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
  #2371
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
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.
But they are saying it. Thats where I got it from.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2372
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev33 View Post
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.
Eric, by "fail" I assume you mean "not supplant MP3s and other common digital formats," correct? Because as a niche, hi-res seems to be doing OK as far as I can tell.

I was happy to be able to purchase "A Dotted Line" in 24/96, and would be interested in your thoughts on what advantages, if any, that version may have over the CD. Any differences in the mastering between the two? Great work, in any case!

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 5th April 2014
  #2373
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
You don't think they should sound different?
Of course not. Haven't you been paying attention? For the last 5 pages?

No one can. Not unless they know which is which beforehand. Disregarding anecdotes.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2374
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

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.
That different? It is or it isn't. And if it is different as I think we both agree, who decides how much different, and whether the difference noticeably changes the listening experience?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Especially not to the buying public that is buying anything in the top 200 on iTunes.
Now you are merely agreeing that it DOES make a difference, but that people who can tell, and care, should just stfu as they're in the minority these days and don't matter.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2375
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael cleary View Post
But they are saying it. Thats where I got it from.
Who in that video mentions the Pono's sound quality being the reason why it sounds so good and not the resolution?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2376
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Who in that video mentions the Pono's sound quality being the reason why it sounds so good and not the resolution?
I'm not talking about the video, I was reading the website marketing info, also related interviews and a link someone else posted in here earlier where a reviewer compared it to an iPod. Its definitely part of the campaign.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2377
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
Of course not. Haven't you been paying attention? For the last 5 pages?

No one can. Not unless they know which is which beforehand. Disregarding anecdotes.
I thought we were talking about different resolutions. Not different convertors.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2378
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
That different? It is or it isn't. And if it is different as I think we both agree, who decides how much different, and whether the difference noticeably changes the listening experience?
I'm on the side of many of the "science" guys here who claim that there's no difference but I'm not going to argue the science of it. I'm not that "kind" of smart. In my experience, I have yet to hear a difference. At least nothing to concern myself with. If you don't like my 44.1kHz 16 bit mixes, you won't like my mixes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Now you are merely agreeing that it DOES make a difference, but that people who can tell, and care, should just stfu as they're in the minority these days and don't matter.
I'm agreeing for the sake of the debate. Even if it is different, it's not significant. Now that's my opinion. But as a recording engineer, I feel that if it doesn't matter to me, it's not going to matter to 99% of the consumers.

But of course, I could be wrong. But if I am on this one, it will because of marketing. Not sound quality.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2379
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael cleary View Post
I'm not talking about the video, I was reading the website marketing info, also related interviews and a link someone else posted in here earlier where a reviewer compared it to an iPod. Its definitely part of the campaign.
Right. But my issue (from the very beginning of this thread) has been about that video being 100% B.S.

Otherwise, I'm team Pono.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2380
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
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.
The problem, as I see it, is that, if humans are using ultrasonics as a way of localizing instruments in the stereo field then the recorded and played back media we have are going to be completely hopeless in reproducing that!
1. The mics aren't recording ultrasonics
2. The stereo system doesn't have the bandwidth to play them
3. Even if it did, they'll be in different places than they would be if they were coming from the real instrument. Just imagine how confused a bat would be if you played back his echolocation sounds from stereo speakers? He'd have NO idea what was going on.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2381
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
1. make better-sounding records
2. stop squashing them in the mastering
Amen.

If Pono sounds like a cassette....well, it doesn't. you need to prepare to be underwhelmed. And I say that as a proponent of "greater than CD rez"...it's simply nuance. If you're expecting high rez PCM to sound like anything more than a CD with clean windows...you're going to be disappointed.

THIS is actually the root of my issue with Pono and Young fronting for the Warner&Apple initiative. It's this BS hype that actually STOPS the world from moving to the better format of 24.96 or DSD...it's held up as some expectation of sonic bliss, where all is right with the world, and music sounds "like music again"...c'mon...it's a cleaner window--it doesn't make the view out the window of a back alley suddenly look like a the west coast with waves bashing against the rocks and the sun gleaming off the crests....
Old 5th April 2014
  #2382
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Not different convertors.
It has been possible to build studio grade (i.e. expensive) converters that are transparent to the human ear for at least 15 years. Less expensive 'bedroom' studio versions for 10. Audiophile grade (nice box) for at least 5.

Today the latest $5 part from Realtek ALC1150 has a S/N of 117dB.

ALC1150

At least 3 levels of magnitude better than the human auditory system.

You might say that it's not the SoC itself but the supporting electronics that make the difference. Except that these massive companies put out a data sheet with a suggested circuit design. Do you really think that the huge multinationals that buy these things in millions wouldn't send them back if they didn't perform to published spec?

The human ability to detect differences comes out somewhere around 2" studio tape @ 30 ips. Better than vinyl. Far below red-book digital.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2383
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
The problem, as I see it, is that, if humans are using ultrasonics as a way of localizing instruments in the stereo field then the recorded and played back media we have are going to be completely hopeless in reproducing that!
1. The mics aren't recording ultrasonics
2. The stereo system doesn't have the bandwidth to play them
3. Even if it did, they'll be in different places than they would be if they were coming from the real instrument. Just imagine how confused a bat would be if you played back his echolocation sounds from stereo speakers? He'd have NO idea what was going on.
I agree - there are those problems currently; mics don't record the ultrasonics in the necessary way; equipment doesn't reproduce them accurately enough to present coherent ultrasound images in a stereo field (or 3D field) - but that's not what my point was:
What if mics and playback equipment were capable of doing such (and I don't believe it's far-fetched to presume that could happen). Isn't it worth being open to that possibility and researching that in the pursuit of a more realistic and satisfying listening experience?

Isn't dismissing the relevance of ultrasound (in this context) akin to dismissing stereo because mono systems couldn't reproduce it or surround-sound because stereo speakers couldn't reproduce it?

EDIT - another way of phrasing the question is: if the technical problems (you outline above) can be overcome then could it be possible that the presentation of an instruments ultrasound signature alongside the audible signal might improve the realism of the listening experience (at least in principle to the point where it is worthy of further research)?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

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.
That different? It is or it isn't. And if it is different as I think we both agree, who decides how much different, and whether the difference noticeably changes the listening experience?



Now you are merely agreeing that it DOES make a difference, but that people who can tell, and care, should just stfu as they're in the minority these days and don't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I'm on the side of many of the "science" guys here who claim that there's no difference but I'm not going to argue the science of it. I'm not that "kind" of smart. In my experience, I have yet to hear a difference. At least nothing to concern myself with. If you don't like my 44.1kHz 16 bit mixes, you won't like my mixes.



I'm agreeing for the sake of the debate. Even if it is different, it's not significant. Now that's my opinion. But as a recording engineer, I feel that if it doesn't matter to me, it's not going to matter to 99% of the consumers.

But of course, I could be wrong. But if I am on this one, it will because of marketing. Not sound quality.
First, I'm not Kenny. (I LIKE the facepalm. )

But here's my take on this...

I have been able (on very familiar files) to tell a properly prepared 256 kbps mp3 from a 320 kbps mp3 of the same source (but not the 320 from full CD-A); it was extremely subtle (to me) and I mostly did it by listening for extremely small timbral differences in exotic percussion in very quiet spots. If I had not focused in so tightly on just one or two spots, I feel certain that I would not have been able to get anything close to significant differentiation. But, for sure, at that point, I decided to shift my own rips up from 256 to 320.*

To me, the fact that, in a tightly focused trial, I could differentiate, even if I almost certainly could not under more normal circumstances, and, when considering a rather small jump in data requirement (25%) to gain relatively high assurance (for me) of near-total practical codec transparency, it was a trade-off I was willing to make.

However, to more than sextuple the data requirement -- to go from full CD-A to 24/192 is about 6.5+ times as much data -- for improvements in sonic quality that few or none would be expected to be able to perceive -- is something that should give one pause, I think.

And if we compare that 24/192 to the 320 kbps files that almost no one can reliably tell from full quality with any kind of reliability, we are confronted with a rather staggering 28-fold increase in data size!

That said, HDD space is cheap, bandwidths are generally far higher than they've been in the past; many of us stream far, far bigger HD videos all the time -- I think it's time to really start thinking about ditching lossy compression for web transmissions. Keep lower bitrates as an option, to be sure, there will be low-bandwidth users and situations for a long time to come, I suspect. But I think, with the streaming music sector finally catching the public imagination, it's time to up the game.


(And since I'm now using a stream service with an integrated 'music locker' [though with a defeatable 'matching' system], I've started using FLAC on all my uploads to my locker, though, frankly, if the files were staying on my HDD, since I have the CD's, I'd probably just go with 320s. But, hey, storage is on Google's dime and they only count the total number of tracks, not size, so... there ya go.)

*In the interests of full info, I've recently switched all 320 kbps stream subscription services and I can tell a diff between the streams. That said, a spectral analysis done by another user of both reveals that my new service's 320's have less top end LP filtering; my former service had a roll-off starting in the 16-17 kHz range; interestingly, I felt I liked the old service's sound better; the guy who did the spec analysis liked our mutually new service's sound better (the observation that provoked him to do the spec analysis). So, codec and settings can make a difference. Even if humans disagree which is marginally better.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2385
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post

Isn't dismissing the relevance of ultrasound (in this context) akin to dismissing stereo because mono systems couldn't reproduce it or surround-sound because stereo speakers couldn't reproduce it?
i think the idea is dismissing its relevance because we cannot hear it.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2386
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Isn't dismissing the relevance of ultrasound (in this context) akin to dismissing stereo because mono systems couldn't reproduce it or surround-sound because stereo speakers couldn't reproduce it?
?? In the case of stereo vs. mono, one can EASILY run a double blind test to confirm stereo is audible compared to mono. Seriously Arthur??
Old 5th April 2014
  #2387
Gear Guru
 

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

Righteous will force you to work in classic album dynamic terms and make it sound desirable in the way a regular DAW mix cannot ever be.
Very interesting, but let's face it, anybody who pays $50 for a piece of software that "forces" him to do something, is someone who has proven he is willing to do that something without being forced! Your software does not "solve" the sociological issue of the Loudness Wars. And its very existence is proof that the solution to the Loudness Wars is NOT technological, but personal.
Quote:
...including even the compromised but sonorous world of classical vinyl records
You mean all those vinyl records that went through a 16/44.1 digital delay on their way to the cutting head?
Quote:
You literally can't have 'attentive engaged emotional listening' if it's mp3s
What Kenny's 4th graders and j_j's people walking down the street PROVE is that "engagement" is dependent on the individual listener and the musical content - not the delivery system. You prove that yourself when you 'enjoy' an LP where the quiet passages are buried in surface noise and hiss. Where is your dynamic range?
Quote:
You have to change the mechanism for delivering the sound, and then the different behaviors for listening to the sound become natural and obvious.
As I see it, the behaviors are culturally based and have little or nothing to do with the mechanism. I have been teaching undergraduates for 25+ years and I have seen the shift in cognition and attention-spans and the increased need for constant stimulation of today's young people. Students today are literally incapable of sitting in a chair and taking notes for an hour and a half lecture. This was not always so.
Quote:
Nobody is going to groove on and get lost in mp3s.
Some will. For the rest, all music is wallpaper regardless of the delivery mechanism. The people who will not sit down and listen to music as an exclusive activity will not suddenly develop the attention spans necessary to do so just because Pono sounds a little bit "better" than CDs. And remember, it actually doesn't.

If people don't sit down and listen to a record all the way through nowadays its not because LPs "sounded better" and it's not because CD's don't have a big cardboard thing that opens up with pictures and the lyrics that you can clean your weed on. People are different and the world is different. That the playback is also different is just a footnote.
Quote:
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)
When the golden-eared and the people on the street fail the AES studies, it shows that, at the very least, the audible difference between CD and hi-res is incredibly subtle - more likely non-existent. You are hoping that Pono will be an "excuse" to return to this mode of listening. You are hoping to hang your agenda on that 'hook'. Let's "mix for Pono". But the fact is we could 'mix for Pono' TODAY, right now without Pono. We have 96 dB of DR and we are using about 3 of those dBs. I'll bet you don't even CARE if the perception of improved audio in Pono is "real" or not - as long as it provides the excuse to bring back some reasonable dynamics into the music. Fair enough.

My point is that the excuse is unnecessary, and that when this product fails to live up to the hype, the argument for sane mixing and mastering will be set back by a decade.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2388
Old 5th April 2014
  #2389
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve'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, 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.
What have you done, if anything, to eliminate your own confirmation bias from the equation? Serious question... we are all subject to it.

Quote:
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.
As others have said correctly.. this is patently and provably false. I still listen with rapt attention to my 320kbps mp3 full CDs on long road trips with rapt attention and much inspiration. Nothing has changed for me.

Quote:
Everybody used to groove on and get lost in vinyl albums.
I think you are confusing things IMHO. I think that "used to" was due to the fact that you had to remain close to the record player to change the record. You couldn't just let it run for hours at a time. I also think people had a different connection to music due to less of it being released, plus the fact that there was less diversity of music so you would have more common ground to talk about it with friends. In short, EVERYTHING ELSE has changed about the listening experience, and it's a mistake to blame sound quality on the fact that people don't listen with rapt attention to a full album end to end. People don't do ANYTHING without interruption anymore! It seems incredibly short sighted to blame that on the medium instead of the more obvious (to me) answer.

BTW Chris.. really enjoy what you're doing with your plugins... but I have to disagree, Pono as an audio HD delivery system is a joke.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2390
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
We know how much teenagers know sound quality!!

Launch of Pono-doge_pono.jpg
Old 5th April 2014
  #2391
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
It has been possible to build studio grade (i.e. expensive) converters that are transparent to the human ear for at least 15 years. Less expensive 'bedroom' studio versions for 10. Audiophile grade (nice box) for at least 5.

Today the latest $5 part from Realtek ALC1150 has a S/N of 117dB.

ALC1150

At least 3 levels of magnitude better than the human auditory system.

You might say that it's not the SoC itself but the supporting electronics that make the difference. Except that these massive companies put out a data sheet with a suggested circuit design. Do you really think that the huge multinationals that buy these things in millions wouldn't send them back if they didn't perform to published spec?

The human ability to detect differences comes out somewhere around 2" studio tape @ 30 ips. Better than vinyl. Far below red-book digital.
My $100 D/A convertor is unbalanced, so perhaps it's the Mackie console I'm using to match it to my balanced power amp that I'm hearing. Or maybe it's TDM to Native. But I'm hearing something that sounds flatter to me than my Aurora 16.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2392
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I agree - there are those problems currently; mics don't record the ultrasonics in the necessary way; equipment doesn't reproduce them accurately enough to present coherent ultrasound images in a stereo field (or 3D field) - but that's not what my point was:
What if mics and playback equipment were capable of doing such (and I don't believe it's far-fetched to presume that could happen). Isn't it worth being open to that possibility and researching that in the pursuit of a more realistic and satisfying listening experience?

Isn't dismissing the relevance of ultrasound (in this context) akin to dismissing stereo because mono systems couldn't reproduce it or surround-sound because stereo speakers couldn't reproduce it?
Sure. But your point has nothing to do with Pono. If you want to start making music that contains ultrasonic information, Pono would be a great playback unit once you record and mix that stuff properly.

My thinking (and I'm guessing) is that mic and speaker companies also haven't seen the point. Otherwise they would do it.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2393
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
"It's vinyl quality!!!!"

I love it. I am officially taking crazy pills!!!!!

I do like that they're not mentioning the resolution of the files and they seem to be only playing old records which makes me think they've come directly from 1/2" or 1/4". And were recorded exceptionally well. Probably re-mastered as well.

BTW - I really love that the top two things that people are excited about regarding this player are:

1. Playback of ultrasonic frequencies (even if we can't record them)
2. The promise of unsquashed masters (which no one has promised)

I'm looking forward to it's ability to solve hunger in developing countries.

It's also not in the literature but anything is possible. Right?
Old 5th April 2014
  #2394
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
We know how much teenagers know sound quality!!

Attachment 393281
To be fair. It doesn't matter if they buy it.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2395
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Sure. But your point has nothing to do with Pono. If you want to start making music that contains ultrasonic information, Pono would be a great playback unit once you record and mix that stuff properly.

My thinking (and I'm guessing) is that mic and speaker companies also haven't seen the point. Otherwise they would do it.
Now we're talking REAL money! To upgrade the stream from 44.1/16 to 192/24 literally costs nothing. To remix costs a bit but I'd argue it's a good investment. To redo your studio so your mics can pick up significant information at 30 kHz, let alone the 90 kHz that 192 promises, umm, that's gonna cost. To change out amplifiers which have topped out below 20k forever, and speakers which struggle to get to 20k in most consumer systems to components that can reproduce 90k or even 30k? Not gonna happen! Sorry Charlie, if ultrasonics is what we're hoping is gonna save us, it's only going to be the top percent of the top percent that'll pursue it!
Old 5th April 2014
  #2396
Gear Addict
 
czoli's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
To be fair. It doesn't matter if they buy it.
What about the tweenagers? I gotta have the latest Katy Perry on Pono, cuz Neil Young said so mom! Come on Ma, it's only $25!
Old 5th April 2014
  #2397
Lives for gear
 

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!"? ...
Chris,
You used to have a section on your website devoted to the theme that dynamics were the key to longevity ("long tail" sales), using measurements of many famous real-world examples. I think it's a shame you took it down, because it sold the advantages of increased dynamic range in a very convincing way that would appeal to record company accountants.
Old 5th April 2014
  #2398
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
Now we're talking REAL money! To upgrade the stream from 44.1/16 to 192/24 literally costs nothing. To remix costs a bit but I'd argue it's a good investment. To redo your studio so your mics can pick up significant information at 30 kHz, let alone the 90 kHz that 192 promises, umm, that's gonna cost. To change out amplifiers which have topped out below 20k forever, and speakers which struggle to get to 20k in most consumer systems to components that can reproduce 90k or even 30k? Not gonna happen! Sorry Charlie, if ultrasonics is what we're hoping is gonna save us, it's only going to be the top percent of the top percent that'll pursue it!
How has vinyl managed to do it?

Don't answer. I'm kidding.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2399
Lives for gear
 
sleepingbag's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
"Wow. That's better than vinyl."

finally, something believable gets said about pono
Old 6th April 2014
  #2400
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
Now we're talking REAL money! To upgrade the stream from 44.1/16 to 192/24 literally costs nothing. To remix costs a bit but I'd argue it's a good investment. To redo your studio so your mics can pick up significant information at 30 kHz, let alone the 90 kHz that 192 promises, umm, that's gonna cost. To change out amplifiers which have topped out below 20k forever, and speakers which struggle to get to 20k in most consumer systems to components that can reproduce 90k or even 30k? Not gonna happen! Sorry Charlie, if ultrasonics is what we're hoping is gonna save us, it's only going to be the top percent of the top percent that'll pursue it!
I understand (and have acknowledged) there are economic and technical arguments against the use of ultrasound (in the context of our correspondence) but that's initially true of most technological advances and it doesn't mean it's not a valid area of research; however that isn't what I asked you about...I'd really appreciate it if you could respond to the points/questions in my previous post. Thank you.
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