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 March 2014
  #1771
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
That's the thing: intuitively one would think so, but the reality is that we'd gain absolutely nothing except for bigger file sizes. I haven't done the arithmetic, but my hunch is that 128 bits can hold the dynamic range of the universe: from quantum interactions to the big bang. When our very best analog electronics can hardly fill 24 bits (and most has far less precision), there is clearly no point in trying to store more.
You have a point I suppose this is why we shouldn't consider things to be "better" without looking at whether or not there will be an improvement in the end result.

Chris
Old 25th March 2014
  #1772
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Nice post theblue1. I just wanted to address one point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
That said, we also know that various forms of cognitive bias are pretty much endemic to humans
I don't think this is the right phrasing. First endemic usually relates to diseases as far as I am aware but cognitive bias isn't a disease. It is the way everyone's brain and thus perception functions. It is actually an asset when it comes to survival and making optimal use of our limited resources. It just doesn't translate too well to being objective about certain things like the audibility of certain things in audio. Which is to be expected: There is no evolutionary pressure that selects humans for being able to objectively tell if some difficult (or impossible) to detect signal is present in the music we listen to.

Also, you say "pretty much endemic ". Well, as I already wrote, everyone has cognitive bias all the time. There is no "pretty much" about it. It is constant and permanent and thus it is nothing t be ashamed of. It is just something to be aware of and take into account when designed objective listening tests.

Alistair
Old 25th March 2014
  #1773
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
The idea that CDs were "too expensive" was tech/consumer electronics industry propaganda intended to provide their customers with a rationalization for looting music to play on new gizmos that nobody would buy if they needed to replace their music collection.
Ah yes the evil tech industry conspiracy theory. Very popular amongst certain types on this forum. Especially the types that desperately need a scapegoat or a religion to explain why the reality around them isn't how it used to be or how they believe it to be. Tell me Bob, who is this "tech industry" you talk about? Where do they meet to decide what the plan is for the whole tech industry propaganda? Do they have a club? A secret handshake? Are they lizards by any chance?

Oh but wait a minute. It isn't even true:



The price of albums since compact discs came out in 1982 was increasing slightly until about 2003. (Strange, the prices should have gone down like everything else. Especially after 2001 when the patents on CD technologies ran out. Someone was being ripped off it seems). In 2003 digital albums and singles appeared on the market. Obviously they were priced lower as the manufacturing and distribution costs suddenly dropped significantly. And thus album (and single) prices dropped significantly.

So it wasn't the tech industry propaganda. It was like everything else in life: New, much cheaper technology arrived and obviously prices dropped.

Quote:
CDs were typically sold at or even above list price because most people wouldn't even cross a mall to save a buck on a CD.
Ah yes. Of course. No one bargain hunted until the evil tech industry convinced people that CDs were too expensive... (Which judging by the pricing charts was actually true!)

Alistair
Old 25th March 2014
  #1774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
Then as a qualified scientist, you of all people should know that study you linked to was mearly proving that direct physical contact (or extreme close range direct firing through air to the eyball) of ultrasound causes vibrations to the bone or possibly even brain, but nowhere in that study did it make a case for ultrasonic signals being actually processed by the brain in such a way the person is aware of it.
I never claimed that it did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
...It's like arguing sticking a knife into the brain will be felt just because the act of sticking some physical into the brain tissue is possible. Surgeons perform brain surgery on live patients, when the brain is prodded, they don't feel a thing because there's no nerve endings up there...
It is true that a patient may not feel the instrument but that isn't the same as saying there is no effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
The inner ear is what converts the vibrations we feel (either via the eardrum-bones or some other form of vibration transmission) into electrical signals through the movement of hairs giving us the perception of what we call sound, but that inner ear doesn't have the hairs required to detect frequencies higher than 20khz (or lets say, 22khz in young humans with exceptional hearing ability).
Therefore, causing the eardrum, or the bone, or even the brain to vibrate at a higher frequency does not in of itself prove that it is felt or 'detected' by the conciousness of the person.
Can you explain what happens after the sound is detected?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
...It's an amazing world we live in when you think about it, we are constantly bombarded by an insane range of wavelengths, from cosmic rays to radio waves, wireless and mobile technology, infrared and ultraviolet, x-rays, yet we are completely unware of it.
That isn't the same as saying that we are unaffected by those phenomena though. That's the kind of thing scientists like to differentiate.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1775
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
The eye is an airborne ultrasonic window to the ear and, as such, extends the range of human hearing. The mechanics of ocularly transmitted ultrasound should be similar in all other respects to ultrasound delivered to the skin of the head or neck as vibration [15], with the eventual activation of the auditory cortex in normalhearing and deaf individuals...Source: ITJ - The International Tinnitus Journal - Eyes as Fenestrations to the Ears: A Novel Mechanism for High-Frequency and Ultrasonic Hearing
In the interest of being fair, might that stand up as an explanation for why listeners can't tell the difference in higher samples rates when blindfolded for a double blind test?

Chris
Old 25th March 2014
  #1776
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
The Gibbs phenomenon EXPLAINS why the ringing is caused by the digital filtering, this is true - by example in the case stated above of a frequency transformation of both the kernel and the signal.

But the ringing has to do with the digital filter being convolved with the waveform. But this does not mean the ringing isn't due to the digital filtering required by a particular sample rate. It is.
The Gibbs phenomenon was discovered in the 19th century, a hundred years before digital audio. Gibbs got his name attached to it when he wrote about the phenomenon and gave it its first mathematical treatment, sometime in the 1940s I think, but well before digital audio.

It is a necessary result of trying to make a square wave with sinusoids -- try it using a graphing calculator: sin(x) + sin(3x)/3 + sin(5x)/5 + ... No matter how many sines you add, you will always have the ringing and it will never fall below a certain amplitude.

This is a mathematical result and has nothing to do with signal processing. In the Wikipedia article you quoted, they give a DSP "interpretation", but DSP is much more recent than the Gibbs phenomenon. The ringing you seem to be alluding to -- the convolution of a signal with an ideal low-pass filter -- leads to the sinc function, which has an entirely different kind of ringing. This most definitely is a DSP thing, but it's not the Gibbs phenom.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1777
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
Where is it stated that you have to hear 30kHz to hear the difference between a sine wave and a square wave at 10kHz?

Just do a simple experiment and play a signal generator through your headphones or a speaker at 10kHz and switch between a square wave and a sine wave. I guarantee you will hear the difference.
Where is it stated? The only difference between a 10 kHz sine wave and a 10 kHz square wave is that the latter also contains sine waves at 30 kHz, 50 kHz, 70 kHz, and so on. So if you can hear a difference that isn't due to distortions caused by nonlinearities, it can only be because you are hearing 30 kHz.

Obviously neither you nor anyone else can hear 30 kHz, so if you do hear a difference, it is because your headphones are whatever are creating intermodulation distortion products in the audible range. In other words, if you had better equipment, you wouldn't hear a difference.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
In the interest of being fair, might that stand up as an explanation for why listeners can't tell the difference in higher samples rates when blindfolded for a double blind test?

Chris
I'm certainly advocating this area of research (ultrasound) for further studies and I'm arguing against that idea that it bears no relevance (particularly when the reasoning for discounting ultrasound is based on a few experiments which aren't designed to account for it's possible effects).
Old 25th March 2014
  #1779
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
But check this out - this is a 2.5kHz square wave recorded at 44.1kHz and look at that ringing on it! The magnitude is a lot more than -20db to the fundamental. The period of this ringing is ~21kHz - you know why? Because of the digital filtering done during sampling AND AGAIN during playback! This fixed ringing is occuring everywhere in a complex signal and if you are trying to listen to the beautiful sound of massed strings playing - and you superimpose a fixed 21kHz signal on that - you end up with a hash sound that gives you a headache.


Attachment 391235
There is no ringing! That is just what a partial square wave looks like. And all square waves are partial because we would need an infinite number of harmonics to create a perfect square wave and, in the real world, we never have an infinite number of harmonics.

Here is an animation of adding harmonics to a sine wave to create a square wave:



Each time you add another harmonic, you get closer to a square wave.

I sincerely suggest you read this thread: Digital Audio and Sampling Rates

Alistair
Old 25th March 2014
  #1780
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar

Last edited by GJ999x; 25th March 2014 at 10:53 PM.. Reason: Bob O doesnt need anyone to defend him
Old 25th March 2014
  #1781
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Believe it or not I am a scientist...a qualified scientist with a degree from an outstanding university (which is enough validation for me whatever your opinion is).
What's your field?
Old 25th March 2014
  #1782
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Where is it stated? The only difference between a 10 kHz sine wave and a 10 kHz square wave is that the latter also contains sine waves at 30 kHz, 50 kHz, 70 kHz, and so on. So if you can hear a difference that isn't due to distortions caused by nonlinearities, it can only be because you are hearing 30 kHz.

Obviously neither you nor anyone else can hear 30 kHz, so if you do hear a difference, it is because your headphones are whatever are creating intermodulation distortion products in the audible range. In other words, if you had better equipment, you wouldn't hear a difference.
It could also be a badly generated "square" wave. It might be aliasing the 30 Khz harmonic. Who knows. If you hear a difference, something is broken.

(Unless of course we are talking about synthesis for musical purposes. Then anything goes as long as the person operating the synths like what they hear).

Alistair
Old 25th March 2014
  #1783
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJ999x View Post
Yes don't mind Bob Olhsson, he's just the friendly local conspiracy theorist.

1,000,000*

I know he is many people's hero but when it comes to writing about computers, technology and many other things Bob is no expert on, yes he often does deserve a facepalm. I notice you didn't actually address what Bob or I wrote...

Alistair
Old 25th March 2014
  #1784
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
To be fair, if there was any advantage to extending the frequency bandwidth to contain ultrasonic content, a higher sampling frequency would be the way to do it.

Chris
Along with new mics, speakers and just about anything else in the chain.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Nice post theblue1. I just wanted to address one point:



I don't think this is the right phrasing. First endemic usually relates to diseases as far as I am aware but cognitive bias isn't a disease. It is the way everyone's brain and thus perception functions. It is actually an asset when it comes to survival and making optimal use of our limited resources. It just doesn't translate too well to being objective about certain things like the audibility of certain things in audio. Which is to be expected: There is no evolutionary pressure that selects humans for being able to objectively tell if some difficult (or impossible) to detect signal is present in the music we listen to.

Also, you say "pretty much endemic ". Well, as I already wrote, everyone has cognitive bias all the time. There is no "pretty much" about it. It is constant and permanent and thus it is nothing t be ashamed of. It is just something to be aware of and take into account when designed objective listening tests.

Alistair
Quote:
en·dem·ic
adjective
1. (of a disease or condition) regularly found among particular people or in a certain area.
"areas where malaria is endemic"
2. (of a plant or animal) native or restricted to a certain country or area.
I'll admit I wasn't so much focused on the pathology-related connotations, but more misusing the term to suggest an innate tendency. Kind of a mash-up of 1 & 2 above. heh

Understood that cognitive distortions can, at times, serve as well as sabotage.

And on the pretty much thing... well, I pretty much qualify just about everything. Usually. Above the molecular level.

Old 25th March 2014
  #1786
People should really stop putting all their eggs in the ABX test basket. One good example I can think of is audio quality of DVD vs Blu Ray. I think it's huge and man I loooove watching music docs on blue ray because the audio sounds amazing. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't DVDs 48khz and blu ray 192khz?
Old 25th March 2014
  #1787
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Can you explain what happens after the sound is detected?
I doubt anybody can explain the sensation of sound in words and a neurosurgeon would be best to answer that in a literal sense of chemicals electricity and neurons.
But my answer would be, what happens is we become consciously aware of it, I think thats the only real relevant point isn't it in relation to the discussions in this thread about musical enjoyment or sense of realism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
That isn't the same as saying that we are unaffected by those phenomena though. That's the kind of thing scientists like to differentiate.
That is true, but we might as well speculate that anything affects hearing then even if we aren't consciously aware of it, but how is that helpful or useful in this particular context? Indeed, is it even relevenant if we can't sense it? Maybe in a long term health sense (for example x-rays), but not in the context of realtime hearing.
The study you linked to didn't attempt in any way to prove the person was conciously aware of it, only to prove that vibrations of certain frequencies travel through certain materials, this essentially tells us very little on its own in relation to perception. Perhaps there will be a followup study confirming that such additional ultrasonic waves cause discomfort for the subjects being tested, or a greater sense of enjoyment under double blind conditions, but until such an additional test is done with better than random guess results, that study in of itself tells us nothing whatsoever of ultrasounds impact on our perception of music.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1788
Lives for gear
haha..

This PONO thing better take off!
I recently tracked in 192 just for fun.
And you know, its EXCITING!- Actually using your equipment to its "full" potential. The bounce (16/44.1 cd) wasn't really any better at all. Might have even sounded so different than the source that its a bad idea. And knowing mp3/streaming onto macbook is the end game, why bother?

But hearing it in full res 192 on studio speakers and headphones, feels good. REALLY GOOD.
And now people will be able to experience that?
And record companies will be able to charge for that?

OMG!!!
People might BUY an actual recording once every couple of years (that isn't the FROZEN soundtrack)

I Personally have only paid for 2 albums through itunes. TWO ALBUMS! I've owned every version of iphone! I know I'm not the only one who bought something legendary from their store and heard it sound terrible. I'll download free singles sometimes, just to see if I can enjoy the quality. And to date: Nope, I can't.

There have been SO MANY times I've wanted to buy, but held onto my money because the only convenient option is low quality. "lossless"...don't get me started... .

What if people like me, actually bought recordings?
I know I'm not alone...

Anyway, back to math you guys.

Go PONO!
Old 25th March 2014
  #1789
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21doors View Post
haha..

This PONO thing better take off!
I recently tracked in 192 just for fun.
And you know, its EXCITING!- Actually using your equipment to its "full" potential. The bounce (16/44.1 cd) wasn't really any better at all. Might have even sounded so different than the source that its a bad idea. And knowing mp3/streaming onto macbook is the end game, why bother?

But hearing it in full res 192 on studio speakers and headphones, feels good. REALLY GOOD.
And now people will be able to experience that?
And record companies will be able to charge for that?

OMG!!!
People might BUY an actual recording once every couple of years (that isn't the FROZEN soundtrack)

I Personally have only paid for 2 albums through itunes. TWO ALBUMS! I've owned every version of iphone! I know I'm not the only one who bought something legendary from their store and heard it sound terrible. I'll download free singles sometimes, just to see if I can enjoy the quality. And to date: Nope, I can't.

There have been SO MANY times I've wanted to buy, but held onto my money because the only convenient option is low quality. "lossless"...don't get me started... .

What if people like me, actually bought recordings?
I know I'm not alone...

Anyway, back to math you guys.

Go PONO!
So, if you are not buying recordings, how are you listening to new music?
Old 25th March 2014
  #1790
Lives for gear
Quote:
So, if you are not buying recordings, how are you listening to new music?
EXACTLY! I don't!

Bands come in to record. i hear them, they are new.
I ask them to bring in an actual CD of bands they like, I'll listen to their fav's and produce them toward a sound they are looking for. They often don't bring the CD, so we have to listen from their phone patched to the monitors. It sounds terrible. Pandora, spotify, youtube. It all sounds terrible! But it gets the job done, I can kinda guess how compressed the vocal is, and try to decide whether they meant for the drums to be that trebly and crunchy, or if its just conversion.

other than that... my wife listens to radio. My kids like Disney.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1791
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 21doors View Post

I ask them to bring in an actual CD of bands they like, I'll listen to their fav's and produce them toward a sound they are looking for.
How can you tell from the CD what the band sounds like?

Isn't it all garbled and underwater?

Doesn't it sound like rubber bands?
Old 25th March 2014
  #1792
Lives for gear
Its sounds like underwater noise, I mean I just can't stand it!
Old 25th March 2014
  #1793
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 21doors View Post
Its sounds like underwater noise, I mean I just can't stand it!
Old 25th March 2014
  #1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I'm certainly advocating this area of research (ultrasound) for further studies and I'm arguing against that idea that it bears no relevance (particularly when the reasoning for discounting ultrasound is based on a few experiments which aren't designed to account for it's possible effects).
The reasons for discounting perceptual effects of ultrasound began stacking up rapidly after the middle of the last century. There is a large body of perceptual testing upon which our contemporary understanding of human perception is based and little credible evidence arguing against it. Some of the latter may suggest tantalizing possibilities to some, but until there is substantial credible evidence that has been vetted and results and findings replicated, prudence suggests it should remain just that: tantalizing possibilities.

Like I said: I believe in Magic. Except when it's contradicted by Science.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1795
Lives for gear
I think the main thing I hate is the inconsistency. From device, to codec, to compression type, to yada yada...

16/44.1 is 16/44.1
That's what I like about CD's.
I make music to sound as good as it can in that format.
I figure most other producers do?
That's why I want to hear the CD.

Do this test:
stream Youtube from your computer, listen through headphones.
Later listen to the same video on your phone's youtube app.
If you are as unlucky as me, you will discover some VERY strange stuff happening... like mono and phase shifts.
Is it due to wifi? 4G? Servers getting overloaded? Phone's battery too low? IDK, but there are SOoooooo many variables in the tech today, I'm burnt out on trying to keep up.

Give me PURE SOUND FILE. DONE.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1796
Lives for gear
 
Mixerman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Tell me Bob, who is this "tech industry" you talk about? Where do they meet to decide what the plan is for the whole tech industry propaganda? Do they have a club? A secret handshake? Are they lizards by any chance?
Apparently, the secret handshake comes in the form of emails and phones calls, but THIS is pretty clear evidence that the tech industry has no problem colluding.

And this investigation just gets deeper and deeper into how many players are involved. It's blatantly illegal to conspire in order to keep control of the wage market, and if these giant companies are willing to do that, then really, what aren't they willing to conspire over? There's not that many big players.

So, yes. The tech industry colludes, conspires, and it's not a theory.

Don't be disrespectful to Bob. And if you don't know why, look him up.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Old 25th March 2014
  #1797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
That was some kind of ju jitsu, Kenny. heh
Old 25th March 2014
  #1798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
I doubt anybody can explain the sensation of sound in words and a neurosurgeon would be best to answer that in a literal sense of chemicals electricity and neurons...
...or perhaps a neuroscientist? In a subject with average hearing what/who is the final arbiter of the quality of a sound - the ear or 'the listener'? Is the quality of the sound determined before it is perceived or after?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
...But my answer would be, what happens is we become consciously aware of it, I think thats the only real relevant point isn't it in relation to the discussions in this thread about musical enjoyment or sense of realism...
I have a different viewpoint: IMO even if we cannot consciously perceive a stimuli that doesn't mean it has no relevance to an impression about a related phenonemon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
That is true, but we might as well speculate that anything affects hearing then even if we aren't consciously aware of it, but how is that helpful or useful in this particular context? Indeed, is it even relevenant if we can't sense it? Maybe in a long term health sense (for example x-rays), but not in the context of realtime hearing...
Is it relevant? I think so: for example, earlier in the thread Kenny and joeq were wondering why it isn't possible to realistically replicate the sound of an instrument...if that isn't possible then why not. Either there is something we psychologically invest into the listening experience (by knowing whether it's a real instrument or recording); or, there is information missing in the recording (or mic or playback system). That intrigues me - is it possible that the ultrasound present with the real instrument but not in the recorded playback has some effect? I'd like to find out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
The study you linked to didn't attempt in any way to prove the person was conciously aware of it, only to prove that vibrations of certain frequencies travel through certain materials, this essentially tells us very little on its own in relation to perception...
...that's true - the study does identify an ultrasound mechanism/pathway that is a component in hearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
...Perhaps there will be a followup study confirming that such additional ultrasonic waves cause discomfort for the subjects being tested, or a greater sense of enjoyment under double blind conditions, but until such an additional test is done with better than random guess results, that study in of itself tells us nothing whatsoever of ultrasounds impact on our perception of music.
I agree...it doesn't tell us that it impacts perception or not. It's apparent that ultrasound has an effect on the hearing mechanism & that's why I advocate further studies.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1799
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
The reasons for discounting perceptual effects of ultrasound began stacking up rapidly after the middle of the last century.

There is a large body of perceptual testing upon which our contemporary understanding of human perception is based and little credible evidence arguing against it. Some of the latter may suggest tantalizing possibilities to some, but until there is substantial credible evidence that has been vetted and results and findings replicated, prudence suggests it should remain just that: tantalizing possibilities.

Like I said: I believe in Magic. Except when it's contradicted by Science.
I'm sure similar arguments were (and are) used against many endeavours.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1800
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman View Post
Apparently, the secret handshake comes in the form of emails and phones calls, but THIS is pretty clear evidence that the tech industry has no problem colluding.

And this investigation just gets deeper and deeper into how many players are involved. It's blatantly illegal to conspire in order to keep control of the wage market, and if these giant companies are willing to do that, then really, what aren't they willing to conspire over? There's not that many big players.

So, yes. The tech industry colludes, conspires, and it's not a theory.
This says nothing about propaganda about the pricing of CDs. (Trying to prove something this way is just flawed logic). More importantly, did you miss the part that shows the price of CDs rising until digital downloads arrive? You do not need an explanation for something that doesn't exist.

Quote:
Don't be disrespectful to Bob. And if you don't know why, look him up.
I know who Bob is. He is not an expert on technology, computers, the tech industry or anything outside of engineering music as far as I am aware. He should not make authoritative sounding posts on such subjects with no qualifiers . That does not deserve any respect.

Nearly every time he posts something about technology, computers or anything that isn't directly engineering music, fields he knows little about it seems and often fields I am quite knowledgeable about, I lose a little more respect for the man. This is entirely his own doing.

(EDIT: My personal background is originally in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Sciences, I then spent a little less than a decade in the Tech Industry (Specifically the burgeoning commercial Internet world during its initial growth and burst into the awareness and adoption by the general public and later switched to the audio engineering and music world. Just so you know where I am coming from).

Alistair
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