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 24th March 2014
  #1681
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Who knows what slanting caused the reactions of all those artists. It certainly isn't just the difference of sample rate you would get in a well implemented DAC. Something else is going on and they are not being honest about it.
If I were Mr. Young, and wanted to demonstrate the full potential of Pono (which comprises not only the player but the source material as well), I'd find a few superb-sounding hi-res masters of well-known music, play a bit of those through the Pono player, and compare that to mediocre MP3s of the same stuff played through a cheap iPod (which, sadly, is how a lot of people listen to music these days). That would be the demonstration most likely to cause the reactions we see in the video. But I wouldn't say that would be dishonest, because he's comparing his vision of how recorded music should be experienced with what is common now. In interviews, he stresses how he wants the Pono store to be stocked with the best-mastered recordings available.

The 192 thing is a hook -- people can see the bigger numbers and assume that means better sound. Gets more attention than "we're going to sell good-sounding music and a good-sounding player." All part of the marketing, which, if they want any chance at success, will have to be hugely effective.

Of course, if they fail to follow through on the promise of excellent source material, the whole thing will crumble quickly. Imagine, if you will, a newly excited Pono player owner purchasing a pricey Pono copy of "Tapestry" which turns out to be the same file currently sold at HDtracks (you know, the one the audiophile reviewer said sounded worse than the CD ). I see disillusionment setting in.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 24th March 2014
  #1682
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The 192 thing is silly.
I don't know anyone who is working at 192.
I think everyone I know is working at 96/24 though. I don't know a lot of people, but they are all 'professionals'.
I have businesses that require me to deliver my audio at 96/24.
It may all be down to marketing, voodoo and 'what the consumer wants'. That's fine, I'm not an expert.
I use boutique, hand crafted drums on my recordings.
Rick Marotta sounds better than me on his stock Yamaha.
I could play a budget kit on the record and no one would know once it was mixed and released as an mp3.
People just want to feel good about what they are doing.
I feel good using 96/24. That doesn't make me a moron or unprofessional.
Not at all. For what you do, it makes perfect sense to use the highest resolution possible. Even if it doesn't sound any better, you wouldn't want your competition using it against you.

I remember the lower end version of one of those software drums only being 16 bit and thinking that I might be missing something.

It's one of those situations where you can only hurt yourself by NOT using higher resolution so why not do it?
Old 24th March 2014
  #1683
Yeah, although fwiw, it's not about competition for me. I can work at 96/24 very easily, so why not.
Perhaps for some clients it's about competition and how they are perceived.
(I don't only record drums for sample libraries ya know).
Old 24th March 2014
  #1684
Lives for gear
 
baslotto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

It's one of those situations where you can only hurt yourself by NOT using higher resolution so why not do it?
Track count, plugin processing power.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1685
Isn't a problem so far.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1686
Lives for gear
 

I honestly do not think any of the PONO naysayer's have a single issue with statements like 'during production , tracking and mixing especially when working mainly ITB with lots of plugins that there is NO sonic benefit to working at higher sample rates.'

There are obvious easily quantified improvements in how non-linear processing is undertaken at higher sample rates. There is also a good argument to move the Nyquist point a bit higher up the scale to say 88.2khz to alleviate any left over potential artifacting from the filtering process's. I do not think ANYONE will/would dispute that.

What I people have a problem with is the selling of a technology based on a single statement that is so far from true as to only truly exist in the land of marketing and hyperbole. Which is 'any sample rate less than 192khz sounds like water' especially when we are talking about delivery formats and NOT use during production/mixing/tracking/mastering where PROCESSING occur.

Yes mp3 often fails to deliver the 'studio quality' experiance but 44.1/16 is FAR from 'awful'.

The issue with the sound quality or lack of in a lot of modern productions is not the sample rate used. It IS imho a problem much more about the over use of loudening during mastering , the over processing and reliance and over use of tuning tools , timing tools and abundance of samples. Often being wielded by those recording and mixing in acoustical sub par environments with crappy monitoring and cheap sound cards. That is why the sonic's are disappearing NOT in the sample rate used.

There are way bigger issues to contend with if we want to make audio sound better.

BUT 192khz is easy to market and sell as a catch all solution to the masses whom generally speaking do not have a particularly learned grasp of the mechanics of audio production.

It is a sales point and nothing more.

PONO as a player might just well sound 'great' but it wont be because of 192khz it will like all GOOD audio kit be a function of the ENTIRE design not one easily singled out aspect.

There are also lots of other 'audiophile' media players ALREADY available that play up to DSD if you want them to. Some costing a LOT less than PONO and still 'audiophile' quality with the use of good DAC's and good headphone amp and line driver stages than can drive a pair of 600ohm headphones or a line input without the usual compromises found in players like iPod.

'HD' audio IS already available in large quantities , FLAC is pretty much ubiquitous as a good lossless format.

PONO is marketing nothing more. Marketing of the shallowest nature.

This is what has gotten peoples backs up.

It is emperor's new clothes. But the clothes are already here and have been for quite some time.

If you want 'audiophile' on the move you can already have it. I personally use a Fiio X3 and a pair of Beyerdynamic DT 880's at 600ohm.

I still cant really hear the difference between 320mp3 and 'Hires' once I am on the move though. Planes , trains and automobiles ALL produce enough background noise to destroy my ability to hear the finer detail. Unless you are at home sitting in a quiet room you simply do not hear the detail it is simply masked by ambient noise. In which case why do I not use my already existing decent playback system with or without headphones. Why go to the expense of another hires player when at home most of us already have more than adequate playback than can play any sample rate we care to throw at it.

High end CD players existed before , High end record players before that the number of people with POS 'all in one' midi/mini hifi's hugely outnumbered those with a 'seperates' system.

How many homes with children and wives even have a decent hifi setup in the lounge or wherever where people actually sit in quiet and intently listen to music? A tiny %. Most of the homes I go to of friends have maybe one pair of tiny speakers setup 'somewhere' and 'somehow'. You can have any sample rate you like and you wont hear ANY sonic benefit unless the rest of the system is up to the same standard.

I can imagine people buying PONO and convincing themselves 'WOW ITS ALL SO 3D AND DEEP AND WIDE' and other nonsense all whilst listening to the playback on a pair of Beats by Dre. Or via a pair of $99 dollar speakers sitting on bookshelves opposite each other in a bedroom.

It is all simply just utter nonsense.

Those who want supposed audiophile have already got it in their amps and speakers and playback system and room acoustics. PONO is just more meat for the grinder. It is a fantastic way to get everyone to re-buy their entire record collections once more.

No wonder all those 'artists' are shilling so hard , dollar signs abound.

IMHO/YMMV/blah blah
Old 24th March 2014
  #1687
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Besides, going back to 2008 he was completely for hi-res in the form of Blu-Ray.
so that just leaves the decades between the 1980's and 2008 unaccounted for
Old 24th March 2014
  #1688
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Thanks Skira.

Neil Young:

"It's gonna be BluRay, DVD, CD. It'll be on iTunes.
It'll be everything. But it's not coming out until the
BluRay comes out, because the BluRay is the cutting
edge. The BluRay is the best quality, and that's where
it's gonna start. We don't want to put out the lesser
stuff first and then everybody go, "Well I know what
this is. We're not gonna get the BluRay." We're gonna
force feed them the BluRay.... CD quality is very low-
resolution, just a step above MP3s."



Old 24th March 2014
  #1689
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

You can play lossless files on an iPod already. But I don't do that, because (a) I can't really hear the difference, and (b) I don't want to waste the space. I already use 160 GB ipods. I'd be losing 32 GB with a pono. I can't really hear a difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and higher, so I usually stick to 192 if I can find something in it, otherwise I use as close to it as I can find.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1690
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baslotto View Post
Track count, plugin processing power.
That's why I don't do it but I'm talking about selling a product.

No one wants 44.1kHz samples if they're using 96kHz sessions.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1691
Lives for gear
 

i agree with the illustration in the vid. mp3 really is like being on the ocean floor. i'm not sure i agree 24/192 is like totally reaching the surface though, more like hovering 20 feet below. i'm not talking about converters, but file-format.

anyone who really really knows anything about audio will also know that our hearing is not dictated by a 20k sine ha-ha.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1692
Lives for gear
 

"agree with the illustration in the vid. mp3 really is like being on the ocean floor. i'm not sure i agree 24/192 is like totally reaching the surface though, more like hovering 20 feet below. i'm not talking about converters, but file-format.

anyone who really really knows anything about audio will also know that our hearing is not dictated by a 20k sine ha-ha."

Anyone who really knows anything about audio would not of posted this complete crock of nonsense.

Please Mr Audio.

School us on where we are erroneous.

School us with FACTS and SCIENCE.

We are all waiting patiently to be proven wrong.

Maybe you should be that man.

What EXACTLY is it about the file format that creates the impression of being underwater at 192/24?

What EXACTY is it that dictates our hearing then?

I await your peer assessed empirical evidence with great anticipation.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1693
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
There's no evidence that the general public can tell the difference between wav and 320kps. I'm not aware of any evidence that professionals can either.

This is super easy to test though, come on people of both sides, agree a test and perform it on a webcam.

I've tried ABXing, it's NOT easy. Most conclude that, even with the best monitoring and choosing a track / tracks of your choice, you end up listening to audio in a way no casual listener ever would to even begin to tell a difference.

ABX with one track / series of tracks that the sceptic knows well and another that is chosen by others, and DO THE TEST. It's not rocket science.

That said, if Neil Young starts his own soundcloud streaming, count me in and lemee give ya ma money!
Old 24th March 2014
  #1694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
i agree with the illustration in the vid. mp3 really is like being on the ocean floor. i'm not sure i agree 24/192 is like totally reaching the surface though, more like hovering 20 feet below. i'm not talking about converters, but file-format.

anyone who really really knows anything about audio will also know that our hearing is not dictated by a 20k sine ha-ha.
It's become clear that our educational systems' retrenchment to authoritarian, teach-to-the-test methods has fostered the creation of generations of people who simply cannot reason logically for themselves or even understand basic scientific principles.

We must ask ourselves as a society going forward if the supposed benefit of 'self-esteem' without intellectual discipline is worth the cost of rising widespread ignorance and inability to reason as manifest in the results of societal surveys of general and scientific knowledge -- since it's clear our educational systems are failing a broad swathe of people.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1695
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGreen View Post
"agree with the illustration in the vid. mp3 really is like being on the ocean floor. i'm not sure i agree 24/192 is like totally reaching the surface though, more like hovering 20 feet below. i'm not talking about converters, but file-format.

anyone who really really knows anything about audio will also know that our hearing is not dictated by a 20k sine ha-ha."

Anyone who really knows anything about audio would not of posted this complete crock of nonsense.

Please Mr Audio.

School us on where we are erroneous.

School us with FACTS and SCIENCE.

We are all waiting patiently to be proven wrong.

Maybe you should be that man.

What EXACTLY is it about the file format that creates the impression of being underwater at 192/24?

What EXACTY is it that dictates our hearing then?

I await your peer assessed empirical evidence with great anticipation.
you don't seem that patient, but the short story is that to minimize filter ringing effects, you need to up the sample rate. so to more accurately capture a complex signal between say 500hz to 1500hz you need to sample hypersonics. but if you like that artificial crap that people listen to you're needn't worry about much.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1696
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
It's become clear that our educational systems' retrenchment to authoritarian, teach-to-the-test methods has fostered the creation of generations of people who simply cannot reason logically for themselves or even understand basic scientific principles
Which educational system in which country? This is an international board.

I'll agree this thread makes it painfully obvious that people all over the world seem to lack reasoning skills and a basic understanding of logic and science. I doubt there was a single system that was the cause.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1697
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
It's become clear that our educational systems' retrenchment to authoritarian, teach-to-the-test methods has fostered the creation of generations of people who simply cannot reason logically for themselves or even understand basic scientific principles.

We must ask ourselves as a society going forward if the supposed benefit of 'self-esteem' without intellectual discipline is worth the cost of rising widespread ignorance and inability to reason as manifest in the results of societal surveys of general and scientific knowledge -- since it's clear our educational systems are failing a broad swathe of people.
no one is debating that pcm reproduces audio, what you need to ask yourself is why does it do so so mediocrely.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1698
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Which educational system in which country? This is an international board.

I'll agree this thread makes it painfully obvious that people all over the world seem to lack reasoning skills and a basic understanding of logic and science. I doubt there was a single system that was the cause.
No, of course not, and I'm sure there are many fine schools and not everyone is falling backward.

But, particularly among those in the US and the UK, as well as a number of folks in W. Europe, it does seem like there is a big problem.

I'm not blaming teachers -- I know a lot of teachers who would prefer to be actually teaching instead of teaching to tests (and some who sneak as much real education in as they dare) -- so much as politicians exploiting societal concerns to demand retrenchment to test-teaching rather than teaching how to learn and think for oneself.

Old 24th March 2014
  #1699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
no one is debating that pcm reproduces audio, what you need to ask yourself is why does it do so so mediocrely.
As someone who came up on analog, has owned 10 analog tape decks, five of them multitrack, who has been actively engaged with audio since I built my first hi fi as a 12 year old, and has something of a grip on the objective measure of audio (and as someone whose old ears can still differentiate a 256 kbps mp3 from a 320 in true ABX testing with 89% reliability), I have to say that I don't think digital does a mediocre job at all.

You think it's mediocre. I don't. Obviously, subjective appreciation is just that: subjective.

When subjective measure proves inappropriate, we are then left with objective measurement. And by objective measure, there can be no doubt that properly designed and operating digital transcription operating at adequate bandwidth produces far greater accuracy by any objective measure we have.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1700
Lives for gear
 

"so to more accurately capture a complex signal between say 500hz to 1500hz you need to sample hypersonics."

Which is all fine and groovy but also completely wrong.

I asked you to define it exactly.

I suggest you use maths to prove your theory. If you are right you can prove it.

Simple as that. If it so and irrefutable demonstrate it as such.

Note I said theory not theorem.

Like the Shannon Nyquist theorem.

Which is not a theory.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1701
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
When subjective measure proves inappropriate, we are then left with objective measurement. And by objective measure, there can be no doubt that properly designed and operating digital transcription operating at adequate bandwidth produces far greater accuracy by any objective measure we have.
But my measurements go to 11.
You know....really close to infinity level, but not quite, cause the magic is in the space you leave between 11 and infinity. How I interpret the space - that's the secret of my SVO (subjective vs objective) measurement accuracy. It goes beyond real, into....the future, man.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1702
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
"so to more accurately capture a complex signal between say 500hz to 1500hz you need to sample hypersonics."
.
I suspect a bit of trolling...
Old 24th March 2014
  #1703
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
But my measurements go to 11.
You know....really close to infinity level, but not quite, cause the magic is in the space you leave between 11 and infinity. How I interpret the space - that's the secret of my SVO (subjective vs objective) measurement accuracy. It goes beyond real, into....the future, man.
You got to watch out when trying to escape into the future, though... because it can make it too easy for your enemies to cut you off at the past.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1704
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
I suspect a bit of trolling...
no man, no trolling. more sample points mean more information. don't take my word for it, head over to antelope audio and check their faq. this has nothing to do with an upper bound of 20k. zilch.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1705
Gear Maniac
 
gavriloP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
no man, no trolling. more sample points mean more information. don't take my word for it, head over to antelope audio and check their faq. this has nothing to do with an upper bound of 20k. zilch.
From Antelope Audio website FAQ about sample rate:

Quote:
These are some of the major points in digital audio today. Once an audio signal is transformed into the digital world, it becomes a small piece of information at a time point. By increasing the sample rate and bit depth, you also increase the pieces of information, thus resulting in a more detailed representation of the original analog signal. Bit depth describes the amount of bits of information for each sample. It is addressed directly to the resolution of each sample in digital audio data.
Well, that was one in-depth FAQ that happened to go against the whole digital audio paradigm. This one goes to you, Antelope Audio.

Will this madness never end? Learn the basics before you go shouting to the rooftops. And don't fool yourself that some audiophool company is the best source.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1706
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
you don't seem that patient, but the short story is that to minimize filter ringing effects, you need to up the sample rate. so to more accurately capture a complex signal between say 500hz to 1500hz you need to sample hypersonics. but if you like that artificial crap that people listen to you're needn't worry about much.
Congratulations for going Neil Young one further. Hardly thought it was still possible in the 21st Century.

If you want to say that you can hear the ringing from a filter set at 22kHz, you can tell yourself that. I don't have to believe you, but you can convince yourself of a lot of things if you are peeking at the labels while you are doing your listening "tests". But at 192, the filter is set at 96k- how do you justify that 'filter ringing' contributing to the audio still sounding "20 feet underwater"

Man, that ringing around 96k sure is annoying.

Experiment after experiment shows that human beings cannot tell when the ultrasonics are present or have been filtered out. Consciously or subconsciously, pure tones, or within a musical context, specifically or statistically - even in terms of brain stem activity.

Unless your birth certificate was issued on Krypton, I suspect you hear about the same as the rest of us. So your theory is not accepted.

Quote:
no one is debating that pcm reproduces audio, what you need to ask yourself is why does it do so so mediocrely.
Your incessant grinding of the Tape Ax is well known on the forum. Everyone knows that the Tape Heads LOVE the inaccuracies and distortions of tape. It is certainly their right to LOVE it. But some, like you, take it too far. It is not their right to claim that what they like is "more accurate" reproduction. Especially when they have nothing but their aesthetic PREFERENCE to back them up. Aesthetics are personal to the individual.

No person, audio professional, musician, or some random person grabbed off the bus stop would have any difficulty distinguishing between the output of the mixer and the repro head of a tape deck. No difficulty whatsoever.

OTOH, many of them would have quite a hard time distinguishing between the output of the mixer and D/A of the DAW that the signal was sent to. This is the only meaningful definition of "accuracy". More important even than any measurement tool. The ability to distinguish between a raw signal and a signal that has been through a medium. The fact that your medium of choice colors the sound in a way that your hated medium does not, is not merely irrelevant to the issue of transparency it defines its lack of transparency.

I have a fondness for tape myself, but I have nothing but disdain for those who claim it is "more accurate reproduction". That's preposterous.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
...human beings cannot tell when the ultrasonics are present or have been filtered out...
There is a different physiological reaction when ultrasound is present (or not):
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...
ITJ - The International Tinnitus Journal - Eyes as Fenestrations to the Ears: A Novel Mechanism for High-Frequency and Ultrasonic Hearing
Old 24th March 2014
  #1708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo

I suspect a bit of trolling...
no man, no trolling. more sample points mean more information. don't take my word for it, head over to antelope audio and check their faq. this has nothing to do with an upper bound of 20k. zilch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavriloP View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W

no man, no trolling. more sample points mean more information. don't take my word for it, head over to antelope audio and check their faq. this has nothing to do with an upper bound of 20k. zilch.
From Antelope Audio website FAQ about sample rate:

Quote:
These are some of the major points in digital audio today. Once an audio signal is transformed into the digital world, it becomes a small piece of information at a time point. By increasing the sample rate and bit depth, you also increase the pieces of information, thus resulting in a more detailed representation of the original analog signal. Bit depth describes the amount of bits of information for each sample. It is addressed directly to the resolution of each sample in digital audio data.
Well, that was one in-depth FAQ that happened to go against the whole digital audio paradigm. This one goes to you, Antelope Audio.

Will this madness never end? Learn the basics before you go shouting to the rooftops. And don't fool yourself that some audiophool company is the best source.
There's more raw data in higher sample rates of a given bit depth than in lower ones, no question.

But is it meaningful data? The increased data from higher sample rates reflects the capture of higher frequency information.

If we don't need to capture that high frequency info (because we find in extensive testing that humans can't hear it and can't tell music that has it from music that doesn't), then it's more data but not more information as it is typically thought of in signal theory.

And if the inclusion of that otherwise imperceptible HF content then causes intermodulation distortion in the nonlinear systems of some analog circuits or in speakers, then we may find that filtering out that range allows our gear to function better within the bounds of hearing.


I'd recommend that Timesaver800W schedule up some serious reading time with a good explanation of the Fourier Transform and Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem before he starts lecturing on audio. And stop getting his 'science' from marketing materials. I've been a marketing director in the electronics industry and responsible for such materials. Science goes out the window fast when the bosses lean on you and your job is on the line.
Old 24th March 2014
  #1709
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
you guyyyyyss
Old 24th March 2014
  #1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
The ultrasonic information is delivered by bone conduction, is it not?

That, my friend, is a whole different can of worms.


I see that the experiment used a various transmission methods. I'm going to dig a little deeper into this.

There are some interesting suppositions and inferences...
Quote:
Eye conduction may contribute to industrial highfrequency loss and tinnitus because ultrasound and high audio frequencies overlap in terms of basilar membrane displacement patterns, especially if high audio subharmonics are generated by intense industrial devices. Simultaneous activation of the saccular and cochlear nerves likely contributes to the symptoms of "ultrasonic sickness."
The notion of the eyes as a potential receptor of sonic info (particularly in what have normally been considered ultrasonic ranges) has been kicking around for a while. (I first became aware of it reading analyses of the initial Oohashi audio perception study which found some difference in performance in two individuals in that test that varied with whether or not the subject was wearing heavy, supposedly HF-obstructing goggles, as I recall.)

But I'd never come across anyone suggesting that hearing loss could be caused by HF exposure through the eyes. And that is a really interesting -- and seemingly rather provocative -- concept. (Now, I'm definitely going to have to go back and dig through there and see how they controlled for that vis a vis conventional through-ear exposure -- since, of course, there's no science I'm aware of to suggest that that which you can't perceive can't hurt you. Much the contrary, sadly.)
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