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 16th March 2014
  #751
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Call me cynical, but I think we're going to get a similar cooking process.
Indeed.
Old 16th March 2014
  #752
Gear Maniac
 
gavriloP's Avatar
 

Little late to the party, but I have to say this: I really don't think that the digital format resolution is the key to good sound. For me 44k/16bit CD quality is still enough for listening even though I record with 24bits, naturally. Much more important is to have good DAC, good amplification, speakers and their placement in a decent room. Or if you use headphones, it's good DAC, headphone amp and good headphones. This is all pretty obvious but I much rather listen 256kbs mp3 through good system than some 192/24 through regular modern crap.

To me a player that outputs optimal analog signal and can use FLAC is all that is needed. If Pono delivers on that front, it can be good. Won't be buying, though. With that kind of price they had to cut corners with DACs and preamp etc. I'd assume. Also When I listen to hi-fi I like to sit back and enjoy music in nice living room atmosphere with perhaps a manhattan on my hand no need for fancy walkman...

Then again if it helps to win the loudness war with more dynamic and hi-fi masters, I'm all for that.
Old 16th March 2014
  #753
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cinealta View Post
What's the point of 24 bit audio with the loudness wars? There's no dynamic range to be revealed anyway.
Even without the loudness wars, there's no point in having a finished 24 bit file.

Unless 96dB of dynamic range isn't enough for you.

If you play a 24bit recording and then the same recording in 16bit and notice a difference, it is either because something has been 'done' to the 16bit recording, some inappropriate processing used or you are hearing a difference because you expect a difference.

Even a recording with 60dB dynamic range is only using 10bits of data, the other 6bits on a CD are just noise. So, the difference in the real world between 16bit and 24bit is an extra 8bits of noise.
Old 16th March 2014
  #754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
...If you play a 24bit recording and then the same recording in 16bit and notice a difference, it is either because something has been 'done' to the 16bit recording, some inappropriate processing used or you are hearing a difference because you expect a difference...
This is an important distinction Kenny; I track and mix at 24-bit and I'd much prefer to leave it that way to avoid anything which might change the mix.
Old 16th March 2014
  #755
Gear Addict
 

......ok....i sorted this for me...

super hi res audio is no big thing to me....

BUT.....an above all doubts d/a converter for daily use defenitly is...!

....the player looks solid.....it takes any kind of digital format.....simply with a common usb connection....
easy to flip external mass storage option....AND......da da da da!!!!....two outputs...one with headphone amping and one with a plain line signal......

....er, no bluetooth, though....

thank god....
.... i found a dedicated high end music only device again....

I'M IN......


....on my wishlist....and i swear i will even buy one or two pono files with that magic breath....

create a tag file folder script for your software....so that you can watch covers with more than one frontpage on that screen....you talk audiophile?....so give them back the real covers, too....with artwork, linernotes and credits and lyrics and all the rest that makes an album a real album experience....

once there was a time a playlist was called an album....or it was a tape someone gave to you, from hand to hand....hey...imagine...

there's no resolution revolution....but we're making some little progress here...
Old 16th March 2014
  #756
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Some science papers demonstrate that the ears are not the only part of the body involved in 'hearing.' The science behind this is good enough that at least one 'name' company has patents on the application of these technologies.
But it does not matter what 'part of your body' is doing the "hearing" when discussing the limits of perception! The rest of your body is also present in the room while the researchers are trying to determine what the limits of your perception are!

Discovering the existence of a "new" mechanism does not negate any of the results of testing on the limits of what humans can hear. All the "mechanisms" are present in the room during the tests, just as they are present when there is no test.

To use some alternative source of perception as an "excuse" for failing to get a result is illogical. Your skin, or your nose hairs, or your Third Eye - they were all there during the test. Why didn't they "speak up"? Why doesn't your SKIN tell you this is 192kHz? Why is it so hard to tell when the blindfold is on? If it can be perceived - you ought to be able to check the correct box - unless of course you were imagining it - like because somebody TOLD you which one you were listening to.

In any case we are audio engineers discussing the possibility of a "bottleneck" in sample rates and bit depths supposedly addressed by Pono. In reality, we all know the bottleneck lies elsewhere - like in mixing and mastering styles, the limitations of physical speaker design and so on. But most modern records are mastered to a fare-thee-well. And most modern humans do not listen to very much music that does not come out of a speaker.

If these high sample rates DO improve the listening experience, they should do so whether Neil Young is in the room or whether scientists are in the room.
Old 16th March 2014
  #757
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

I'm gonna check out some hi-res sheeyat on ma Pono Player!

They might have chosen a name that does not sound like it delivers a terrific experience in hi fidelity graphic sexual content...
Old 16th March 2014
  #758
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gavriloP View Post

Then again if it helps to win the loudness war with more dynamic and hi-fi masters, I'm all for that.
I'm impressed with our ability to create this myth.

I understand you said "if" but isn't it similar to me saying…

I'm not sure how good this unit will sound but if it gets people to buy music again, saves the girl from King Kong, and finally rids my neighborhood of mosquitos, I'm all for it. heh
Old 16th March 2014
  #759
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
But it does not matter what 'part of your body' is doing the "hearing" when discussing the limits of perception!...
...It does matter if you are conducting a scientific experiment; variables should always be accounted for in the experiment design.
Old 16th March 2014
  #760
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
This is an important distinction Kenny; I track and mix at 24-bit and I'd much prefer to leave it that way to avoid anything which might change the mix.
You don't trust the mastering engineer to get it to 16 bits?

Try it yourself. Take one of your 24 bit mixes and just truncate it to 16 bits and compare it. Is it so bad that the public shouldn't use it?
Old 16th March 2014
  #761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
You don't trust the mastering engineer to get it to 16 bits?

Try it yourself. Take one of your 24 bit mixes and just truncate it to 16 bits and compare it. Is it so bad that the public shouldn't use it?
Please read my post at the top of the page...there is a difference in average dB when I convert from 16 to 24-bit @ 48kHz. My original comment in the thread was that I'd prefer to publish in the format I track and mix in. That's my preference. Maybe Pono will make that possible.
Old 16th March 2014
  #762
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
Ok, but you were also wrong.

- c
Silver, I share the opinion that maybe you don't seem to have a full understanding of your own confirmation bias and the impact it has.

If we don't doubt what we have learned outside of tightly controlled experiments... We don't get it!
Old 16th March 2014
  #763
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Please read my post at the top of the page...there is a difference in average dB when I convert from 16 to 24-bit @ 48kHz. My original comment in the thread was that I'd prefer to publish in the format I track and mix in. That's my preference. Maybe Pono will make that possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I just rendered the same mix twice at 48kHz 16-bit and 24-bit then checked each files statistics in Sound Forge...there was a difference between them
e.g. Average Value (dB): the sum of all values in the selected region divided by the number of samples.
24-bit (Left) -91.127 (Right) -91.052
16-bit (Left) -90.309 (Right) -90.309
Can you explain what those numbers represent?

That can't be the average value. -90dB Could it?

Also, did you run the same mix twice as a separate pass?

If so, wouldn't the mixes have a chance of being different on each pass based on reverb and other effects that may not playback exactly the same?

I wonder if you'd get the same difference if you just took the 24 bit mix and truncated it down to 16 bit.

And I assume you already know that "difference" doesn't mean "worse". Just different.

I have a similar problem with "Bounce to Disk" in Pro Tools. I prefer to record to a track instead. Why? Because I keep that in input while I'm making the mix. Why would I want to print in a different way (even if it's the same) then the way I've been hearing it?
Old 16th March 2014
  #764
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
...It does matter if you are conducting a scientific experiment; variables should always be accounted for in the experiment design.
yes, but "Skin Hearing" is not a variable! Assuming it is real, it exists both in real life and in the laboratory, it exists when you are listening to Hi-Res AND when you are listening to Lo-Res. If the sample rate makes a difference, they should be able to "tell" in the sense that they can answer the question correctly.

they play the subjects a CD - then they play them a hi-res file - The actual result is that most subjects have a hard time telling the difference. Or cannot tell at all.

Now the subject's EARS were in the room. But the subject's SKIN was also in the room. Whether you subscribe to "skin hearing" or not does not matter. The design of the experiment does not need to be altered to take into account "skin hearing" because people's SKIN is always present. Both during a test, and in more casual environments like during a ride in Neil's Cadillac. It is not a variable. It is the same both times, like using the same speakers both times. You can't even ask them to take off their clothes because they would normally have their clothes on in either case.

remember - we are not testing for the presence of "skin hearing". We are testing for people's ability to distinguish a 16/44.1 mix from a 24/192 mix. Resolution is the variable. The only variable. Whether they distinguish it using their ears or with their skin, or some combination of both - they still have to be able to distinguish it.

To try and use the claimed existence of whatever 'paranormal' ability as an excuse for difficulty/failure to discriminate is illogical. It is a lapse in critical thinking.
Old 16th March 2014
  #765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Can you explain what those numbers represent?
I explained what the numbers represent in the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
That can't be the average value. -90dB Could it?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Also, did you run the same mix twice as a separate pass?
It's not a pass...it's an offline statistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I wonder if you'd get the same difference if you just took the 24 bit mix and truncated it down to 16 bit.
That would be inaccurate as it's not my working method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
And I assume you already know that "difference" doesn't mean "worse". Just different.
Of course.
Old 16th March 2014
  #766
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
yes, but "Skin Hearing" is not a variable!
IMO you are creating a Straw Man argument.
Old 16th March 2014
  #767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Some science papers demonstrate that the ears are not the only part of the body involved in 'hearing.' The
science behind this is good enough that at least one 'name' company has patents on the application of these technologies.

The human body is more remarkable than many understand e.g. cells can communicate with each other using bioluminesence where the strength of light is the equivalent of one candle at a 1/4 mile distance.

The bottom line is that in addition to subjective impressions about listening tests there is scientific data which shows even subtle differences can affect perception.

Links:
What you cannot hear CAN affect you
People Hear with Their Skin as well as Their Ears - Scientific American
Sony patents a brain manipulation technology | Ars Technica
I read recently that frequencies above 20k are sensed with the eyes!
Old 16th March 2014
  #768
Quote:
Originally Posted by playon View Post
I read recently that frequencies above 20k are sensed with the eyes!
It's true.
Quote:
...Musical airborne energy beyond 22 kHz has been shown to alter the electroencephalogram and evoke physiological activity in the brainstem and thalamus but only when ultrasonic musical frequencies are combined with the musical spectrum below 22 kHz. The effect is based on the combination of two coherent acoustic routes, one conventional and one solely ultrasonic [7,8]. Each signal stimulates a separate area on the basilar membrane that would be integrated into a whole as any conventional complex auditory pattern. A case is made here for a separate airborne ultrasonic input, but the final pathway is the same because ultrasound activates the auditory cortex in normal-hearing and deaf listeners. Clearly, the eye, with its ultrasonic passband of 25-60 kHz, could transmit energy from instruments with ultrasonic energy (e.g., cymbals) to the ear and would activate both the auditory thalamus and the other nuclei in the auditory pathway. Very-high-frequency recordings (6-21 kHz) have activated the thalamus and other regions in the brain [28] in patients who have high-frequency tinnitus; thus, the thalamus plays a role in high-frequency and ultrasonic hearing. Musical instruments that have high-frequency and ultrasonic components are, for the most part, percussive; thus, the high audio and ultrasonic spectra would complement conventional audio frequencies consistent with the findings that the full spectrum is a better activator of the auditory system than is the ultrasound alone [7,8]. Ultrasound may contribute to pitch perception by extending the spectrum upward in frequency and by enhancing temporal cues. A simple test of the eye window's role in concert music would be to assess music quality with and without goggles. Goggles, as used as a control in this study, eliminated the eye window for airborne ultrasound.
Link: ITJ - The International Tinnitus Journal - Eyes as Fenestrations to the Ears: A Novel Mechanism for High-Frequency and Ultrasonic Hearing
Old 16th March 2014
  #769
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by playon View Post
I read recently that frequencies above 20k are sensed with the eyes!
Up until I started standing in front of amps and cymbals, I could hear the ultrasonic burglar alarms at stores in my home town. A few places would leave them on 24/7 (including Walko's music store!). Besides sticking needles in my eardrums, they also made my eyes kinda... vibrate.

It's been a really long time since I could hear those alarms, but I still walk past a store with one once in a while and my eyes can sense it.

I bet a lot of people have the same sensitivity but have never noticed.
Old 16th March 2014
  #770
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Please read my post at the top of the page...there is a difference in average dB when I convert from 16 to 24-bit @ 48kHz. My original comment in the thread was that I'd prefer to publish in the format I track and mix in. That's my preference. Maybe Pono will make that possible.
There shouldn't be. I've tested it myself going from 24 to 16bit, exactly the same peak and average values.

It's most likely because you rendered a full project twice in the DAW at the 2 different bit depths, and there are random or other cyclic elements in the mix or plugins used that will be different with each render.

Instead, just render a 24-bit mixdown, and then take that 24bit exported file and 'save as' as a 16bit file to truncate it (or dither to 16bit first then save as 16bit). You should see peak and average levels stay the same.
Old 16th March 2014
  #771
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Silver, I share the opinion that maybe you don't seem to have a full understanding of your own confirmation bias and the impact it has.

If we don't doubt what we have learned outside of tightly controlled experiments... We don't get it!
I'm not gonna return fire, sorry to disappoint.

This kind of recidivist intelligence-insulting is really becoming exasperating on this thread. I had to dismiss a dude last night for this kinda thing. At first it was amusing --- oh no! some anonymous dude in Europe is patronizing me! --- but then it became a drag. It simply does not work on me; I don't find it intimidating or hurtful. I do however find it annoying.

I have repeatedly tried to make my point clear: I could not possibly give less of an eff about sampling rates and bit depths. I have zero interest debating their relative merits. It makes me feel like I'm being drawn into an audiophile world which I hold in utter contempt. No fate could be less desirable.

I did parenthetically offer my meager empirical experience with bind testing, but who cares? I don't. It was just my job at the time: remastering and archiving classic albums. It was dull and I don't have much interest in discussing it further or trying to refine the examination model in order to prove anything to anyone. Because I don't care.

What I value about Pono is that the campaign has almost revolutionarily caused a shift, a cultural shift in the way my friends are talking about music and sound. That video --- the one that has caused so much nerd rage --- has been tremendously impactful. And I love it for precisely that reason.

So far, Pono has successfully presented a charismatic node of dissent against a society that increasingly treats music and the art and craft of sound as disposable. It has taken the passion for audio away from its current consignment to a realm of dorks [so-called audiophiles, an abject group of people for whom everyone has contempt] and more towards something ordinary music fans wish to embrace. And to me, that's exciting and welcome. It's a small measure towards people possibly beginning to hold my profession in higher esteem, reversing a humiliating trend of the last twenty years.

Frankly I didn't think I'd see anyone pull that off in my lifetime. I kinda can't believe it. They're at $4 million dollars right now! It's remarkable.

That is where my concern lies. If you wanna engage me in debate, let's debate that stuff. THAT STUFF IS INTERESTING. No other audiophile initiative in my lifetime has had this kind of cultural penetration. I don't understand how the "scientists" of this thread feel so comfortable disparaging that.

Please, no more haughty lectures on the nature of science and empiricism. I have a masters degree and twenty years of experience as a mastering engineer.

When it comes to that whole terrain of discourse, I'm not the least bit confused. I just don't care.

- c
Old 16th March 2014
  #772
@ Arksun - thanks for your advice...much appreciated.
The point I made originally is that I want to publish as close as possible to the same format I track and mix at...I think Pono will perhaps make that easier.
Old 16th March 2014
  #773
Lives for gear
 
steveswisher's Avatar
 

I was listening to the new Skrillex album on Pono and it still sounded like ****. What gives?
Old 16th March 2014
  #774
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurratic View Post
I didn't read all 6 pages of this forum, so this may have been said multiple times.....but I think the release of Pono is really important. First of all, the MP3 is a very old technology that wasn't even developed to compress audio....it was originally designed to compress data. It was adopted as a way to deliver files online in the days when you would have to wait a day to download a song. So quality was not even a concern.....
Whoa there, that's a total load of fertilizer.

MP3 was specifically the result of research intended to specifically reduce the bit rate of audio WITH QUALITY IN MIND.

It is not a "compress data" method, anyone who's told you that is either wrong or spreading a falsehood.

It was specifically created to provide audio quality, and was evaluated in several sets of extensive double-blind LISTENING TESTS that evaluated and vetted its quality in the terms of things like FM and AM radio, which were the concerns at the time.

MP3, AAC and other audio coding algorithms use carefully crafted models of human perception specifically intended to provide the best quality possible with the given bit rate, filterbank, and quantizers in use. The entire process was one of providing the best audio quality available at that rate and complexity.

This work was done by the MPEG Audio committee under the auspices of the ISO, was highly competitive, and started with 16 different coding methods, EVERY ONE OF THEM intended to provide good audio quality.

So I don't know where that line came from, but it's just wrong.

In case you don't know, in fact I'm one of the inventors of MP3, and the major inventor of MPEG-2 AAC. So I do know exactly what transpired, and the paragraph above is just so far wrong that it's not even wrong.

And, no, I don't make a cent from either, in fact my former employers make money, but I don't, and never have, just to stall that bit of nonsense.

Having said that, use FLAC. Unless you have to broadcast something, there just is no need for perceptual compression any longer. MP3 was intended to provide stereo audio for VCD. Yes. Really. That was its intended application.
Old 16th March 2014
  #775
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this is not correct
the Fraunhofer Institute developed the MP3 for high quality, low bit-rate audio coding, a project named EUREKA project EU147. From the beginning, the goal was perceptual coding of audio: making the file sizes smaller, yes, BUT with the least amount of noticeable loss of sound quality. During the development of the codec, repeated listening tests were employed to find the algorithms least objectionable to the human ear. It was never a purely "data" driven thing. In fact, some of the early attempts supposedly sounded just awful. That is to say, much much worse than what we ended up with!
This is not quite true. The principal at FHG, Karlheinz Brandenburg, was working as a post-doc with me at AT&T Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, NJ when MP3 was standardized.

FGH did have the sense to commercialize the algorithm, while AT&T stood there and scratched its **** instead (thank you, out-of-business former employer, that's not the only train you missed).

If you look, for instance, at the MP3 lawsuits from Lucent, you will find an ex-Bell Labs, ex-AT&T Labs Research, ex-Microsoft employee (that would be me) stuck testifying about all of the patents, the process, etc, because he was named as the inventor on the patent.

FHG had a great deal of sense commercially, but no, sorry, they didn't invent the whole thing. Karlheinz and Juergen certainly had a lot to say, of course, and the hardware was strictly from the FHG side of things.
Old 16th March 2014
  #776
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurratic View Post
Ok, I concede that the "mp3" was developed for audio encoding....however that idea was lifted from researchers of general data compression for the purposes of transmitting sound digitally (for communications) and then applied to sharing music, and then arrived at the mp3 as a practical use for the technology. I read this in the book "Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age" by Steve Knopper. Phew.
And, no, that's wrong too.

The techniques of using a perceptual calculation are the key to MP3 and other audio compression algorithms and do not exist in speech codecs. Manfred and Bishnu tried it once for speech, but it didn't work very well (for good reasons, due to the characteristics of speech, as it turns out).

Telling me I 'lifted from researchers of general data compression" is frankly a gross insult.

We certainly took the parts from speech coding THAT APPLIED, but given the various (somewhat ridiculously reactionary) feedback from the first few published papers, the first audio codecs were anything but "copied", because the people who were allegedly copying were having fits about how it was all done wrong. I might even still have the reviews for the first PXFM paper around, and there were some whoppers in those. The whole idea of putting perception over least mean squares caused rather a tsuris actually, with reviewers demanding that we publish SNR results instead of perceptual evaluation via listening test. And, of course, SNR means jack for such a codec.

I have no idea what Knopper's book says, I haven't seen it, but if it says what you just repeated, he owes a couple of people a serious apology.

And I still say, nowdays, just use FLAC. There's no need any more, unless it's broadcast, and don't even get me started on 32kb/s "music" files. Uh uh, ain't music at that rate.
Old 16th March 2014
  #777
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
This is an important distinction Kenny; I track and mix at 24-bit and I'd much prefer to leave it that way to avoid anything which might change the mix.
Different issue.

Mixing at 24 or 32 bits is actually important, in order to avoid the processing adding noise.

But the final rendering should be fine at 20 bits. 16 bits is "just not quite enough" if you have a really good system in a very quiet room.

If you record down 40dB and jack the volume, of course you can hear the difference at 24 bits. Mathematics still works, and so does 40dB of gain on the noise floor.

Sampling rate? I would prefer at least 64, but I can't justify that with experimental evidence, even, and certainly not 192 or 384.

Yes, I've seen the "time resolution" arguments, and they are just wrong. Mistaken. Incorrect. Bogus. Confused.

The time resolution of a redbook CD is approximately
1/(44100 * 2 * pi * 65536) and yes, ALL of those numbers are in the denominator, and yes, that's rather a whole lot smaller than the 2 microseconds that is the best possibly credible report for human auditory resolution.
Old 16th March 2014
  #778
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by playon View Post
I read recently that frequencies above 20k are sensed with the eyes!
sensed with the eyes in the meaning that they are peeking at the labels, maybe!
Old 16th March 2014
  #779
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
@ Arksun - thanks for your advice...much appreciated.
The point I made originally is that I want to publish as close as possible to the same format I track and mix at...I think Pono will perhaps make that easier.
And I understand completely why you might want this.

But if it was discovered that the 24 bit file was no better than the 16 bit (or 20 bit) one, why would you want consumers to waste 50% more of their available disk space to store their music?
Old 16th March 2014
  #780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Some science papers demonstrate that the ears are not the only part of the body involved in 'hearing.' The science behind this is good enough that at least one 'name' company has patents on the application of these technologies.

The human body is more remarkable than many understand e.g. cells can communicate with each other using bioluminesence where the strength of light is the equivalent of one candle at a 1/4 mile distance.

The bottom line is that in addition to subjective impressions about listening tests there is scientific data which shows even subtle differences can affect perception.

Links:
What you cannot hear CAN affect you
People Hear with Their Skin as well as Their Ears - Scientific American
Sony patents a brain manipulation technology | Ars Technica
I knew it... I'm missing a lot. No more inhibitions. Sorry, guys in the band, I'm going au naturel!
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