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
About Distortion...
Old 3rd December 2002
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
About Distortion...

I wuz just wondering if EveAnna, Fletcher or anyone else knowledgable about this stuff could expound a little on the subject of distortion.

Such as the differences between intermodulation distortion and harmonic distortion, how they're caused and how they affect the gear we use, and how much. How to build gear that is low distortion, or what to look for. What kind of gear is distortion-prone and what's not so much. And how to cut down on distortion with the gear we have. Stuff like that.

Thanks!
Old 3rd December 2002
  #2
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb Re: About Distortion...

Hey Curve,

> Such as the differences between intermodulation distortion and harmonic distortion, how they're caused <

Both types of distortion are caused by the same thing: nonlinearity in an amplifier circuit. The most common type of nonlinearity is clipping, or at least a tendency to flatten the tops of peaks as an amplifier approaches its maximum output. Other types of nonlinearity can occur throughout the normal range of voltages.

Harmonic distortion relates to harmonically related components that are added to a single frequency. Intermodulation distortion always relates to new frequencies being generated from two incoming frequencies. By itself, harmonic distortion is not as noticeable or objectionable as IM distortion because the added components are musically related. But IM products are not necessarily related musically to the original frequencies, and so are more damaging to music.

> What kind of gear is distortion-prone and what's not so much. <

Compressors can add distortion - especially at low frequencies - if the attack and release times are both set fast.

--Ethan
Old 3rd December 2002
  #3
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Playing with distortion characteristics is kinda of a little art in itself balancing what we measure with what we hear. Sometimes for example, like in hifi tube amplifier output transformer design, we might try something that clearly measures better than its predecesor. Before running right off in that direction, it is important to listen to the thing A/B against where we were and see if that is really better sounding or where we want to go with it. Sometimes it is about "feel" and emotion. What gets your foot tapping?

So this new thing measures better but I'm not getting a sense of big ballsy bass like the old one that measured worse. Experience is what tells us what factor is causing this. In that case we had run the flux density of that design way up. So we backed it back down a little and rolled another one and measured and listened again. Ah that feels better, even though it was introducing just a touch of low end saturation earlier than the higher flux one. A lot of magic in gear comes from anomalies that will stick out in the measurements, if you know where to look. Knowing what to change in a circuit to get more of that or get rid of this is what I think artful sonic design is all about, if that's your goal. Sometimes a design goal is to build the cleanest, fastest, bestest numbers thing you can, sometimes you go for something that has a "sound"......

Not all distortion is bad. Think guitar amplifiers. You want a certain mix of distortion products: odd? even? IM? clipping? when? which freqs? in which part of the circuit?

There are so many parameters to juggle in any design. As a designer one has to set goals. Measurement goals. Sonic goals. As a manufacturer, costing issues will also come to play.

The issue with distortion is just one factor in how something sounds. But it is one of our fave things to play with... lemme see if Hutch will post something here on this topic. It's a cool topic.
Old 3rd December 2002
  #4
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

I know this should probably be on the "gear ideas" thread, but you all at Manley should consider building a top notch stereo distortion unit. It should at least have an eq as well, but compression and a gate would be a big plus.

Don't barf, but it could be in the veign of the Focusrite Platinum Tone Factory... just good though. If you guys end up doing that, I would at least appreciate a good discount on one of the unitsyuktyy
Old 4th December 2002
  #5
Gear interested
 

Hi
Where to even begin on this huge topic? Here is a paper written by Rich Cabot at Audio Precision that is about the best treatment on non-lin distortion that i've read: http://audioprecision.com/publicatio...pers/index.htm (Comparison of Non-Linear Distortion Measurement methods).

At one time, i used to compare the THD+N specs of various audio products with great interest until it seemed the numbers were getting tiny indeed and i was still hearing lots of difference in sound. To paraphrase Nelson Pass, through the history of audio there are many examples of a designer obsessed with a particular spec and products that are examples of one goal taking priority over all others. They all failed in the market place. Successful products have taken a balanced approach.

THD+N, IM, TIM etc specs can be considered the result of simple & convenient & generally ancient test procedures where most of the raw numbers you see printed should be taken with a grain of salt. I find that curves of THD vs freq, THD vs level, 19K/20K IM spectrum and THD harmonic spectrums all have to be used to have good clues. And these curves have to be evaluated against experience to know whether particular distortions will be audible or not and whether they might be considered euphonic or disturbing. Personally, it wasn't until i was knee deep in design and was able to adjust and choose various flavors of distortion, measure them and listen to them, that i really had a clue as to what it all meant.

Too often, the industry seems to get obsessed with trivial specs and misses some of the big ones. For example, in the 70's as big solid state amps were beginning to roll out, the ads were full of THD and damping factor numbers which were a legit accomplishment and each company seemed to be on a quest to out do each other. And by todays standards, these amps just sounded bad. Probably a 19K/20K IM test would have shown the heavy cross-over distortion but those measurements (if they were done) were obscure. In more recent times, we see THD + N specs on digital converters reaching sub -100 dB numbers - does it mean anything? Depends on the nature of the distortion and whether it is low order harmonics or high order, and especially is it in-harmonic or glitchy. We see graphs of flatness to less than .05 dB, and this is an engineering accomplisment but is it important? Can you hear a filter that is down 1.5 dB at 20K and can you even hear 20K? Meanwhile it is very rare to see an impulse response accompany that graph and methinks that might be far more important. When digital was beginning to compete with 2" tape, the ads focused attention to noise and even A&R guys seemed to get paranoid about a little hiss, forgetting that thousands of hit records were just made on noisy analog tape. Less noise & less distortion are fine goals and genuine progress but lets try to keep it in context. Our ears distort, air distorts, the speakers have big distortion numbers, and virtually all analog and digital devices have their obvious share. Interpretation of the numbers and curves require experience unfortunately.

Sometimes these 'flaws' become part of the culture. EveAnna pointed to electric guitars. Dave Hill told me that tape distortion is the sound of rock and roll. Tube gear is used to 'warm up' digital. Transformers are back in fashion. Maybe we associate some of these sounds with feelings and memories of music that touched us emotionally. A few of them can be shown to have a more direct effect. Transformer saturation creates odd harmonics of the lowest frequencies and our ears tend to use those harmonics to hear the lowest octaves. We end up with a circuit that measures flat, looks gruesome on a distortion scope and sounds a few dB bigger, fatter and 'warmer' in the bass. Cool, but we have to realize that transformer saturation is level and program dependent and the sweet spot isn't very big. Push the levels too hard and what was nice becomes flabby, mushy and loose. This is true for most distortions - one has to experiment with levels to reach the holy grail - it is rarely an automatic thing, where you just plug it in and "instant magic". This should be kept in mind when you see posts on these boards that seem in deep contrast. How a unit is used is all-important. A Strat and a Marshall obviously won't guarantee the Hendrix or ZZ Top or Van Halen tone. Don't blame the Strat.

Tube circuits have a variety of distortions depending on the circuit. Single ended triode circuits tend to create more low order even harmonic distortion. Push-pull and tube power amps have more low order odd harmonic distortion. In the right proportion, this can enhance a deep stereo image, and sound "realer than real". Too little might sound sterile and too much may get aggressive and harsh, and yes, this is level dependent. Just to show how complex all this is, all of these are are generally frequency dependent too, so it is not a number, it is a 4D plot of frquency, level and distortion and the distortion can be FFT plotted to show harmonic balance. Along with that, some of the classic distortions like tape and guitar amps have a complex pre-emphasis / de-emphasis EQ and several stages of distortion in series (which can be considered distortion on distortion on distortion). And there are specific distortions with inductor based EQs, compressor modulation distortion, and variable gain cell distortions and subtle distortions in capacitors, pots and even switches and jacks. I'm not surprised that digital distortion emulations are still a fair distance from the original - it will be quite a task to model them with control. We keep finding more too.

Class A/B circuits very often have zero-cross or cross-over distortion artifacts that sound harsh and brittle, make sibilance problems and are often responsible for the adjectives 'cold and brittle'. Most op-amps have class A/B output drivers and most are not suited to be line drivers because typical cable capacitance is a worst-case scenario for zero-cross distortion. Personally, i hate hearing zero-cross distortion every time. Clipping, whether tube or solid state might be OK in small doses and most likely to be nasty if over-used (except if the HF razzz is filtered out). I can't be that general with most flavors of lower level non-lin distortion - sometimes they are useful and it all depends on the amount, sometimes clean and pristene work better. Simply listen, tweak and decide for youself. These are all just tools and more color choices for your easel. It is sorta' like cooking with spices - too much of one can ruin the dish, not enough might be just bland, and some spices are just never appropriate on potatoes - potatto - **** it - 'taters.
Old 4th December 2002
  #6
Lives for gear
 
groundcontrol's Avatar
 

Thanks Hutch! Great post as always, you should come here more often!
Old 4th December 2002
  #7
Gear Head
 
John Sayers's Avatar
 

I heard once that Valves distort in the second harmonic - nice distortion....transistors distort in the 3rd harmonic - nasty....op amps distort in the 5th and 7th harmonic - intolerable!!

is there any truth in this??

cheers
john
Old 4th December 2002
  #8
Gear interested
 

John

Very little truth in that, kinda over-generalized. Sounds like somebody was trying to sell you a tube box.
Here is an easy way to think about it.

A signal starts at zero volts and has both positive and negative excursions. You see this whenever you edit a waveform on your computer. Imagine a circuit that just clips the top off the positive side but the negative side stays the same. This is not symetrical and results in even order distortion, ie harmonics generated are second, fourth, sixth, etc. The sharp edge of that clipping forces the higher harmonics.

Now lets say another circuit clips both the positive and negative halves the same. This generates odd harmonics. Symetrical non-linearities always generate odd harmonics. Again the sharpness of that wave change creates the 5,7,9,11 13, etc. A square wave is pure odd harmonics with lots of high order content.

The 2nd harmonic is often subtle because it is an octave up. The 3rd is an octave and a fifth, the 4th is 2 octaves, but the 6th is not an octave. Our ears are more sensitive to artifacts as the harmonic number gets higher. One technique to reduce low level distortion, noise etc is to use negative feedback. This forces the circuit to be very clean, until it clips, Then the circuit abruptly changes from clean to clipped. This is the biggest cause of higher order harmonic distortion. Op-amp designs rely on lots of negative feedback, most tube circuits have very little feedback. With discrete transistor designs it depends on the circuit. These days i'm favoring class A circuits that don't need feedback to be clean. They 'recover' from clipping very quickly too.

Doesn't much matter which technology, tube or solid state, each can be made to distort symetrically or non-symetrically. Most of the distortion you've heard, good and bad, is probably strongest in odd harmonics. I don't mind a little of third and fifth, but the key word is 'little'. Its those non-harmonic energy spike artifacts of zero-cross distortion that are really annoying. So its not really the tube/solid state issue, it is those resistor values and component choices that make the difference between cool and crappy.
Old 4th December 2002
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
EveAnna and Hutch,

First off, thanks very much for your posts on this subject. This is precisely the sort of discussion I was hoping for when posting this thread.

I haven't had time to study Rich Cabot's paper yet, but would like to make a few quick antecdotal comments.

Quote:
posted by Hutch:
These are all just tools and more color choices for your easel.
As a composer I can tell you that is an apt metaphor. I actually love distortion and use it often in varying degrees. Any interesting arrangement contains contrasting sounds and textures, the most obvious of which is the combination of a "clean" sound with one that is rich with odd-order harmonics.

Of course, for those "clean" sounds we seek true and clear reproduction, and for the distorted bits we want the good kind of fuzz. And it's gaining control of these where I suspect some knowledge of what is distortion and why it is can be useful.

I mean, we all are happy when we get a great sound on a recording. But what sucks is getting a great sound by accident, and not knowing quite how you did it, or how to repeat that success. This is why I like to know things like how preamps work, how distortion works, how convertors work, how dither works...these things that seem to have nothing to do with music but added together have a lot to do with the overall production value - that thing we're all trying to master.

Here's what I'm REALLY interested in though: The difference in sound quality between high-end mic preamps and lower-end ones, what it is that makes those differences, and how those differences manifest themselves.

Once again, thanks folks, great discussion. You guys rock.
Old 4th December 2002
  #10
Gear Head
 
John Sayers's Avatar
 

Thanks for that Hutch, I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

Yeah it's a bit simplistic but the idea came from an article I read awhile back where a guy sorted his whole record collection by the sound quality and he ended up with three piles. On researching the studios where they were recorded he found that he had created a valve pile, a transistor pile and an op amp pile.

cheers
John
Old 4th December 2002
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Ahh, Hutch, I see you were partially responding to that last bit while I was typing it...
Old 4th December 2002
  #12
Gear addict
 

Excellent reading....I nominate this for thread of the year.
Old 4th December 2002
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Going back and re-reading the thread, this really stuck out:

Quote:
posted by Hutch:
To paraphrase Nelson Pass, through the history of audio there are many examples of a designer obsessed with a particular spec and products that are examples of one goal taking priority over all others. They all failed in the market place. Successful products have taken a balanced approach.
That could be an axiom on how to successfully produce a recording.
Old 4th December 2002
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
posted by A certain somebody who had to take his posts down (red text by moderator) :
If we are prepared to be open minded and put the numbers debate on the back burner for a while, actually try to gain some understanding for what we hear and what causes it - we can use this knowledge usefully to produce some very interesting applications that actually reside and have application in the artistic/emotional domain that we humans are 'really' involved in :-)
A certain somebody,

This points to an interesting approach, but I'm just not sure if I know exactly what you mean.

It's easy to say, "Numbers don't tell us everything" (I seem to hear that a lot from audio engineers lately); unfortunately for those of us who have not built the boxes, we are looking at faceplates that are fairly well-populated with numbers. So they must mean something.

Bear in mind I'm not looking to spark a philosphical debate here. I just figured since this forum is being guest-moderated by folks whose heads are under the hood, they could offer some guidance to those of us whose heads are behind the wheel. We don't always necessarily know quite what's going on under the hood all the time, and your post would seem to confirm that, or no?
Old 4th December 2002
  #15
Quote:
Originally posted by G-man
I know this should probably be on the "gear ideas" thread, but you all at Manley should consider building a top notch stereo distortion unit.
I can only contribute two things.
1. I think distortion is quite often good.
2. The stereo distortion unit has already been done by Phoenix. The Thermionic 'Vulture Culture'.
I've only seen one (kind of luke warm) review of it as yet. There was mention that it could be a useful 2 buss effect though.
I haven't found anything as yet that distorts as nicely as my Arp 2600 audio input.
Back to your technical speak........
Old 4th December 2002
  #16
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Who? What? Where is a Vulture Culture? I thought it was an Alan Parsons Project rekkerd? Have you got a weblink for it?
Old 4th December 2002
  #17
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

There are a lot of times where I like to distort stereo sources like synthesizers and drum machines; even while mixing, it can be cool to distort stereo overheads and stuff like that. I've bought pairs of distortion pedals, but it can be a real hassle to match settings on them, and the noise can be horrible. I'll usually have to patch two distortions, two eq's, and two gates together to get what I want. Typical stompboxes aren't really designed with that kind of level in mind either. I want a hifi distortion damnit!
Old 4th December 2002
  #18
Quote:
Originally posted by EveAnna Manley
Who? What? Where is a Vulture Culture? Have you got a weblink for it?
There is practically nothing on the web about it. I found out about it when a flyer from my local audio rental company came through the door.
I've since found this review by UK recording engineer George Shilling.
Old 5th December 2002
  #19
Gear addict
 
mdbeh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by A certain somebody who had to take his posts down (red text by moderator)

Seems I have gone off track a bit - sorry. [/B]
No need to apologize--this is neat stuff.
Old 5th December 2002
  #20
0ne is digital is 0ne n0t?

heh

What I find scary in this field can be described as "**** goes in, but does it come out?" fear.

As one (it's not just the Queen that uses this term over here in the UK BTW!) "chains" up plug ins, one (!) after another (just like we did with analog outboard) it's easy to become concerned with potential 'math' degradation of ones audio as it flows (or crunches?) it's merry way through the various plug ins.

One can easily get into adding a 'warmer' after a 'warmer' after ...... a 'warmer' !!!- the original sound soon becomes merely a distant memory.. (This is also where the classical music genre steps off the train, it's pop music that is the genre where 'anything goes' )

Still, It was always a judgment call what hardware outboard to run gear through back in the 'old analog days'.

The 'wild west' / black art of plug in manufacture CAN get one a little worried.. Erik of Bomb Factory (uh oh!) posted up a graph displaying how a rivals plug in sliced off everything above something like 20K (or lower) - who wants THAT in the signal chain....??? Was the conclusion to draw

Rather than presenting myself as a seething mass of paranoia, I have something positive to suggest.

Is it possible that CLASSIFACTIONS for quality digital processing can ever be set up & be understood by laymen? I think the last thing folks latched onto was "48 bit precision" in the world of Pro Tools plug ins, that had a solid feel about it, or was that just marketing BS?

I feel we are in the middle of 'phase 3' of plug ins. Aural dissatisfaction from the early days of DAW sound I am sure, drives many in the quest for better.

The ears ARE out there! The ears say YES!

Hats off to A certain somebody who had to take his posts down (red text by moderator), Hutch and the gang for such interesting points...



BTW on a mix I have on the go now, so far - I am intentialy distorting;

The bass (twice)
The snare drum
The whole mix

Old 5th December 2002
  #21
Lives for gear
 
groundcontrol's Avatar
 

Hi A certain somebody who had to take his posts down (red text by moderator), it's a treat to have you with us.

It must be pure coincidence that my two equalisers of choice at the present time are the Massivo and the Oxford eq...

BTW (name deleted by request by moderator), I wonder how you can find the time to write these long posts while I'm waiting for my Oxford dynamics plugin...

Thanks to both (name deleted by request by moderator) and Hutch for sharing your insights about the finer details of audio. Am I alone in thinking that you guys should be asked to be guest moderators in the future? heh
Old 5th December 2002
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
posted by Jules:
One can easily get into adding a 'warmer' after a 'warmer' after ...... a 'warmer' !!!- the original sound soon becomes merely a distant memory..
Yeah, it becomes a really cloudy muddy and ****ty-sounding memory, that has absolutely no definition in a mix. I know, been down that road, it's a dead end.

And it reminds me of something our distinguished and illustrious colleague Mr. Bob Olhsson posted on one of these forums...

Quote:
posted by Bob Olhsson:
Every time you process an audio signal, it becomes more fragile.
The very act of recording a signal involves some inherent form of processing. So I don't believe it's asking too much to be curious about exactly how much processing we're doing at any given stage of recording/FX/mixing/mastering.

I have to admit that, as an artist, I tend to get a suspicious reaction when engineers invoke "artistic/emotional" type issues when describing technical processes. Maybe I'm just a tad old-fashioned, but I see tech tools in a cold light. I know my art, but I want to know my tools. Hell, I'm paying hard-earned $$$ for them, so I have a right to know how the f&ck they operate "under the hood."

If an engineer wants to be "arty," he can go ahead and compose a symphonic piece for all I care. But if one gets paid big $$$ to engineer, he or she should damn sure be prepared to answer a simple question with something a tad more informative than, "Just use your ears!" because all that tells me is that the engineer has cut so many corners that not even he can tell me what the hell I'm listening for.

That's not meant to offend anyone, we're just talkin' here right?

Great discussion all 'round.
Old 5th December 2002
  #23
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Hey yo Curve,

I am reading your last post in two different ways at the same time and I am a little confused by your message.

Are you saying you are suspect of this thread when I, Hutch, or (name deleted by request by moderator), bring the "emotional" aspect of a design into the light and then relate this facet of engineering and design that we find important and interesting to the empirical data and technical explainations? Are you saying the whole concept of "art", "feeling", and "emotion" should not come into a technical discussion at all?

Or are you saying you don't like it when other engineers fail to explain technical reasons for something to you and just cop out and tell you to "just use your ears?"

I think you mean the latter but could you clarify your statement for me?

This is a wonderful thread you started!
Old 5th December 2002
  #24
Gear addict
 
mdbeh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
I have to admit that, as an artist, I tend to get a suspicious reaction when engineers invoke "artistic/emotional" type issues when describing technical processes. Maybe I'm just a tad old-fashioned, but I see tech tools in a cold light. I know my art, but I want to know my tools. Hell, I'm paying hard-earned $$$ for them, so I have a right to know how the f&ck they operate "under the hood."

If an engineer wants to be "arty," he can go ahead and compose a symphonic piece for all I care. But if one gets paid big $$$ to engineer, he or she should damn sure be prepared to answer a simple question with something a tad more informative than, "Just use your ears!" because all that tells me is that the engineer has cut so many corners that not even he can tell me what the hell I'm listening for.

That's not meant to offend anyone, we're just talkin' here right?

Great discussion all 'round. [/B]
I doubt you're offending anyone, but it does seem like you're missing the point. Saying "use your ears" doesn't have anything to do with cutting corners technically. It simply acknowledges that music only exists as we perceive it, and that there's no objective standard outside of that we can definitively rely on.
Old 5th December 2002
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
posted by EveAnna:
Hey yo Curve,

I am reading your last post in two different ways at the same time and I am a little confused by your message.

Are you saying you are suspect of this thread when I, Hutch, or (name deleted by request by moderator), bring the "emotional" aspect of a design into the light and then relate this facet of engineering and design that we find important and interesting to the empirical data and technical explainations?
No. The "emotional" aspect of design is one of the key aspects of any design.

Quote:
Are you saying the whole concept of "art", "feeling", and "emotion" should not come into a technical discussion at all?
No, but...there should be a healthy balance. Just as engineers appreciate singers who have good pitch and guitarists who know how to tune their guitars, so do singers and guitarists appreciate engineers who "know the math" and as such can faithfully reproduce their performances.

Quote:
Or are you saying you don't like it when other engineers fail to explain technical reasons for something to you and just cop out and tell you to "just use your ears?"

I think you mean the latter but could you clarify your statement for me?
Yes, I mean the latter.

Quote:
This is a wonderful thread you started!
Yo, I'm just making like this is a cocktail party and trying to stimulate some conversation.
Old 5th December 2002
  #26
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Oh cool. Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me.

We iz all on track here. (reference to deleted post snipped by request by moderator),
Old 5th December 2002
  #27
Gear Head
 
John Sayers's Avatar
 

Thanks (name deleted by request by moderator), - I'll have a Bundy Rum'n coke thanks Curve

cheers
JOhn
Old 5th December 2002
  #28
Gear nut
 
madrigal's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by (name deleted by request by moderator),
But I just write off the top of my head and that last one took only around 45mins.
Wow! Have to say that post didn't seem just "off the top of your head" - very informative indeed!
As someone who originally got into digital recording because it seemed to promise the ability to do everything "in the box", this stuff is extermely interesting.

Like you said, "we need absolute transparency, accuracy and repeatablity of a digital environment" and maybe that's now possible on high-end digital desks, but in project studio land I'm often amazed at how DAWs and cheap digital stuff can degrade the sound so much. For those of us unable to pony up for the Oxford EQ, are there any cheaper products or just ways to better ensure sonic integrity?
Old 5th December 2002
  #29
You can get the Sony Plug ins on the TC Powercore card system.. That will run with cheaper Native based systems.

MUCH cheaper!

Look into it!

Old 5th December 2002
  #30
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Curve,

> I want to know my tools. Hell, I'm paying hard-earned $$$ for them, so I have a right to know how the f&ck they operate "under the hood." <

That's exactly what I was addressing in my original reply to your question. But nobody seemed to care and the thread went off into distortion as an "art form."

--Ethan
Loading mentioned products ...
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Alexi / Music Computers
7
e-are / So much gear, so little time!
5
whyuncertainty / Low End Theory
8
Darius van H / Mastering forum
25

Forum Jump