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 8th April 2014
  #2551
So how many quad sample rate fans here release their music at 192 already?

As we know, there have been stores selling lossless high sample rate files for some time. The Pono store will be joining stores that already have been doing it an have experience.

And, unlike getting into, say, iTunes, there are no barriers to jump, no fees to pay at some of them.

Anyone who wants to, right now, can offer their music via Bandcamp. Purchasers have a choice of formats, including FLAC in the original sample rate. (Other formats, of course, are downconverted by their system.)
Old 8th April 2014
  #2552
So how many quad sample rate fans here release their music at 192 already?

As we know, there have been stores selling lossless high sample rate files for some time. The Pono store will be joining stores that already have been doing it and have track records and experience.

And, at least with some 'hi def' ready stores, and unlike getting into, say, iTunes, there are no barriers to jump, no fees to pay. Anyone who wants to, right now, can offer their 'hi def' music via Bandcamp. Purchasers have a choice of formats, including FLAC in the original sample rate. (Other formats, of course, are downconverted by their system.)
Old 8th April 2014
  #2553
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Re: Test procedures

So I have been thinking about how one could self test themselves on the differences (or non-differences) of different formats.

Someone could put together a pretty simple audio switcher (two stereo inputs/one stereo output) that would tell you which input you were on when you looked at it, but had the ability to switch randomly between the two. A remote control would be nice.

This could be your ABX testing that one could do by themselves. You would first switch between the two and get the levels matched, and then go random mode to do the test. Thoughts?
Old 8th April 2014
  #2554
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

I am very late to the party here but here is what Pono has taught me and it's one thing. That is how simple minded/short sighted 95% of tech blog authors are.

I can admit that I often cannot hear any difference in a 320kps MP3 to a 16bit/44.1k WAV file. My answer to that is two fold. The first one is...so what. The second one is, I can't now, but I could when the technology was new and the algorithms sucked. Funny enough, I could tell the difference on consumer speakers when I could tell, now I can't with studio monitors.

I don't know if this will be the next big thing and I am doubtful. However, when non musicians start talking about lossless audio, FLAC, etc, I think that market is in our future.

Look at how far digital recording has come in just the last 10 years, for good or for bad. It takes me about .5 seconds to come up with an answer as to why...24 bit recording/24 bit mixing. I don't want to get too into sample rate here.

So if my MP3 sound better because of 24 bit recording, lets just say 24/96 for augment sake, why can't my 24/96 file sound better?

There is rarely a huge change in quality, at least in higher quality when a format changes. It's what people can do, over time, with the format. A better format for listening is a no brainer for me. Will I dump my MP3 player for it, not now but as the format is adapted to things I use, my smartphone has both the capability and the capacity to do so, I will.

It's like everyone who said HD TV was stupid, or the Blue Ray was stupid (not going back further as I am keeping my post digital). Both formats where not that great the day they came out but both have come a long way in a short period of time. A better format allows for more possibility in the future, you don't see the results today, necessarily. The results you may see today will not compare to the results in 5-10 years.

So all these tech writers can continue to laugh at this idea telling the world that they will never be able to tell the difference but as soon as the same format takes off, be it this or likely later, I imagine they won't even remember what they wrote about it.


I am not saying this product is going to be successful or not. Even if it is, it's not going to take more than .2 seconds for every manufacturer to jump on the band wagon anyway so that isn't really important. The price gouging on the format will go away as well, just like it did with every other digital format change. It will change because there is no reason we don't have it now. Even if the majority of people don't care now, they will once the right form of it emerges.

I really can't understand why tech blog writers can think of technology changes effecting the future, these things are not just gadgets that come and go, a true format change to the industry will change recorded music significantly, just like it has every other time it's happened, it just needs to take off.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2555
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
It's like everyone who said HD TV was stupid, or the Blue Ray was stupid (not going back further as I am keeping my post digital).
People have made that analogy but it's not a good one.

We cannot hear above 20k, so higher frequencies are not relevant (so far in human testing anyway).

We CAN see the difference with more pixels per inch, especially in larger screens. There are real reasons why people like HD better. It DOES look better on larger screens.

That's why 4k is coming out for video... especially for large screen projection systems, the difference is there (though getting more subtle).
Old 8th April 2014
  #2556
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So I have been thinking about how one could self test themselves on the differences (or non-differences) of different formats.

Someone could put together a pretty simple audio switcher (two stereo inputs/one stereo output) that would tell you which input you were on when you looked at it, but had the ability to switch randomly between the two. A remote control would be nice.

This could be your ABX testing that one could do by themselves. You would first switch between the two and get the levels matched, and then go random mode to do the test. Thoughts?
People have done exactly that... the biggest challenge is ensuring the two signals are level matched, and that there are no "tells" in the switching... i.e., if there is a slight delay in switching in one direction.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So I have been thinking about how one could self test themselves on the differences (or non-differences) of different formats.

Someone could put together a pretty simple audio switcher (two stereo inputs/one stereo output) that would tell you which input you were on when you looked at it, but had the ability to switch randomly between the two. A remote control would be nice.

This could be your ABX testing that one could do by themselves. You would first switch between the two and get the levels matched, and then go random mode to do the test. Thoughts?
Are you on a mac, have you seen this? It's free and makes doing ABX tesing by yourself really easy. I believe there are Windows versions too.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abxt...27554135?mt=12
Old 8th April 2014
  #2558
I don't think ABXer has a Win version but, of course, the free, Open Source player Foobar has an add-in ABX test utility that is actually a fair bit nicer and does a proper job of the statistical accounting for you. One of my 3DW pals has been playing with ABXer and the tally it presents seemed suspect, as he reported his results. But there may have been a communication error (as we were just exchanging emails and I haven't heard back from him on some questions).

Whatever ABX utility or DIY system you use, you can double check successes/trials probabilities here (up to 20 trials): ABX Binomial Probability Table
Old 8th April 2014
  #2559
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
It's like everyone who said HD TV was stupid, or the Blue Ray was stupid (not going back further as I am keeping my post digital).
I don't remember ANYONE saying that. Ever. Certainly no media professionals doubted the improved resolution and nobody debated whether or not the human eyes was capable of distinguishing the extra pixels

we are debating sample rate. By definition that means these differences are small at best.


Quote:
Both formats where not that great the day they came out but both have come a long way in a short period of time.
It's a bad analogy. Everyone could immediately see the greater detail in an HD image. Even when it was brand new.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2560
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
People have made that analogy but it's not a good one.

We cannot hear above 20k, so higher frequencies are not relevant (so far in human testing anyway).

We CAN see the difference with more pixels per inch, especially in larger screens. There are real reasons why people like HD better. It DOES look better on larger screens.

That's why 4k is coming out for video... especially for large screen projection systems, the difference is there (though getting more subtle).

Except we can sense more than 20k range of vibration data.

"hearing science" assigns everything outside of the inner ear to the sense of touch and ignores it. all of it. they also like to ignore stereo loudspeakers and room variations. that's an awful lot of data they are throwing out to get their maths. i am suspect and have been for over decades now. as the DSP industry has grown they have shouted out those of us pointing out this flaw in their base math.

Also - Bootsy taught me to never ignore what isn't played, or what you don't hear. Masking and blending of signals, especially over 20k, is also misunderstood and thrown out in the name of science. Just cuz you can't hear it isolated doesn't mean it isn't there affecting your other signals.

Make all the dog jokes you want -- if a cd of a dog barking doesn't interest a real dog but analog does, that should really tell you all you need to know.

I'm just a dawg, woof woof! Give me my audio data. If the artist put it there, on purpose or not, I want to attempt to hear it. I don't want some 1970's digital rule throwing my precious music data out, and I am very much over buying a compressed file, compressed for 1990's dialup modems. Apple should move to 24/48 or 24/96 and upgrade all of our files. They won't but they should.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2561
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
Except we can sense more than 20k range of vibration data.
Maybe, but it hasn't been shown in a/b/x testing.

You can a/b/x test HD vs. SD video and I guarantee I will tell if the screen is large enough.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2562
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
People have made that analogy but it's not a good one.

We cannot hear above 20k, so higher frequencies are not relevant (so far in human testing anyway).

We CAN see the difference with more pixels per inch, especially in larger screens. There are real reasons why people like HD better. It DOES look better on larger screens.

That's why 4k is coming out for video... especially for large screen projection systems, the difference is there (though getting more subtle).
I don't know if you are referring to differences in sample rate or bit depth. In my post, I made it clear that I don't think higher sample rates nearly as important as higher bit depth. That said, I still don't think you should limit it when it's just as easy not to.

That said, I am not the type to say if I cannot be hear something, then it doesn't need to exist. Strange example, but my family's dog knows an earthquake will happen 20 seconds before it actually happens, or I could personally feel it. Before we had that dog, I never felt strange before an earthquake. Now that I am not around my dog, I still get uneasy about 20 seconds before an earthquake. It's a really weird, uneasy feeling. Somehow, my dog taught me to feel something I couldn't already feel.

Kind of going with that, I think a higher resolution format will do the same. Engineers will adapt and allow others to hear things in a new way. I am not at all convinced that 16/44.1 is close to the peak of what we can hear.

My main point is that I don't really think it's important that this technology makes a change in how we listen to audio now, it's how we listen to audio in the future, how people record music, mix music, etc. 90% of engineers mix to the lowest popular denominator, both in format, and playback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I don't remember ANYONE saying that. Ever. Certainly no media professionals doubted the improved resolution and nobody debated whether or not the human eyes was capable of distinguishing the extra pixels

we are debating sample rate. By definition that means these differences are small at best.



It's a bad analogy. Everyone could immediately see the greater detail in an HD image. Even when it was brand new.
I do remember people saying that. I think like the CD, many people who believe the were an early adopter of HD TV but really didn't have it until more than a few years after it came out. It wasn't just the format, it was the TVs. If you have a "first generation" HD TV, you can see the difference between that an a new one. Maybe not everyone said it was stupid, I know many were not so impressed until it really developed. I probably overstated Blu Ray a bit, I will admit that, but the infrastructure was there. That said, it's a lot better now than it was at first. That's sort of my point, just because it may not be significant now doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

I can hear the difference immediately between a 24/96 file and an MP3, which is really the comparison right now anyway. I actually don't know if my MP3 player or phone can do 24/96 audio but I don't care right now because I don't have enough storage on either to use that effectively. Again, it's an infrastructure thing.


At the end of the day, either the people who thing the format changes is good, or the people who think it's unimportant will be eating their words, if they remember it. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but it will take time to see. I am using the collective "you" not the individual "you", same with "me".
Old 8th April 2014
  #2563
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
I can hear the difference immediately between a 24/96 file and an MP3, which is really the comparison right now anyway. I actually don't know if my MP3 player or phone can do 24/96 audio but I don't care right now because I don't have enough storage on either to use that effectively. Again, it's an infrastructure thing.
Please do an a/b/x test and report back! I'm not saying you cannot tell the difference... all I'm saying is confirmation bias can sometimes make us think we can tell the difference when we might not be able to.

BTW by MP3 I assume you are comparing a 320kbps? I think anyone (most people) can reliably pick out a 96kbps stereo mp3 vs. 44/16.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2564
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
Strange example but my families dog knows an earthquake will happen 20 seconds before it actually happens
the earthquake is already happening. your dog is more sensitive to the early tremors than you are. maybe that is the reason?
Old 8th April 2014
  #2565
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Please do an a/b/x test and report back! I'm not saying you cannot tell the difference... all I'm saying is confirmation bias can sometimes make us think we can tell the difference when we might not be able to.

BTW by MP3 I assume you are comparing a 320kbps? I think anyone (most people) can reliably pick out a 96kbps stereo mp3 vs. 44/16.
192kbps. I said above that I can't really tell the difference between a 320kps mp3 and an 16/44.1k. However, I used to be able to tell the difference between any MP3 and a wav, before the converters got better, which I said in my last post. That's why I think it's important to keep that in mind. I do wish I could download some 2002 mp3 converter and retest that, don't know where to find it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
the earthquake is already happening. your dog is more sensitive to the early tremors than you are. maybe that is the reason?
My dog is more sensitive. What I am saying is now I have become just as (well I can't really qualify that) sensitive as my dog. Or know in the same time frame, even if my dog isn't there. She somehow taught me to feel it and I have retained it.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2566
With the understanding -- hopefully 100% and all round -- that it's apples and oranges and without direct pertinence to the issue at hand, I have to concur that:

A) the first DVD replays I saw were definitely subject to 'jaggies' (I bought what you might call a second gen player and it was fine)

... and...

B) for some time I saw terrible HD pictures -- but it seemed largely because consumers couldn't seem to ever set them up properly... to this day I STILL see people watching multi-thousand dollar big screens in the wrong aspect ratio.*

* On at least three occasions I have, with the owner's permission (and the assurance that I could return the picture to the way it was if they didn't like it), fixed misadjusted aspect ratios in big screen TVs and had the owners' ask me to return it to the way it was, oval circles, squashed faces and all. People are funny.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2567
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
192kbps. I said above that I can't really tell the difference between a 320kps mp3 and an 16/44.1k.
Please test it just for fun!
Old 8th April 2014
  #2568
Lives for gear
 
RaySoul's Avatar
 

I love threads like this. Lol. Now, let me add my own cynical $.02…

One of the key things no one(didn't read the entire thread. So forgive me if they have) has mentioned about that video, was the appearance of Mo Austin. This is not happenstance. Now, if you don't know who Mo Austin is, I suggest you Google. But, in short, he is one of the(if not THEE) most powerful players in the music industry. This tells me everything I need to know about it. What's that? This: Pono is the music industry's attempt to regain control of the sale of high-priced music.

In the video, they show us some of our favorite artists expressing their heartfelt enthusiasm about this product. And this is supposed to show us that, "see, artists really believe this is a revolution". It's an "artist-driven" movement. They tell us, without it, that "drums don't even sound like drums anymore"(LOL). They even give us a very scientific "underwater" illustration(LOL. I REALLY love that part).

It has been mentioned here about all the press Pono has been getting. Well, I believe that's the industry too. They want you to become excited about this brand new delivery system. Now, we finally have a reason to pay $17 and change for an album again, maybe even an album(reissue) we've already bought at some point because "it sounds SOOO much better!"(remember when the CD was introduced? They told us how much better the sound would be than a record, and it would be the same price, $6 or $7. THEN, when the CD came out, they were $20, even $25 a pop. Because, "OF COURSE it should be more expensive, LISTEN TO HOW INCREDIBLE IT SOUNDS!" And we bought it…).

Cut to the future. The interweb has all but DESTROYED the music industry with piracy, and few value the ART we all call recorded music anymore. And mp3s sound "so terrible". Why should anyone pay for THAT? Well, now there's PORNO(). High-priced, uh, I mean, high-quality music you can carry around in your pyramid(how many see what I really did there?), I mean pocket.

Will it work? Well, it's a different time than when we were introduced to the CD. So, who knows. It'll sure be fun watching though. Lol...
Old 8th April 2014
  #2569
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
My dog is more sensitive. What I am saying is now I have become just as (well I can't really qualify that) sensitive as my dog. Or know in the same time frame, even if my dog isn't there. She somehow taught me to feel it and I have retained it.
...suggest that it is dogs’ hearing abilities, specifically their sensitivity to higher frequency sounds, that allows them to serve as sensors for approaching seismic events such as earthquakes and avalanches. They respond to these sounds by becoming restless and distressed. Thus their ability to predict a forthcoming earth tremor certainly does not require some form of ESP or any other special sensory ability.

it is an interesting subject with no defined answer. there are two theories as to how animals may be able to detect earthquakes. one theory is that animals sense the earth's vibrations. another is that they can detect changes in the air or gases released by the earth. dogs have between 125-300 million scent receptors as opposed to humans with 5 million. a dog's brain is also specialized for identifying scents. the percentage of the dog's brain that is devoted to analyzing smells is 40 times larger than that of a human. either way, it is an impressive evolution of your human abilities if you have improved your senses just by hanging out with a dog!
it would be an interesting thing to try and prove.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2570
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Please test it just for fun!
I just tested 24/96 to 16/44.1 to 196kps MP3. Not scientifically, I wanted to do it fast when I had time.

The difference between 24/96 and 196kps doesn't even need to be scientific, it's just there.


Surprisingly, the MP3 was closer to 16/44.1 than the 16/44.1 was to 24/96. That may need to be done more scientifically but I still felt it was there. Though I am a fan of a future format change, I still would have assumed the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 would have been smaller.


Now these are all subtle and none were so significant that they would change my perception of the song I was testing but it was there. I am may be getting some artifacts through my converter that a better one wouldn't but I was surprised that the differences existed. Now this is in my treated studio through Dynaudio BM5a's.

Did a second test through a super old 4 inch mono speaker and I can't tell if there is a difference. There may, if I did something more scientific, but it was too close to try to listen for something. Now, that is a speaker that nobody who likes music should ever use though haha.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2571
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
...suggest that it is dogs’ hearing abilities, specifically their sensitivity to higher frequency sounds, that allows them to serve as sensors for approaching seismic events such as earthquakes and avalanches. They respond to these sounds by becoming restless and distressed. Thus their ability to predict a forthcoming earth tremor certainly does not require some form of ESP or any other special sensory ability.

it is an interesting subject with no defined answer. there are two theories as to how animals may be able to detect earthquakes. one theory is that animals sense the earth's vibrations. another is that they can detect changes in the air or gases released by the earth. dogs have between 125-300 million scent receptors as opposed to humans with 5 million. a dog's brain is also specialized for identifying scents. the percentage of the dog's brain that is devoted to analyzing smells is 40 times larger than that of a human. either way, it is an impressive evolution of your human abilities if you have improved your senses just by hanging out with a dog!
it would be an interesting thing to try and prove.
Well, dogs can detect seizures much earlier than humans can, be it the person who is having one, or a doctor who treats it. That is just behavior and very minor, to my knowledge, but noticeable to dogs, not in humans, even the ones who treat seizures.


There is no denying my dog can hear more than me, sense more than me, etc. I do want to make it clear that my point is my dog was able to teach me, some how, to gain some of that perception that I did not have before my dog. I now have it without my dog.

It's not about my dog teaching me, it's about the fact I am able to learn quite simply and retain that. My dog didn't communicate it to me, she merely illustrated behavior. So if my dog can teach me that by just me being in her presence, it's my opinion that the same can be applied to audio. An engineer could, with higher resolution, "teach" the listener to hear better, hear differently, and a higher resolution would allow them to hear the difference. That's basically what engineers do now, in a sense, though that may not be the intention. My theory is that the more engineers are able to take advantage of a higher resolution format, and start making difference decisions when the lowest common denominator is much higher than MP3's and hopefully ear buds, they will mix differently and thus, IMO, improve music. It's not the higher resolution format, it's the adaptation to a higher resolution format.



Sorry, didn't mean to bring my dog into the discussion to this point haha.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2572
Lives for gear
 

Please, let's keep image/video format analogies out of this discussion since they will only do harm. I'd suggest we keep analogies at the minimum, they might have been a valid tool in ancient times but not anymore.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I don't remember ANYONE saying that. Ever. Certainly no media professionals doubted the improved resolution and nobody debated whether or not the human eyes was capable of distinguishing the extra pixels
But there is a very real debate in stills camera technology.
Seasoned professionals say the chip technology we had about five years ago is all we need. Cameras have evolved way beyond the skill set of most photographers. And yet there are websites dedicated to A/B testing of different camera chips, lenses, camera bodies, pixel counts.
Let's not forget most of the greatest photographic images of all time were taken with lower resolution cameras using lower resolution film stock. Some iconic images were taken with consumer point and shoot.
Just like amazing albums have been made on early 2 track tape, or later on ADAT.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2574
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But there is a very real debate in stills camera technology.
Seasoned professionals say the chip technology we had about five years ago is all we need.
There are reasons why more pixels are better, related to cropping, zooming, enlarging, etc. IMHO, those are real practical reasons that exist in the photo (and video) world. Those don't exist in the audio world.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2575
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
I just tested 24/96 to 16/44.1 to 196kps MP3. Not scientifically, I wanted to do it fast when I had time.
Not to be "that guy" but you have really only tested your confirmation bias unless you used an a/b/x tester..
Old 8th April 2014
  #2576
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Not to be "that guy" but you have really only tested your confirmation bias unless you used an a/b/x tester..
Is there any software you recommend that can do this?
Old 8th April 2014
  #2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
There are reasons why more pixels are better, related to cropping, zooming, enlarging, etc.
Yes, I'm saying that many seasoned commentators say we reached the point where the pixels were enough a few years ago. And that announcing new products with higher pixel counts is just marketing. The digital camera business is in the toilet actually. Sales have plummeted. But still, new cameras announced every 12 months. The 'best ever' camera you invested in in March 2013 is now supposedly not good enough in March 2014.
This is why it is somewhat relevant to this debate. There is a raging debate going on about digital 'quality' in stills, video and music/audio right now.
The smartphone has effectively cannibalised the camera hardware business as well as the audio hardware business.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2578
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Not to be "that guy" but you have really only tested your confirmation bias unless you used an a/b/x tester..
Surely confirmation bias runs both ways. If you already 'know' you can't hear a difference, then you won't, whether it exists or not.
It's ok to raise confirmation bias, but with you it always happens to be the people who disagree with you who are subject to confirmation bias.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2579
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
Is there any software you recommend that can do this?
Sure! I'm on a mac and there is the program "ABXtester" which is free. It will only allow you to test it 5 times per session, but run it multiple times.

I don't know on windows...
Old 8th April 2014
  #2580
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If you already 'know' you can't hear a difference, then you won't, whether it exists or not.
It's ok to raise confirmation bias, but with you it always happens to be the people who disagree with you who are subject to confirmation bias.
That is why you test it, to eliminate bias either way.
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