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 5th April 2014
  #2341
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
The real promise of Pono is simply the opportunity to present music outside of the given expectations for 2014 CD/mp3/streaming loudness, brightness, etc....I'm quite serious (and actively engaged in an attempt to push this concept harder through my software work). To be able to say, "why yes this track measures 18 db down from the latest pop hit. It's for Pono, you fool. You're not listening to it on the proper device!"?
the legions of people who listen to classical music on CD have no issue with 16/44.1. Most classical CDs employ vastly more dynamics than even the most dynamic pop song on Pono ever will.

Quote:
That is a really VALUABLE freedom.
But you already have that freedom. You could do what you want RIGHT NOW except you think you need the 'thing' of Pono to say to someone they should use their damn volume control.

Quote:
All the mechanisms of 'making everything louder and flatter than everything else', including my own, could be rendered obsolete at a stroke
.
I will bet you a bitcoin that Pono does nothing of the kind. Pop CDs are are already ignoring almost all of the 96dB of dynamic range they already have. Nobody, repeat nobody, is loudening their records because CDs don't have enough dynamic range! They are loudening it competitively!
Quote:
And I'd rejoice, because I know how to thrive in this new world of 'listen attentively to the sound of the music'.
This 'new world' does not exist. And Pono will not make it exist, because there is nothing in the existing TECHNOLOGY that is preventing it. It is a social and cultural and economic phenomenon that will not be 'cured' by a new toy.

People have other things to do now than "listen attentively". They will listen while they are playing a video game or listen while they are texting their friends or listen while they are on Gearslutz. They will listen while traveling 60 mph in their CAR.


Quote:
I am stoked
your are hurtling towards a massive disappointment
Old 5th April 2014
  #2342
Q & A Guest
 
ev33's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
If a sound is outside of hearing range, how is the brain going to interpret it?

Really, let's inject some common sense and logic into this. Some people are just saying things that don't make a lick of sense here.
I am just catching up on this thread (which has been spectacularly entertaining) so I apologize if I am repeating something here. I feel there is no question that ultra-sonic frequencies create "sum/difference" frequencies which can ultimately manifest as IMD that are absolutely perceivable. The "difference frequencies" in many circumstances are well within the audible range.

I did a listening test comparing between a 10K sine wave and a 10k square wave in my room. After spending a bit of time fiddling with the levels to get them as close as I possibly could, I could still pick out the difference when listening blind. I would have to turn up my speakers unpleasantly loud to do it but I feel confident that I am able to blindly identify them 100% of the time.

At the ripe old age of 45 my hearing definitely does not extend as high as it used to, but I am still able to hear the influence of over tones that are beyond the range of my hearing. I was able to perceive it as a "density" in the texture of the sound. I believe this is because of the "difference frequencies" manifesting as IMD. For example, if I setup 2 oscillators in pro tools, one set at 19K and the other set at 20K, I absolutely can not hear either of those individual frequencies. If I play them at the same time and put the Lofi plug-in on the sum of them Voila! you here a 1K tone clear as a bell!. If I remove the Lofi plugin and simply turn up my speakers really loud, I again hear a 1K tone. If there was a teenager in the room while I did this, their knees probably would have buckled

Being that speakers and headphones introduce a somewhat significant amount of distortion (in the 1% - 3% range), and they are the only means for us humans to listen to recorded sound/music, "sum/difference" IMD will absolutely be a factor. Interestingly, it is likely that people using less expensive/accurate speakers that introduce more distortion will more noticeably hear the influence of ultra-sonic information/overtones.

I just thought I would through this out there as a possible explanation for those of you that felt you could hear the difference between the 2 files posted earlier.

On the original topic - I am happy to see people trying to introduce high fidelity options for consumers but feel there is no question it will fail in the market.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2343
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev33 View Post
I am just catching up on this thread (which has been spectacularly entertaining) so I apologize if I am repeating something here. I feel there is no question that ultra-sonic frequencies create "sum/difference" frequencies which can ultimately manifest as IMD that are absolutely perceivable. The "difference frequencies" in many circumstances are well within the audible range.

I did a listening test comparing between a 10K sine wave and a 10k square wave in my room. After spending a bit of time fiddling with the levels to get them as close as I possibly could, I could still pick out the difference when listening blind. I would have to turn up my speakers unpleasantly loud to do it but I feel confident that I am able to blindly identify them 100% of the time.

At the ripe old age of 45 my hearing definitely does not extend as high as it used to, but I am still able to hear the influence of over tones that are beyond the range of my hearing. I was able to perceive it as a "density" in the texture of the sound. I believe this is because of the "difference frequencies" manifesting as IMD. For example, if I setup 2 oscillators in pro tools, one set at 19K and the other set at 20K, I absolutely can not hear either of those individual frequencies. If I play them at the same time and put the Lofi plug-in on the sum of them Voila! you here a 1K tone clear as a bell!. If I remove the Lofi plugin and simply turn up my speakers really loud, I again hear a 1K tone. If there was a teenager in the room while I did this, their knees probably would have buckled

Being that speakers and headphones introduce a somewhat significant amount of distortion (in the 1% - 3% range), and they are the only means for us humans to listen to recorded sound/music, "sum/difference" IMD will absolutely be a factor. Interestingly, it is likely that people using less expensive/accurate speakers that introduce more distortion will more noticeably hear the influence of ultra-sonic information/overtones.

I just thought I would through this out there as a possible explanation for those of you that felt you could hear the difference between the 2 files posted earlier.

On the original topic - I am happy to see people trying to introduce high fidelity options for consumers but feel there is no question it will fail in the market.
There's another thing you were probably hearing, too, a 20kHz harmonic. Most square-wave generators do not have exactly 50% duty cycle. If you get even a tiny bit off that duty cycle, you get the even order harmonics as well as the odd-order harmonics. I've seen this on almost all signal-generators that weren't done digitally using integral sample counts for the half-period and no antiimaging filter (which is of course wrong, but works in this specialized case). Even then, though, different negative and positive slewing has been seen to create problems. This is something understood as far back as the old 3 Rivers ADC/DAC which corrected it.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2344
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
your are hurtling towards a massive disappointment
Don't care. I know what I like and have always liked, I know what I want to do, and I know there's apparently a bunch of people 'with me'.

As promised, my software product to work with Pono the way I envision it: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-p...ono-video.html

And the legions of people who listen to classical music on CD are mighty sad when they hear SACD, or anything truly high-resolution, including even the compromised but sonorous world of classical vinyl records. When you can fall in love with a genre and format even though surface noise KILLS the clean-ness of soft passages, there's something going on that's being ignored. Classical on CD is something of a travesty. Might as well have classical on ring-tone on the grounds that when the ring-tone's not playing the background noise is literally zero.

Sorry, you're not going to shake me (or shame me) that way. I have been hating CDs and regular digital audio all my life and have done everything I could to lessen the damage, and I know what's being promised here. You literally can't have 'attentive engaged emotional listening' if it's mp3s and the whole emotional core of the music is stripped away and ring-tone-ized. This stifling of the very mode of transmitting musical intention has crippled the business and grossly influenced what succeeds and what does not, and altered the very way people 'listen' to music.

You have to change the mechanism for delivering the sound, and then the different behaviors for listening to the sound become natural and obvious. Nobody is going to groove on and get lost in mp3s. Everybody used to groove on and get lost in vinyl albums. That whole world is only understood today through people nostalgically recognizing that people USED to act like that and it was presumably for a reason… until now. Now with Pono the default mode of engagement with music can be the same as it once was, because the content will be there (not hollowed out, thinned and bit-crushed).
Old 5th April 2014
  #2345
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
And the legions of people who listen to classical music on CD are mighty sad when they hear SACD, or anything truly high-resolution, including even the compromised but sonorous world of classical vinyl records. When you can fall in love with a genre and format even though surface noise KILLS the clean-ness of soft passages, there's something going on that's being ignored. Classical on CD is something of a travesty. Might as well have classical on ring-tone on the grounds that when the ring-tone's not playing the background noise is literally zero.
The data would suggest that you like the euphonic parts of analog distortions.

One particular effect on LP's is the rising percentage of distortion as level rises. What this means, in a nutshell, is that LP's sound like they have more dynamic range than they do. You may prefer this, you get to like this, but you don't really have grounds to criticize others' preferences on the grounds of your own. Ditto "mighty sad when they hear SACD", if you are going to prove this claim, you need to provide some evidence involving these legions of people (I'd be one of them).

And, of course, there is the stereo soundstage enhancement from LP's as well, due to a variety of physical interactions including beam resonance, IMD that couples channels at higher levels in nonlinear fashions, and so on.

Sometimes that may well sound better to you. If so, that's fine. But when you say something unqualified like "something of a travesty" you have made a statement that you are presenting as beyond preference, and I'm sorry, now you need cold, hard evidence of the universality of your claim.

For the record, yes, it is possible to make an LP simulator that works inside of a CD bandwidth. It does lack both the background noise and the pops and clicks, but it does add some of that euphony. Have you ever tried such a thing?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2346
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Nobody is going to groove on and get lost in mp3s.
This claim, as well, although vague, is easily refuted by behavior that can easily be observed walking down any street with young people walking down it.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2347
So, here's a strange hybrid monstrosity that ought to prove something: an mp3 of a 78 record:

Mountaintop Studios - Murrow clip - Tindeck MP3 Download

It's from the "I Can Hear It Now" series by Edward R. Murrow, all about World War II with sound effects and clips of famous speeches.

I can certainly get lost and groove in it... am I all alone?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2348
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
This claim, as well, although vague, is easily refuted by behavior that can easily be observed walking down any street with young people walking down it.
I was teaching a class of young 4th graders just this week they we're all shaking their things and dancing around the room to youtube videos.

I really hope that we're not blaming the low fidelity of CD audio on people's less interest in music.

Because the business thrived quite nicely in the hey day of CD.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2349
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post

I'm quite serious (and actively engaged in an attempt to push this concept harder through my software work). To be able to say, "why yes this track measures 18 db down from the latest pop hit. It's for Pono, you fool. You're not listening to it on the proper device!"?
I'm not clear on how this would work?

If I hire you to master my pop record, you wouldn't smash it to bits and you would tell me it's for Pono?

Or would you make two versions?

And what if I wanted it smashed to bits?

As Joeq said, we could all stop the loudness war without this device.

In fact, this device will make it harder unless everyone buys one. Which won't happen. This is destined to be an audiophile device.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2350
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
at which point you're essentially talking about a dsd converter, which has little to do with pcm sample rate.
No. All modern PCM converters use a multi-bit quantizer (4 to 6 bit) running at 5.6 or 6.1 Mhz. This isn't DSD. (Many DSD devices use the same chips and go the other way, they bit reduce the multi-bit stream coming out of the multi-bit quantizer to get to a DSD signal. Either way, the signal starts the same).

As for PCM sample rates, there is no set limit to what constitutes a PCM sample rate, they can be anything.

Alistair
Old 5th April 2014
  #2351
Lives for gear
 
carlheinz's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Damn... I knew I'd get competition some day. I actually registered as ThreadKillah on one forum once.
Hahaha

I tried!
Old 5th April 2014
  #2352
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post

And the legions of people who listen to classical music on CD are mighty sad when they hear SACD, or anything truly high-resolution,
i am going to ask for a source to check the validity of this statement. the link i previously posted researched your claim, under ABX conditions, and the result was the complete opposite.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2353
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I'm not clear on how this would work?

If I hire you to master my pop record, you wouldn't smash it to bits and you would tell me it's for Pono?

Or would you make two versions?

And what if I wanted it smashed to bits?

As Joeq said, we could all stop the loudness war without this device.

In fact, this device will make it harder unless everyone buys one. Which won't happen. This is destined to be an audiophile device.
I see it as more of a consumer device. As many have mentioned Hi Res devices are already out there and available but only audiophiles use them. This device will most likely be the mass consumers first exposure to a hi res player and in turn their first exposure to hi res audio. My 16 year old grew up on mp3s and has no idea what hi res is. He thinks this device will be the coolest thing ever.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2354
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
This site has some fun stuff for self testing your hearing:

The 16-bit v/s 8-bit Blind Listening Test
This is a VERY cool website.

1. I thought the dynamic range 8 vs 16 bit was instructive in a silly way: choosing Gungam Style as the test song, there's no silence anywhere and only a few dB of dynamic range so, of course, there's no difference between the 8 and 16 bit files. That said, try the test tone section where there is a demo of decreasing output-there's a full scale white noise followed by voice over at decreasing depths. My tube stereo can reproduce 54 dB between "too loud" and the noise floor. My little monitors can manage 66 dB. To get a bigger range I'd either have to listen to the loud stuff much louder, or turn up the volume knob for the quieter stuff. Try it, but it does convince me that, for reproduction 12 bit is in fact, enough for my system (recording obviously needs more).

2. Try some of the intermodulation distortion and high frequency tests. On some test I've managed 15k at 57 years old, but at the dB rating they're using I could only manage 12 kHz. My system is quite clean in terms of intermodulation and other forms of harmonic distortion. It's worth pointing out that the argument that ultrasonic frequencies are significant because they inter modulate with audible frequencies is equivalent to saying that adding a ring modulator to all your sound sources is a good thing? Even if the basic theory were true, how are we proving that the WAY that the ultrasonic frequencies are mixed with the audible frequencies is the same with PCM audio thru modern playback as it is in the physical world? If it's done differently, it'll sound different and the 192 kHz stream will be WORSE for unwanted distortion than the 44.1 kHz.

So, ultrasound guys/gals, let's see some oscilloscope/frequency analyzer data showing:
a. High frequency, IM content in a 192 kHz stream NOT present in a 44.1 stream, sampled from the audio output of the system (not the input to the system)
b. High frequency, IM content in the real world
c. Congruency between the amounts and functions of the high frequency content.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2355
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
No. All modern PCM converters use a multi-bit quantizer (4 to 6 bit) running at 5.6 or 6.1 Mhz. This isn't DSD. (Many DSD devices use the same chips and go the other way, they bit reduce the multi-bit stream coming out of the multi-bit quantizer to get to a DSD signal. Either way, the signal starts the same).

As for PCM sample rates, there is no set limit to what constitutes a PCM sample rate, they can be anything.

Alistair
no, dsd is running the delta sigma straight, avoiding decimation, interpolation and another delta sigma. when we talk about pcm sample rate, it is usually meant as 44.1 to 192, but yeah it can be anything.

if the pcm spat out a 4 bit 6.1 mhz or double i wouldn't hate it quite as much, i'd happily call it pcm and move along.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2356
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
So, ultrasound guys/gals, let's see some oscilloscope/frequency analyzer data showing:
a. High frequency, IM content in a 192 kHz stream NOT present in a 44.1 stream, sampled from the audio output of the system (not the input to the system)
b. High frequency, IM content in the real world
c. Congruency between the amounts and functions of the high frequency content.
The whole IM thing as an 'explanation' for why ultrasonics "matter" is useless until such time as people can demonstrate the ability to hear ultrasonics (when they aren't TOLD if those frequencies are present or absent.) If IM artifacts are present in the audio content when people are listening to their music for enjoyment, surely are also present when they are being tested for their ability to detect 'ultrasonics' in a musical context.

Something they are consistently unable to do! If this is the 'cue', why does it only work in sighted listenings? No proposed "mechanism" for ultrasonic perception can explain away the failure of any individuals to identify the "with" and the "without" in a testing situation. It doesn't matter if they can SMELL the ultrasound. Why can't they SMELL it when they are being tested?

IM in the real world would manifest itself as an audible sound and be picked up by the microphone. No ultrasonic 'explanations' necessary. If IM is occurring in the speakers aren't the people being tested for their ability to perceive ultrasound ALSO listening to speakers?

IMO, these hypotheses are putting the cart before the horse. Why is it necessary to explain "how" something might be happening before it is shown that it is happening?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2357
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael cleary View Post
I see it as more of a consumer device. As many have mentioned Hi Res devices are already out there and available but only audiophiles use them. This device will most likely be the mass consumers first exposure to a hi res player and in turn their first exposure to hi res audio. My 16 year old grew up on mp3s and has no idea what hi res is. He thinks this device will be the coolest thing ever.
But the reason only audiophiles use them is because the difference is too small.

Some will argue that it doesn't exist but I don't need to take it that far.

The difference between a 256k AAC file from iTunes and a 192kHz 24 bit file of the same master isn't going to sound that different.

Especially not to the buying public that is buying anything in the top 200 on iTunes.

Pono might expand this audience, but not to a significant degree.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2358
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Couldn't much of this be solved by simply inverting the phase of a 44.1kHz 16 bit file and a 192kHz 24 bit file and seeing or hearing what's left?

Wouldn't that be the difference?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2359
Lives for gear
 
medearis's Avatar
 

Ponophobe
Old 5th April 2014
  #2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
...So, ultrasound guys/gals, let's see some oscilloscope/frequency analyzer data showing:
a. High frequency, IM content in a 192 kHz stream NOT present in a 44.1 stream, sampled from the audio output of the system (not the input to the system)
b. High frequency, IM content in the real world
c. Congruency between the amounts and functions of the high frequency content.
These are perfectly valid points (and very well put!) in relation to Pono or other current market devices...and I'm not disputing them in that context. However I'm still not convinced that this is the same as saying that ultrasound is irrelevant to reproducing music in a realistic and enjoyable manner: if a smartphone can detect objects using ultrasound is it not possible that the ultrasound information about a realworld musical instrument may add to the sense of presence of that instrument if that information is presented alongside the audible elements on playback of a recording?
Link: Samsung's new smartphone case uses ultrasound to detect people and objects

For the record I'm not agnostic about this but open-minded to the possibilities it raises; furthermore I think research into this may improve the enjoyment of recorded music (in addition to other general benefits).

I appreciate the honest and progressive way in which you've contributed to this thread; many thanks. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the issue raised above.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2361
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
But the reason only audiophiles use them is because the difference is too small.

Some will argue that it doesn't exist but I don't need to take it that far.

The difference between a 256k AAC file from iTunes and a 192kHz 24 bit file of the same master isn't going to sound that different.

Especially not to the buying public that is buying anything in the top 200 on iTunes.

Pono might expand this audience, but not to a significant degree.
But from what people are saying and what is being pitched, the pono has a better headphone amp and better da converters. Wouldn't this create an easily discernible difference if listening to an mp3 on an iPod and then listening to a hi res on pono?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2362
Quote:
However I'm still not convinced that this is the same as saying that ultrasound is irrelevant to reproducing music in a realistic and enjoyable manner: if a smartphone can detect objects using ultrasound is it not possible that the ultrasound information about a realworld musical instrument may add to the sense of presence of that instrument if that information is presented alongside the audible elements on playback of a recording?
Link: Samsung's new smartphone case uses ultrasound to detect people and objects
Ladies and gentlemen, we HAVE A WINNER!

I do not think anyone is going to be able to top this fugue of totally bizarre 'logic' going forward.

Let's put it to bed.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2363
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by medearis View Post
Ponophobe
I love it.

For the record, I have no issue with Pono.

I take issue with High Res as a consumer format.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2364
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post

if a smartphone can detect objects using ultrasound is it not possible that the ultrasound information about a realworld musical instrument may add to the sense of presence of that instrument if that information is presented alongside the audible elements on playback of a recording?
But we're not discussing whether High Resolution audio should exist.

It already does.

We're discussing whether it should make it into the consumer arena.

And being that ultrasound has yet to become of any use in the recording studio, why would it come into play for playback by a consumer?

Doesn't it need to be recorded first?

And we can do that now. But (almost) nobody is.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2365
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Nobody is going to groove on and get lost in mp3s.
Now you are just showing your age. What a preposterous subjective statement. Take a look around you - or maybe you don't hang around young people.

Remember the first iPod ads - what were the silhouettes doing? - Grooving! The advertising worked. The product sold. Massively. Consumers grooved.

So if I buy me a $400 Pony and spend $25 for 'Live at The Apollo' in 24/192k - its' gonna make James Brown really get me shufflin'?.

my my my...
Old 5th April 2014
  #2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
But the reason only audiophiles use them is because the difference is too small.

Some will argue that it doesn't exist but I don't need to take it that far.

The difference between a 256k AAC file from iTunes and a 192kHz 24 bit file of the same master isn't going to sound that different.

Especially not to the buying public that is buying anything in the top 200 on iTunes.

Pono might expand this audience, but not to a significant degree.
And THEN there are Joe Sixpack's amp/speakers and room.


I'm thinking that most folks interested in 'high def' audio who already have amp/speaker rigs that can exceed the signal bandwidths of CD audio, probably already have a way of listening to, at the very least, 24/96 and likely DSD.

But 99.x% of consumers out there do NOT have PB systems of sufficient quality to reveal any differences that might exist (to your pet dog, cat, or bat, in case you are a regular human with normal human hearing).
Old 5th April 2014
  #2367
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael cleary View Post
But from what people are saying and what is being pitched, the pono has a better headphone amp and better da converters. Wouldn't this create an easily discernible difference if listening to an mp3 on an iPod and then listening to a hi res on pono?
Yes. It would. I notice this every day as I have two computer systems patched into my system. One with a 3k convertor and the other with a $100 convertor and I can absolutely tell the difference.

But this is not how they're selling this unit.

No one in that video has mentioned the superior sound quality of Pono beyond the high resolution files it can play back. They're bashing CD quality as the problem.

And if the unit itself is responsible for such an increase in fidelity, that improvement would also be present with 44.1kHz files or even higher quality mp3s.

They're selling high resolution audio as being the solution. If it is the Pono itself, then that's what they should be saying. But they're not.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2368
Gear Maniac
 

One of them must be broken then Ken. Hope it's not the 3k one.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2369
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post

But 99.x% of consumers out there do NOT have PB systems of sufficient quality to reveal any differences that might exist (to your pet dog, cat, or bat, in case you are a regular human with normal human hearing).
Nor do they even sit in front of the speakers while listening.

If (as a mixer) you want to get depressed about how important you consider panning to be, go look at where most people place their speakers and where they are when listening back to music.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2370
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
One of them must be broken then Ken. Hope it's not the 3k one.
You don't think they should sound different?
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