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 18th March 2014
  #1051
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
Let's table up the costs:
  • 256kbps mp3 = $7.15 (Amazon US)
  • 256kbps AAC = $7.99 (Apple iTunes US)
  • 16/44.1k CD = $10.98 (Amazon US)
  • 24/96k WAV/FLAC = $17.98 (HDTracks)
  • Vinyl = $18.92 (Amazon US)
  • 24/192k WAV/FLAC = $24.98 (HDTracks)
Ultimately, as we all know the record industry is all about the money, so what this means is that the suits think you will pay:
  • $7.15 to hear the album
  • an extra $0.84 on top of that to hear it from Apple
  • an extra $3.83 on top of that to hear it at 16/44.1k*
  • an extra $7.00 on top of that to hear it at 24/96k
  • an extra $0.96 on top of that to hear it on Vinyl*
  • an extra $6.04 on top of that to hear it at 24/192k

So if you had hypothetically purchased all the various quality formats as they have been released over the years you have paid: $7.15 + $7.99 + $10.98 + $17.98 + $18.92 + $24.98 = $88.00 (and we haven't even included repackaged 'collector' editions, SACD, DVD-A, Surround, MiniDisc, Cassette, 8-track etc). An extreme case maybe, but even divided in half it is a quite sobering number.

Whichever way you look at it the suits are laughing all the way to the bank, with or without Neil Young and his new Pono player.
Frightening statistics.

I cannot see Pono taking off if we all have to pony up so much dosh. Plus I favour emotional content over hi-res anytime.

Economies of scale are going to restrict the take up of Pono and it's absurdly expensive hi-res files.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1052
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Their business model is based on saying that no one wants to buy music any more, and you want them to go into a niche audiophile download business too? They've got enough problems already - Spotify doesn't make make money now from ads and subscriptions and Apple just overtook them in the US for streaming services, and is moving slowly into offering streaming around the world.
Cool your chickens, I used the word Utopia for a reason.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1053
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post

There's no simplistic, monolithic group of "suits" - different companies have different costs, and an HDtracks is probably charged more for access to higher quality remastered music than other companies, and being small other costs are also probably higher for them as well.
Not sure what you mean by "charged more". Don't they spilt the cost (by some percentage) based on sales?

So I would think that HDtracks is setting the prices and they probably charge more to cover their own costs (they don't sell as much) and to give their product a higher perceived value.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1054
I need to get something clear, isnt it all about the recording in the first place and then the mastering?
So am I right in thinking if the recording process is below 24/192 then its just a HQ master of a lower quality recording, thus pointless and you wont tell the difference.
Do analogue masters have to be transferred on to 24/192 which will capture it to the fullest quality?
In other words it has to be a good recording in the first place to make any difference.
Theres no argument here just wondered thats all boils down to? plus having the pono player which is a good consumer quality portable digital device?
Old 18th March 2014
  #1055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
...I'd put it this way, do the Pono folks really think that the goosebumps I got as a 12 year old hearing Dark Side of the Moon for the first time in my friend's basement on a ratty turntable would have been bigger had I heard it at 24/96?
Good point although it would be another great experience to hear it closer to how it sounded in the studio whilst it was mixed. I hear things on the CD I never heard on the vinyl album...I wonder what more there is?
Old 18th March 2014
  #1056
The idea that Neil Young is doing this as a scam to make money is implausible...does anyone think he really needs the money?
I don't think he's a scam artist - if he needed money I'm sure there are other honest ways of doing that.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1057
Lives for gear
 
skira's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Not sure what you mean by "charged more". Don't they spilt the cost (by some percentage) based on sales?
Good question. I did assume that costs were different because I'd read that at least some of the recordings were apparently re-transfered (although that press release isn't completely clear about when or why the transfers took place) and figured that would probably cost Chesky more money. Also, it makes sense for a different cost structure for higher-quality songs compared to lower-bitrate AAC/MP3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
So I would think that HDtracks is setting the prices and they probably charge more to cover their own costs (they don't sell as much) and to give their product a higher perceived value.
Labels would want a higher perceived value as well. They spent a long time negotiating minimum album prices with Apple (only freeing up restrictions on competitors after they saw Apple getting so big) and didn't let Apple just set the price, so I doubt they'd allow a small company to do it. If Chesky were permitted to lower prices (and make up profit in volume) I bet he'd do it in a flash.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
The idea that Neil Young is doing this as a scam to make money is implausible...does anyone think he really needs the money?
I don't think he's a scam artist - if he needed money I'm sure there are other honest ways of doing that.
The idea that Neil Young is pulling a scam is of course highly unlikely, BUT, those labels who are "remastering" old recordings at 24/192 ARE pulling a scam by charging him whatever slice they charge in order for those started prices to be what they will be. The suits get paid their beer money whatever the rights and wrongs (as it ever was)

Not buying it here but because I think it's a waste of money, not because I will be being ripped off (though I s'pose they share a bed)
Old 18th March 2014
  #1059
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
The idea that Neil Young is doing this as a scam to make money is implausible...does anyone think he really needs the money?
I don't think he's a scam artist - if he needed money I'm sure there are other honest ways of doing that.
Of course. It's not about money. It's about sense of purpose. He cares about this stuff and wants to make it better. But as a human, he's not perfect nor does he want to be wrong. So he's convinced that high resolution audio is a wonderful thing and he's running around convincing others of the same thing.

And he's not 100% wrong. Although that is debatable, but it's still not going to change music from sounding awful to sounding incredible.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1060
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Also, it makes sense for a different cost structure for higher-quality songs compared to lower-bitrate AAC/MP3.
Why? What are they doing to the files to make them "higher quality"?

Didn't they start that way?

If anything, they should be charging more for the mp3 as they have to convert it and make it sound acceptable at a lower bit rate. Plus, the user gets a smaller file. So they should pay more for that convenience.

The only thing thing that could make sense is that they'll sell less of the higher quality file but that also doesn't compute as it's not a physical product. So it doesn't get cheaper to sell more of it. In fact, it actually costs more (per download) to have the infrastructure in place that Apple does.

Think about it. If I sell a download of my song and it sells 10 copies per day, I could host it on Dropbox for free. Start selling hundreds of copies and then you need a server or a file hosting service that doesn't throttle usage. It goes up and up and gets more and more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Labels would want a higher perceived value as well. They spent a long time negotiating minimum album prices with Apple (only freeing up restrictions on competitors after they saw Apple getting so big) and didn't let Apple just set the price, so I doubt they'd allow a small company to do it. If Chesky were permitted to lower prices (and make up profit in volume) I bet he'd do it in a flash.
Didn't the labels get in trouble for this not too long ago?

Courthouse News Service
Old 18th March 2014
  #1061
Lives for gear
 
skira's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Didn't the labels get in trouble for this not too long ago?

Courthouse News Service
A proposed class action case from 2011. Did anything ever come of it? U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska had originally dismissed the complaint in 2008, finding that the allegations "did not yield any inference of an illegal agreement."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Why? What are they doing to the files to make them "higher quality"?
I'm talking about a higher bitrate cost structure, not necessarily objectively higher quality. Like I said, it seems that at least some of them are or had to be re-transfered, which has costs involved that the labels would not otherwise have had, and they'd likely pass it along to Chesky, who'd have to pass it along to the consumer.

Quote:
If anything, they should be charging more for the mp3 as they have to convert it and make it sound acceptable at a lower bit rate.
Labels don't convert. I read that in iTunes transcoding takes place just prior to download, by Apple, and that there isn't just a database of AAC files sitting around. (Especially useful when Apple is streaming audio and video at different rates to different devices. An issue they've worked on for a while.

Quote:
Plus, the user gets a smaller file. So they should pay more for that convenience.
LOL.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1062
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
A proposed class action case from 2011. Did anything ever come of it? U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska had originally dismissed the complaint in 2008, finding that the allegations "did not yield any inference of an illegal agreement."
Labels pay to settle price-fixing suit - CNET News


Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Like I said, it seems that at least some of them are or had to be re-transfered, which has costs involved that the labels would not otherwise have had, and they'd likely pass it along to Chesky, who'd have to pass it along to the consumer.
While it's true that these costs are extra for the label, it means more revenue for the label as well. Otherwise, why do it?

It's like adding white pizza to your menu. You have to buy the ricotta cheese to make the pizza but you're now selling more pizza because of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
I read that in iTunes transcoding takes place just prior to download, by Apple, and that there isn't just a database of AAC files sitting around.
I have no idea but I do find this interesting.

Like the thought that iTunes match store all of your music that you burned from CDs. Not really. They're not storing 10 million copies of Wrecking Ball". lol
Old 18th March 2014
  #1063
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Labels don't convert. I read that in iTunes transcoding takes place just prior to download, by Apple, and that there isn't just a database of AAC files sitting around. (Especially useful when Apple is streaming audio and video at different rates to different devices. An issue they've worked on for a while.
I wouldn't have expected anything else.
I have ripped all my cds as AIFFs to my computer and when I change the contents of my ipod they get converted to 256AACs on the fly.
Refilling the ipod does not take appreciably longer than it did before I found that option in the menu.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1064
Lives for gear
 
skira's Avatar
 

Quote:
A proposed class action case from 2011. Did anything ever come of it?
U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska had originally dismissed the complaint in 2008,
finding that the allegations "did not yield any inference of an illegal agreement."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
That article is from 2002. You originally linked to something different from 2011.

Quote:
it seems that at least some of them are or had to be re-transfered,
which has costs involved that the labels would not otherwise have had, and
they'd likely pass it along to Chesky, who'd have to pass it along to the
consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
While it's true that these costs are extra for the label, it means more revenue for the label as well. Otherwise, why do it?
It's a risk that might not pan out (and it is a small niche business), so labels want to recoup costs and make the little guy (Chesky, and then the consumer) who wants the 'better' files pay for the transfers. It's a different, allegedly premium product and so you price it higher wholesale, in part to cover your own costs, in part to instill the perceived value proposition, in part to squeeze more profits per album.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1065
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
That article is from 2002. You originally linked to something different from 2011.
Yeah. There's a bunch of different ones. I think my point was that the labels are not supposed to set the prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
It's a risk that might not pan out (and it is a small niche business), so labels want to recoup costs and make the little guy (Chesky, and then the consumer) who wants the 'better' files pay for the transfers. It's a different, allegedly premium product and so you price it higher wholesale, in part to cover your own costs, in part to instill the perceived value proposition, in part to squeeze more profits per album.
Yeah. I'm sure it's a little of all of them.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1066
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Good question. I'm not the sure the public can be convinced either way (although less loudness smashing has a real audible benefit while increasing sample rates has either no effect or a marginal one). I think convincing the artists is a better approach. They should at least have a passing interest in the subject so there is a tiny little hope there.
Regardless of who is more easily convinced, the public can vote with their wallets, the artists can only moan to their labels who will ignore them if those wallets are not backing the artists up.

very very few artists have any "say" in the mastering. The old adage is "mastering is not the last step in production, it's the first step in marketing"
Old 18th March 2014
  #1067
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
I was looking at prices on HDTracks...

Take one of my favourite Jazz albums, for example: Eric Dolphy - Out To Lunch on Blue Note (owned by UMG), and obviously originally recorded onto tape. Interestingly it looks like it's just being re-released on Vinyl, so I've included the 'new from Amazon' price in my survey (as opposed to the wildly fluctuating eBay/collector prices.)

Let's table up the costs:
  • 256kbps mp3 = $7.15 (Amazon US)
  • 256kbps AAC = $7.99 (Apple iTunes US)
  • 16/44.1k CD = $10.98 (Amazon US)
  • 24/96k WAV/FLAC = $17.98 (HDTracks)
  • Vinyl = $18.92 (Amazon US)
  • 24/192k WAV/FLAC = $24.98 (HDTracks)
Ultimately, as we all know the record industry is all about the money, so what this means is that the suits think you will pay:
  • $7.15 to hear the album
  • an extra $0.84 on top of that to hear it from Apple
  • an extra $3.83 on top of that to hear it at 16/44.1k*
  • an extra $7.00 on top of that to hear it at 24/96k
  • an extra $0.96 on top of that to hear it on Vinyl*
  • an extra $6.04 on top of that to hear it at 24/192k
(*Obviously there are physical extras with those - sleeve, artwork, booklet etc, but for the moment let's just zero in on what people might be paying purely for a different fidelity.)

Of course those differences aren't cumulative - if you already 'own' the album on any format you can't just pay the difference to 'upgrade' to the next level.

So if you had hypothetically purchased all the various quality formats as they have been released over the years you have paid: $7.15 + $7.99 + $10.98 + $17.98 + $18.92 + $24.98 = $88.00 (and we haven't even included repackaged 'collector' editions, SACD, DVD-A, Surround, MiniDisc, Cassette, 8-track etc). An extreme case maybe, but even divided in half it is a quite sobering number.

Whichever way you look at it the suits are laughing all the way to the bank, with or without Neil Young and his new Pono player.
Sometimes I add up the money I've spent on various albums over the years. It didn't make me cynical. I was already cynical. From watching the music and audio business since around 1963 when I built my first stereo. Overall, little I've seen since has done anything to ease the level of that cynicism.


But I've decided, as far as talking to lay people goes, to take a rather backed-off approach to this controversy. Most lay people don't have any understanding of audio. To them, more is better, newer is better, anything endorsed by a beloved celebrity is better. I'm going to hope that this encourages new interest in audio quality in the industry -- but I'm afraid that will really just translate into a rush to profit from repackaging stuff -- even when there's no reasonable benefit from the repackaging.

NOTHING I've ever seen in the audio/hi fi/music biz makes me think that, to the extent there is commercial momentum here, that a perception of market desire for greater fidelity won't be met by the same tawdry and often sleazy rush to cash in from repackaging old content for new formats. Even when the old content is not improved by the new container.

As it has always been.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1068
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
If anything, they should be charging more for the mp3 as they have to convert it and make it sound acceptable at a lower bit rate.
The MP3 conversion is a one time operation with a relatively low cost. It is close to irrelevant compared to the bandwidth and compute costs of serving files thousands or millions of times. (I'm talking about serving individual files of course. Not streaming).

Quote:
The only thing thing that could make sense is that they'll sell less of the higher quality file but that also doesn't compute as it's not a physical product. So it doesn't get cheaper to sell more of it. In fact, it actually costs more (per download) to have the infrastructure in place that Apple does.
Not really. Purchasing bandwidth and servers etc gets cheaper per unit (of bandwidth, per server and per download) the bigger the numbers of sales.

Quote:
Think about it. If I sell a download of my song and it sells 10 copies per day, I could host it on Dropbox for free.
You of course can't use Dropbox for any serious commercial operation.

Quote:
Start selling hundreds of copies and then you need a server or a file hosting service that doesn't throttle usage. It goes up and up and gets more and more expensive.
It is the other way round. The per unit cost for selling 1000 copies is much higher than for selling 1 million copies and costs keep going down the larger the scale of your operation.

Alistair
Old 18th March 2014
  #1069
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Regardless of who is more easily convinced, the public can vote with their wallets, the artists can only moan to their labels who will ignore them if those wallets are not backing the artists up.
And the general public have already voted against DVD-A and SACD.

Alistair
Old 18th March 2014
  #1070
They wont make it IMO. Why would anyone give up their smart phone for portable music? Hi Fi doesn't really matter in the car or at work.

I guess for folks who can't stream hifi recordings to their receiver, there might maybe be a market. In the studio I would want to use my converters instead of Ponos.

It's nice to see a push for better sounding music but unless I am in my studio, itunes is perfectly fine.

And a triangle shape, reminds me of that episode of the Office where they introduce their tablet.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1071
Old 18th March 2014
  #1072
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
The idea that Neil Young is doing this as a scam to make money is implausible...does anyone think he really needs the money?
I don't think he's a scam artist - if he needed money I'm sure there are other honest ways of doing that.
very few here are saying Neil Young is out to scam people

on the other hand his previous objections to digital were so extreme and so broad that his sudden decision to carve out an "exception" for Hi-Resolution Digital comes off as being a rather last-minute compromise born of necessity. To wit: no amount of Kickstarter funding is going to be enough to build a handheld device with a phonograph or a tape deck inside it -which is what the Old Neil Young would have insisted upon. So now in 2014, "some" digital is OK. Of necessity.

Mind you, I think it is a reasonable thing to place an emphasis on better sound quality. But his 'underwater' diagram is simply nutty to anyone who has seriously blind-compared the same audio at 96k vs 192k. It is not at all like "coming up for air". It is really, really hard if not impossible to even correctly guess which one is which. Never mind go "wow" and "finally I can breathe" and have a strong preference. As some who has tried this blindfolded, I strongly suspect some serious confirmation bias going on here.

The lumping together of low-rate mp3 with uncompressed wavs in the testimonial and "comparisons" vs hi-res strikes me as very unfair. Over and over I hear people making statements that amount to: "Pono was so much better than the mp3 - man, CDs really suck" It is hammered in so many times in the video, that people in this thread - people who are supposedly recording engineers - have picked it up and are using the expression "mp3/CD" as a shorthand!

In reality, the audible distinctions between the resolutions get smaller as you go up. Not bigger. The biggest gap is between the mp3 and uncompressed .wav. Any comparison that needs to obfuscate that to make its point is being disingenuous, IMO.

I don't expect Neil Young to have University level research lab in his car, but he is definitely putting a thumb on the scale when interpreting the results. Scamming implies perhaps a personal financial angle, and I certainly don't think that's the case. But like many zealots, he really wants this to be true, and that leads to some questionable practices. The excuse that the bad science is in a "good cause" doesn't wash with me.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1073
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
And the general public have already voted against DVD-A and SACD.
Not so much voted against, but not voted at all. Not many ordinary music fans were even aware of these formats, much less what they meant in terms of potential audio quality. They were poorly marketed, and the fact that there were two different competing formats didn't help. (Blu-ray only took off after the short-lived war with HD-DVD was over, am I right?)

Pono will surely fail unless there's a huge marketing push, joined by labels, other hardware makers (promoting "Pono Ready" players), etc. And a return to sane pricing for the content. Even then, its success among the general public is far from certain.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 18th March 2014
  #1074
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
It is the other way round. The per unit cost for selling 1000 copies is much higher than for selling 1 million copies and costs keep going down the larger the scale of your operation.
You're both right! Alistair is speaking of marginal costs. Kenny's talking about total costs.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 18th March 2014
  #1075
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie TX View Post
Not so much voted against, but not voted at all.
When voting with your wallet, isn't that the same thing?

Alistair
Old 18th March 2014
  #1076
Lives for gear
 
donnylang's Avatar
 

The thing I don't quite understand is this:

Digital is either 'here' or it isn't. If 16/44.1 is not 'good enough', then this new high-res stuff is probably not good enough either ... i.e., there will be something 'better' later on. It's been demonstrated by many in this thread that the legit research shows people cannot immediately and easily tell the difference between high-res digital and the standards people have accepted for the past 25 years.

Personally, I'm not convinced that any digital will ever sound as good as analog, but that's a whole other conversation.

I think the focus is going to be on classic analog recordings. That is what's funny here. The old tech is apparently now considered the gold standard. This is the same industry that replaced vinyl and open-reel with 8-track cartridge, cassette, CD, minidisc, and mp3. Now they are telling us that vinyl and open reel are better, and this 'new' format is better than CD.

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't think for a minute that these guys are not the traditional record industry. Bukowski said it best: "the best at murder are those who preach against it / and the best at hate are those who preach love / and the best at war finally are those who preach peace."

Ha, Kickstarter for a group of the most popular, rich baby boomin' rock stars of all time?!? $17.98 for a digital file of a record you already own?!? You think anyone other than the corporate rock demigods would propose such a thing?!?

Mega-corporations masquerading as independent starving artists. People are getting mad about this because it's truly absurd, and points out the follies of our modern times, all rolled into one.

I don't see how this is anything other than a new marketing push to re-sell old recordings in a 'new and improved' fashion.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1077
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
very few here are saying Neil Young is out to scam people

on the other hand [...]
Very well said.

I think a lot of of us love Neil as an artist. But that doesn't make him a scientist. Clearly, his many shifting statements mark him as far, far from it.

His personal enthusiasms may partially excuse some of the nonsense he has spouted -- but at a certain point, those making public pronouncements DO have a responsibility to the truth.

Neil has apparently poured great energy into this -- I only wish he'd put a little more energy into vetting the scientific reality (or lack thereof) of his adopted belief system. Because he is now spouting some outright, unconscionable nonsense in promoting a commercial product.
Old 18th March 2014
  #1078
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by donnylang View Post
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't think for a minute that these guys are not the traditional record industry. Bukowski said it best: "the best at murder are those who preach against it / and the best at hate are those who preach love / and the best at war finally are those who preach peace."
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

Alistair
Old 18th March 2014
  #1079
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
But his 'underwater' diagram is simply nutty to anyone who has seriously blind-compared the same audio at 96k vs 192k. It is not at all like "coming up for air". It is really, really hard if not impossible to even correctly guess which one is which. Never mind go "wow" and "finally I can breathe" and have a strong preference.
+1

And yet the record label suits reckon the difference between 24/96k and 24/192k is worth an extra $7.00 per album!

I dunno, maybe it is if you like to hang upside down in caves all day and look like this?

Old 18th March 2014
  #1080
Lives for gear
 
Crash's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

Alistair
Just an FYI, Hunter S. Thompson never said that.

'Where Thieves and Pimps Run Free' - Hunter S. Thompson Misquote

This has been a fascinating thread. I am interested to see if this will fly or not, guess time will tell.
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