl, Pono competes with THAT world and beats vinyl.
only it doesn't. The "particular traits" of vinyl are:
steep high frequency roll-off,
low dynamic range,
mono-ized bass,
and a ****-ton of surface noise and crackle.

If anything, High-res audio has even less of all of those. CD already "beats vinyl" you enjoy dynamic range and flat response, and want to avoid pops, crackles, or rumble.

The only code words here are the code words for elitism. The only way in which Pono "competes" in the vinyl world is in its appeal to pretentious audio snobbery. Any vinyl enthusiast with a sincere preference for the sonics of vinyl will obviously dislike Pono just as much as he dislikes CDs. Any vinyl snob who makes a limited 'exception' for high-res digital is a phoney unless he can differentiate the high and normal digital formats blindfolded. And at best, you can only argue that there MAY be a few humans who can do this under extraordinary circumstances.

Quote:
Again, we return to 'if you can't wrap your head around a strong preference ' for the sound of vinyl playback, this is going to be tough to even talk about
the only 'difficulty' in talking about it is that it is utter horse****. Come on, high sample rate audio sounds nothing like vinyl... to anyone. If CD's "sound digital" compared to vinyl, then high-res will sound "more digital" than CDs because that is the direction in which they differ.

Besides, if high-res really sounded "like vinyl", all those people who flunked the digital format blind tests could have easily passed by simply noticing which one 'sounds like vinyl'. Why didn't they?

Quote:
The marketing for this is not towards CD fans, but towards CD apostates, and it turns out there are a hell of a lot of them out there now.
The correct term is CD hypocrites. The people who spent the last 3 decades saying "Digital Sucks" - but now they are willing to embrace a 'form' of the same exact same digital PCM - a form that they honestly cannot differentiate from a CD with their eyes closed!

"hey, nice threads, Your Majesty!"
Old 26th April 2014
  #3916
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
Science loves this, it's the whole point of it. The issue is when someone tries to use "there's probably stuff we don't know" as proof of an alternative theory just because "it might not, not be true".

Chris
Seriously, what's wrong with you? I didn't try and "prove an alternate theory"!?!?

That "there's probably stuff we don't know" is a HUGE F***ING FACT!
Old 26th April 2014
  #3917
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I didn't come here to prove anything. That's your area of interest, Mr. Scientist. What I propose is further questioning of what it is we think we know.
That is exactly what science is about. When you are ready to provide testable, falsifiable data to work on, then you can begin to address science.

Got beef?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3918
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
The ONLY reason people are arguing so strenuously that 16/44.1 is even effective, is that Neil Young and his people are making claims about 192K.
Actually, I have argued that 16/44 is entirely effective in almost all listening situations FOR FINAL USE.

For recording, nope. For mixing, nope, for processing, not even close.

So let's not play that game, m'kay?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3919
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
"(lp)

only it doesn't. The "particular traits" of vinyl are:
steep high frequency roll-off,
low dynamic range,
mono-ized bass,
and a ****-ton of surface noise and crackle.
Add:

Increasing distortion with level, providing a boost to loudness vs. amplitude that creates a sense of increased dynamic range.
Variable interchannel mixing that spreads out the stereo imaging.
Distortion that couples R and R in ways that make the stereo imaging more complex.
Frequency shaping that "softens" most recordings and makes many of them sound better.

JUST for a few things.

Of course, one could do all of that in a DSP box and then put it into Redbook format, but no, nobody ever does that, because it's "inaccurate". It's not even a big-iron kind of DSP process.

But it might just sound better, oh, whoops.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3920
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Seriously, what's wrong with you? I didn't try and "prove an alternate theory"!?!?

That "there's probably stuff we don't know" is a HUGE F***ING FACT!
Not you personally.

Everyone agrees that "there's probably stuff we don't know", YES HUGE FACT, AGREED! heh

It's just that it's been used as the only "evidence" for the idea that we can hear stuff above 20K.

"Maybe we can" yes, maybe, but we can't make assumptions that something is true just because we don't know that it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Chris
Old 26th April 2014
  #3921
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

I wanted to set up my own test that I could trust, and could take all by myself.

I was going through a bunch of old cd's, and saw the ones with the 24/96 masters. I’ve never listened to these since I made them, about 1998. They were from a master tape I was archiving, along with making CD copies, which I continued to listen to since.

Now these were made with Wavelab and a MOTU converter in the late 90's. So I don't know if the sound of the converter plays into it.

The screenshot shows the test set up. My AT ATM50 headphones plugged into the computer was the monitor system.

There were 5 files of 16/44.1 on the left and 24/96 on the right. Then I had my daughter come in, I left the room, and I had her rename the files and randomize the order, so I didn't know which was which. I made a chart of the new layout to record my test.

I attached the test chart. You can see the results.

The first time I took the test I got 4 out of 5 right. But it was harder to tell the difference than I thought it would be. I then hid those results, hit auto arrange of the desktop icons (like shuffling the deck), and rearranged the icons on the desktop. After drawing up a new test chart I took the test again. This time I played with the volumes, turned them up and down. The second test I got 3 out of 5 right. And the third (and last one I marked down) was more disappointing. I turned the volume real low and tried to tell which was which. I was having a hard time deciding. I finally picked one for each and got 5 out of 5 wrong.

So I could tell a difference, but only it seems when the volume was steady, fairly loud, and my ears were fresh. I would like to hear the Pono with a similar test. My test involved some pretty old and relatively cheap converters.

Regardless of all that, I did learn that I am just as susceptible to confirmation bias as the next guy. When I first listened to these files before I took the test it seemed like there was a big difference and I was sure I could ace the test easily.
Attached Thumbnails
Launch of Pono-screen-test-setup.jpg   Launch of Pono-test-1-001.jpg   Launch of Pono-test-2-001.jpg   Launch of Pono-test-3-001.jpg  
Old 26th April 2014
  #3922
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
That is exactly what science is about. When you are ready to provide testable, falsifiable data to work on, then you can begin to address science.

Got beef?
Thanks for dictating what this thread is about! I thought we were talking about music and Pono? Of course science is PART of that. You and a few others have chased away anyone from this conversation who's not wearing a pseudo white lab coat. The most cutting edge Quantum Mechanics and theoretical physics is all based on yet to be proven theories. Don't tell me that speculation about music and sound is somehow not relevant to this topic.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3923
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Regardless of all that, I did learn that I am just as susceptible to confirmation bias as the next guy. When I first listened to these files before I took the test it seemed like there was a big difference and I was sure I could ace the test easily.
It's not you, it's being human, for starters.

If you want to try something, find the "reversed" "Stairway to Heaven" clip alleged to be Satanistic.

Play it without looking at the alleged words. See what you hear.
Then play it while following the words. See what you hear.

The difference is startling, to say the least.

By the bye, having examined the signal, no, there is no 'backwards masking' horse patooey, the human vocal tract is near-minimum phase, not near-maximum phase, and the way to convert minimum to maximum is time reverse. So it's just the auditory version of paradolia. (look that one up)
Old 26th April 2014
  #3924
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Thanks for dictating what this thread is about!
Your hidden claim that I am telling you what this thread about is a completely dishonest lie on your part. That's your own fabrication, introduced with obvious malice in order for you to feign victim.

Spare me the feigned, dishonest hurt and deliberate victim-playing. Just spare us all, too, m'kay?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3925
Lives for gear
 

I'd like to try this too. I have Rush's "Moving Pictures" at 24/96, a Tascam US600 which can play back 24/96, and a pair of Shure SRH840's.

What's the "cleanest" way of converting the 24/96 down to 16/44.1 without adding any additional "distortion" that could influence the test?

Chris
Old 26th April 2014
  #3926
Lives for gear
 

Double

Double
Old 26th April 2014
  #3927
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Your hidden claim that I am telling you what this thread about is a completely dishonest lie on your part. That's your own fabrication, introduced with obvious malice in order for you to feign victim.

Spare me the feigned, dishonest hurt and deliberate victim-playing. Just spare us all, too, m'kay?
Are you f***ing kidding me? It wasn't a "hidden claim"... it was a claim. You said, "That is exactly what science is about. When you are ready to provide testable, falsifiable data to work on, then you can begin to address science."

Unbelievable.Talk about dishonesty.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
What's to stop people releasing smashed masters at 192/24?

Chris
Nothing I suppose.
A lot of dance music is sold on vinyl. I can't imagine it has much dynamic range either. Current dance music is all about high energy, in your face, consistent volume. The opposite aesthetic to classical, jazz and 70's classic albums.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3929
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I didn't come here to prove anything. That's your area of interest, Mr. Scientist. What I propose is further questioning of what it is we think we know. You don't like that. It makes you uncomfortable because it's not always something solid you can point to at first. Apparently you guys think that we have achieved the best possible sound resolution and delivery that could ever possibly be achieved.
You have an awful lot of assumptions that are borderline insulting. I'm no scientist but I find being called one an honor.. But one I don't deserve. So please take it back.

Science is all about questioning what we know. If you actually care, google confirmation bias and get an earful about it. You probably won't though. Thats ok because I know you don't want to get all sciencey and stuff.

I have no discomfort about audio. At all. I thought I could hear the difference with higher sample rate audio until I tried it multiple times. I cannot. No discomfort. I find it interesting that others claim to. I don't get offended that someone else might. I admit, I doubt they can because of my experience, but it also won't rule it out.

All that adds up to... What exactly? I guess I'm probably a little too sciencey still. I prefer that to being willfully ignorant... Wouldn't you?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3930
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I've been very busy today, when I get a chance I will explain the whole test and results. It was actually a perfect blind abx test with results that were not quite what I expected.
I appreciate you posting your results. I find it confusing why you didn't choose to use the free abx programs that already exist... Not sure why you wouldn't.

But thanks for posting anyway.
Topic:
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump