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
Chamber Concert recording Condenser Microphones
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Chamber Concert recording

Hi all, this is a recent recording (extract) I made locally of the Ravel Introduction and Allegro as part of a chamber concert that I was engaged to record. This is a work for string quartet, harp, clarinet, and flute, but mainly featuring the harp, recorded in a medium sized hall.

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions, positive or negative, on this recording. I am relatively new to recording live classical recordings, although no stranger to studio recordings, and I hope to improve based on feedback. I was given a lot of help from TommyBoy, and owe him a great debt of gratitude.
Attached Files
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
Nice balance in the recording, although it sounds a bit airless and overly precise or 'pinpoint' in its stereo imaging...is it a mid/side recording...in fact almost sounds like a chamber concert base recording, with studio overdubs ! Maybe not so much airless, as a bit too closely miked and strident...for my liking at least ? The few audience noises certainly confirm it's a concert !

Last edited by studer58; 2 weeks ago at 05:45 AM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
Good recording, nice playing, just needs a little more room imho
Harp sounds real, this can be difficult to capture
Old 2 weeks ago
  #4
Gear Head
 

Very nice color of the individual instruments and the global balance.
I'm very curious about the technique and gear you have used to capture all this.
Well done.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Here for the gear
 

Hi, I only do classical live. Almost never studiowork. I think it's important to record the live atmosphere too. I want to hear the hall ( how big or small, what sound color the hall has etc.) where it is happening and as much as possible the musical tension that is there. The pin point placement of the musicians is then less important. That is also one of the problems that all technical possibilities can cause. You can record a violinist beautifully with all the miniscule details audible as it sounds on stage and then place it in the mix. But that violinist tries to play so that it sounds good in the hall, not on stage. So you hear on the recording all sorts of things that are filtered out in the hall acoustics. This does not do justice to the intention of the musician.

Hereafter follows my approach.

First look for as far as you have the possibility of a good place for the main microphones, which does justice to the musical aspects as much as possible. Then you check whether support microphones are needed.
Listen carefully to the room acoustics and try to estimate the influence of the presence of the listeners with regard to the reverberation. This may be important, for example, to move your head pair of microphones one meter backwards or forwards. If you are unsure about the quality of the musicians, especially with choral singers (throat sounds, etc.), place a second pair of microphones two or three meters behind your head pair. Then afterwards you can choose what sounds the friendliest.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Nice job capturing this; I love the image and I am guessing coincident mics. But, as the others have noted, the acoustic is very sterile - we can't hear the space. Maybe this hall has very little character or maybe you are a bit close to the performers...in either case, this recording needs a bit of artificial reverb judiciously added.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #7
Thanks, all, for the helpful replies.

First, some details on the recording situation. The hall is medium sized and I'd say somewhat dry. The concert consisted of a number of ensembles of varying size, from 4 to 15 or so, so I had to find a happy medium for the stand. The client wanted an archive recording with minimal obtrusion. Two seats in the center of the front row were set aside for me, although I could probably have asked for space a couple of rows back.

I used cardioids in a DIN configuration. Actually, I set up two pairs of cardioids on the same stand, with one pair set up in ORTF, and the other pair fitting neatly just outside the first pair in DIN without touching. They feed independent battery powered digital recorders, so I'm backed up if one fails. No power cables, no mics on the stage, and minimal blocking of anyone's view. The recording I posted is from just the pair in the DIN configuration.

I was fortunate to be able to test the setup in the dress rehearsal earlier in the day, so I had the opportunity to try different mic heights and distances. So for this recording the mics were about 7 feet away from the closest performers and about 7 feet over the stage. The performers were arrayed in an arc with the strings on the left, the harp a little right of center and farthest back, and the clarinet and flute completing the arc back to the front of the stage, all well within the SRA as best I could guess.

There is a bit of digital reverb on the recording, and based on the feedback from you all, maybe not enough. Listening to recordings of this piece on YouTube, there is usually a lot more reverb, but I wanted to stay somewhat true to the sound in the hall, which as I said, was somewhat dry. I don't want the client to notice that I added reverb!

One more thing I should mention is that I used RX6 to get rid of the noisy HVAC system. Maybe this contributed to the sense that the recording was too precise sounding, but it really is much better to my ears than leaving the HVAC in.

So based on feedback so far, maybe I should try to get further back next time, and add a little more reverb. Alternatively, I could ask to put a stand on stage with two omnis in an A/B configuration, to get more of the hall. I haven't tried that yet, but I see it all the time in the best YouTube videos with the omnis hanging from the ceiling.

Thanks again everyone.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #8
Gear Head
 
Simmosonic's Avatar
 

I just tuned in. Agree with other comments here; a bit too close and dry. If you could move a bit further back on the same axis it would probably sound lovely and have a bit more of a sense of ensemble - the current version is right on the borderline in that respect. There’s enough, but a bit more wouldn’t hurt!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #9
Here for the gear
 

I'll be the outlier here and say that for me, this is a beautiful recording; I certainly wouldn't move farther back. I think this divergence of opinion speaks to the thread a while back that questioned the cognitive processing of space. As an active touring string musician myself, I want to hear the instruments as they sound at a close range. As mics are moved farther back, not only do we hear more room (almost all of which have acoustic problems), but the size of the instruments become smaller. I don't want to hear a violin or harp that sounds as if it's two inches in length. Your recording represents the instruments at a believable scale.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
Your point of view is from the performer
This is not the object, we have to compromise artist and room.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #11
Gear Head
 

Could you give us an info on the mics you have used?
Very interested to know.
Thanks
Old 2 weeks ago
  #12
Hi Stradivariusz, I should have mentioned it before! The mics on this recording are AT 4041's. My second pair are Rode NT5's. I have yet to deliver a recording to the client using the Rode mics. To my ears, the AT4041's deliver a lot more clarity and definition. Both pairs are in similar configuration, but I have always chosen the AT4041's.

The At4041's were fed into a Zoom F4. The Rode NT5's were fed into a Zoom H4nPro.

But I should mention that at relatively close range such as this, the AT4041's pick up a lot more attack from the string instruments than the Rode's. And I have used a little equalization to reduce it. I think if I had set the mics further back, it would have been less pronounced.

Thanks to Simmosonic for his or her useful comments.

And also thanks to Brawee for his or her comments as a performer. One thing to mention is that my clients are mostly performers! I personally lean toward the performer's audio viewpoint -- after all, the monitor speakers are in their own room, delivering their own room sound.

Thanks again to all who have commented.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #13
I like this as is. MAYBE(?) a touch more reverb, but I love the result - it's clear like a studio recording, but you get all the energy of the obviously live performance.

If this is what first row sounds like, I'd have liked to sit there.

Perhaps it doesn't sound like a "classic" classical recording, but it still sounds great to me.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #14
Gear Addict
 

I liked the balance and detail of your recording, very good performance too. I agree that it needs a bit more air. You probably should have used the AT's in ORTF instead, DIN does make the recording seem a bit restricted. I also mostly record small classical groups and used a Nagra LB with Audio Technica AT4021/Cardioid in ORTF and EBS and the AT4022 Omni with great results. These mics with a 2 micron diaphragm have great detail and a sense of presence in the recordings. Can't beat the resolution they have.
Old 1 week ago
  #15
Thanks for the additional comments. I will see if I can alter my mic arrangement so that the AT4041s are in ORTF. But I have to admit that when I listen back to the two sets, I'm not hearing any significant difference in the stereo image. I think ORTF and DIN are very very similar, but maybe it's my lack of experience.
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Oh, and I meant to say to Tim Metzinger -- the front row isn't a bad seat, but it would have been better if you could have raised the seat about 12 feet, where the mics were! The mics are picking up a much better angle than the front row. I do remember one concert where I was in the second row for the Juilliard Orchestra, and the detail up close was astounding. Although I guess, 10 rows back would have given a better perspective.
Old 1 week ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 
DCtoDaylight's Avatar
 

Also coming in a bit late here, but first off, yeah, I like the feel of the recording. A fair number of the orchestral recordings I hear go too far in the ambient direction, and lose some of that delicious sense of how the individual instruments are interacting with each other. Of course, an orchestra is supposed to sound like one big ensemble, but especially with a chamber-sized group like this, I think part of the pleasure is getting a more-detailed picture. And certainly the quality of the playing and unity of the group comes through very nicely!

Coincidentally, I happened to record the same piece earlier this year, and so I thought I'd take the liberty of also posting a sample. It was made in a medium-sized church with a Faulkner 47/67 array (Line Audio CM-3 sub-cardioids and DPA 4006A omnis), flown about 8.5 feet above the stage and 6.5 feet back from the conductor's podium. The mix has the sub-cards about 8 dB lower than the omnis, in part because the harpist was fairly assertive and using more of the sub-cards would have over-emphasized it. So maybe I'm undermining my own comments above, but hopefully it's listenable.

And y'know, that Ravel piece is awfully nice given that it was basically a commercial for a company that had gone into the harp business!
Attached Files

RavelSample.mp3 (6.84 MB, 612 views)

Old 1 week ago
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCtoDaylight View Post
Also coming in a bit late here, but first off, yeah, I like the feel of the recording. A fair number of the orchestral recordings I hear go too far in the ambient direction, and lose some of that delicious sense of how the individual instruments are interacting with each other. Of course, an orchestra is supposed to sound like one big ensemble, but especially with a chamber-sized group like this, I think part of the pleasure is getting a more-detailed picture. And certainly the quality of the playing and unity of the group comes through very nicely!

Coincidentally, I happened to record the same piece earlier this year, and so I thought I'd take the liberty of also posting a sample. It was made in a medium-sized church with a Faulkner 47/67 array (Line Audio CM-3 sub-cardioids and DPA 4006A omnis), flown about 8.5 feet above the stage and 6.5 feet back from the conductor's podium. The mix has the sub-cards about 8 dB lower than the omnis, in part because the harpist was fairly assertive and using more of the sub-cards would have over-emphasized it. So maybe I'm undermining my own comments above, but hopefully it's listenable.

And y'know, that Ravel piece is awfully nice given that it was basically a commercial for a company that had gone into the harp business!
This has a little more "room" and is quite nice as well. More room than this would be too much, in my opinion.
Old 1 week ago
  #19
Hi DCtoDaylight, thanks, it's really helpful for me to compare recordings. Love that piece as well! I love your recording, and the players. I guess in your case the harpist was right up front, whereas in my case, the harpist was toward the back of the arc of performers.

Couple of questions, first. This is not the Faulkner with figure-of-eights, right? It's a pair of cardioids in ORTF (right?) and a pair of omnis farther out in A/B. Did I get that right? If I understood your comments, then the omnis were the mains. And the other mics were actually sub-cardioid. So appreciate any clarifications.

Also, given you were about as close to the ensemble as I was, then you must have added reverb in post. More reverb than I did, too. Or maybe not? Did the omnis pick up the church sound?

The other thing I'm wondering is what you used in post-processing. First, your recording is a little louder, which I think can be explained mainly by the fact that I didn't normalize all the way to zero, because I was trying to keep the total concert in relative perspective (and this was not the loudest piece). Second, did you do some equalizing? Your recording is not as bright as mine? Third, as mentioned above, what reverb?

Thanks again, very useful. I'm thinking I like yours better than mine. I'll say mine pinpoints stereo position a little better, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Old 1 week ago
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Early21 View Post
Hi all, this is a recent recording (extract) I made locally of the Ravel Introduction and Allegro as part of a chamber concert that I was engaged to record. This is a work for string quartet, harp, clarinet, and flute, but mainly featuring the harp, recorded in a medium sized hall.

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions, positive or negative, on this recording. I am relatively new to recording live classical recordings, although no stranger to studio recordings, and I hope to improve based on feedback. I was given a lot of help from TommyBoy, and owe him a great debt of gratitude.
Very nice, I like this. A little bit close up for a medium hall, but it taste really good.
Old 1 week ago
  #21
Lives for gear
 
DCtoDaylight's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Early21 View Post
Hi DCtoDaylight, thanks, it's really helpful for me to compare recordings. Love that piece as well! I love your recording, and the players. I guess in your case the harpist was right up front, whereas in my case, the harpist was toward the back of the arc of performers.

Couple of questions, first. This is not the Faulkner with figure-of-eights, right? It's a pair of cardioids in ORTF (right?) and a pair of omnis farther out in A/B. Did I get that right? If I understood your comments, then the omnis were the mains. And the other mics were actually sub-cardioid. So appreciate any clarifications.

Also, given you were about as close to the ensemble as I was, then you must have added reverb in post. More reverb than I did, too. Or maybe not? Did the omnis pick up the church sound?

The other thing I'm wondering is what you used in post-processing. First, your recording is a little louder, which I think can be explained mainly by the fact that I didn't normalize all the way to zero, because I was trying to keep the total concert in relative perspective (and this was not the loudest piece). Second, did you do some equalizing? Your recording is not as bright as mine? Third, as mentioned above, what reverb?

Thanks again, very useful. I'm thinking I like yours better than mine. I'll say mine pinpoints stereo position a little better, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Hey, thanks for the kind words! I felt fortunate to be on hand for that performance; the harpist is a phenomenal musician. And yes, she was up front in a "soloist" position, which makes a big difference in how the instrument projects and is picked up.

The "other Faulkner" array is a pair of subcardioids at 90 degrees, 47cm spacing, and omnis also at 90 degrees, 67cm spacing, all on one bar with the capsules in a line. There are a bunch of discussions about it on this board; this one has a number of samples in it: Faulkner II Phased Array PANNING.

It's similar in some ways to a "mains-and-flankers" concept, but one of the nice things about it is that either pair can be mixed as the "mains" - that gives it a lot of flexibility in situations where you can only have one setup but need to accommodate different instrumentation and seating arrangements on different pieces. A related concept is what's come to be known as the "Boojum/Jnorman array," which uses cardioids and AB omnis - some possibly helpful samples here: Three Mixes: A Boojum/JNorman case study.

On the other items - the reverb is all natural. Having the omnis mixed higher accentuated it; as noted earlier, the harp position in relation to the mics meant that the sub-cards had a ton of harp in them, so I went more omni-heavy than I might have chosen in an ideal situation (I agree with TMetzinger that it's about as much as one would want). The only EQ was a rolloff below about 95Hz, to get rid of some low-end mud.

On the loudness - I usually mix each individual piece to be close to zero, figuring that they might not always be listened to in a full concert sequence. If a piece is especially quiet I'll leave a few extra dBs. I don't know whether this lines up with standard practice or not!

And yes, I agree about the different stereo imaging in the two recordings. Cardioids alone are great at placement.

Thanks for starting this discussion - always a lot to be learned by comparing notes!
Old 1 week ago
  #22
First, thanks to 9sbean for comments.

Second thanks to DCtoDaylight for elucidation on my questions, on Faulkner, and everything else. I am thinking about this configuration, and wondering if the omnis alone would have been equally good, or maybe even better, considering the stereo image, which is perhaps a little less clear mixing the two mains?

And I do agree that it's wonderful to gather the thoughts and ideas of other recorders out there. Thanks everyone.
Old 1 week ago
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Early21 View Post
Second thanks to DCtoDaylight for elucidation on my questions, on Faulkner, and everything else. I am thinking about this configuration, and wondering if the omnis alone would have been equally good, or maybe even better, considering the stereo image, which is perhaps a little less clear mixing the two mains?
I frequently use a near-coincident + omnis phased array/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it, and find that rarely does the stereo image become less clear when mixing the two main pairs, in an appropriately selected ratio, at least.

I adore the desirable qualities of spaced omnis, but will concede that spaced omnis alone are rarely offering a very precise stereo image such that blending in a time-aligned pair of directional microphones will make it LESS clear. Sometimes if both pairs are used at equal (or near equal) level, the imaging can become a bit confused -- this is a valid point for sure. But I think this is partly why it is typical for most users to choose a "primary" pair which best suits the situation and then blend in the other at least 6dB or more down. I think I know what you are describing about mixing the pairs, but if it doesn't sound too pedantic I would call it a less "pure" sound than either pair on its own, rather than a less "clear" stereo image. But sometimes the compromise in purity is desirable of course. Take with a grain of salt, needless to say, this off-the-cuff attempt at the impossible task of using a few words to accurately characterize subjective sound phenomena

On a related note, I had pretty good results several months ago with yet another mutation of this approach, combining both (hah!) "Faulkner" arrays -- the 20cm spaced figure 8's on the same bar as a pair of 67cm spaced omnis. It was in an extremely large and reverberant space and worked rather well -- the figure 8's minimized floor and wall reflections to provide a drier pickup from a fair distance than a pair of cardioids or subcardioids would have...
Old 1 week ago
  #24
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukedamrosch View Post
On a related note, I had pretty good results several months ago with yet another mutation of this approach, combining both (hah!) "Faulkner" arrays -- the 20cm spaced figure 8's on the same bar as a pair of 67cm spaced omnis. It was in an extremely large and reverberant space and worked rather well -- the figure 8's minimized floor and wall reflections to provide a drier pickup from a fair distance than a pair of cardioids or subcardioids would have...
Interesting approach...one pair aims to maximize the exposure to the acoustic of the event, while the fig 8 pair aims to minimize the sidewall/floor contributions (while retaining the rear wall node of course)

I'm guessing it would give you an even more pronounced differentiation of pickup (between the pairs) than the centre ORTF/NOS and outer omnis of the Faulkner/Boojum/Norman phased array ?

I recall Tony Faulkner saying that the 8" spaced fig pair alone allowed him to move the array further back from the performers and still retain a drier direct sound than typical ORTF or AB omni pairs alone....and to rescue a recording from sounding as if it were made in the Taj Mahal !

Aha....but.... TF uses screens too....see 16:50 to 19:00 and 30:40 to 32:30 here YouTube

Not very practical for a concert of course....different matter for a dedicated session for radio or CD.

Actually, I watch the above video several times a year...just to refresh what's important in location recording ! More gems per minute in that one than most on YouTube
Old 1 week ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Tommy-boy's Avatar
 

Hi Early,

Nice job with the recording. I agree with some of the other comments that it could use a bit more 'verb/air, but I'm not sure I'd want to move the mics back as you'd loose some of the excitement and detail that you've captured. My thoughts would be to add a bit of reverb in post or consider switching to an AB next time out.

To fill peeps in, Early and had some dialog on another forum where it was his first foray into this type of recording. I suggested going with ORTF as a starting point and then branching out from there. The rationale being that, although ORTF might not be the best choice in a given situation, it probably will sound decent. ORTF almost never sucks. I also suggested redundancy with recorders/mics if at possible. Using the ORTF as the fail safe, then experimenting with the other arrays as opportunities allowed. Looks like DIN was chosen here. We also discussed stereo imaging, mic placement, and a bunch of related stuff.

Early - you have done a phenomenal job! You should be thrilled with this recording. Looks like you're not using 2020s any more, but have opted for 4041s. They sound great. I'm glad you've posted the audio because I've wanted to hear them in action like this.

A similar take on the faulkner array, which you might want to try, is something like ORTF in the middle with AB on the sides. Search up Boojum/Jnorman array on this forum for some more info. This leaves you with choices in post. Pick ORTF. Pick AB. Or create some sort of blend. As mentioned, when blending - it usually helps to drop the volume on one pair.

-Tom
Old 1 week ago
  #26
Hi Tom, thanks for the comments.

Yes, I like the AT 4041 sdcs a lot better than the 2020s - seems to be much more detail. I also picked up a pair of Rode NT5s, and they do a good job as well, but don't seem as detailed as the 4041s.

But I may use the NT5s to try your suggestion, since I also got omni capsules for them. At least to gain the experience.

The one thing that puzzles me about that setup is distance to the source. From my understanding, you want omnis in A-B to be a lot closer. Maybe for small chamber groups it's not so important, but when recording the orchestra, the ORTF mics need to be back far enough for the whole group to be within the SRA. So in last night's recording, they were probably 12 feet back from the conductor. If I had omnis that far back, wouldn't they pick up an unacceptable amount of room and audience? I notice when looking at videos of say Vienna Phil, the main pair will be hung from the ceiling and several feet in front of the conductor.

As I mentioned earlier, the only reason I went for DIN is that I could put the two pairs on the one stand, one on top of the other, and the upper pair is just slightly higher and just outside of the first pair without touching. I should probably take a picture next time I set it up that way. As far as stereo imaging is concerned, the two configurations sound very much the same to my ears, and I believe the SRA is the same for both of them as well.

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions.
Old 1 week ago
  #27
Lives for gear
 

i'm mostly using ortf on mid sized to large orchestras and mostly put it just behind the conductor - if the orchestra is very large (or the stage is very wide), i may use additional mics about 4m to 6m to each side from the main system or switch to a wide l/c/r setup but i try not to move my main mics too far back (so i'm hardly ever using din).
i like having my (mostly directional) main mics close to the orchestra plus a distant pair of ambient mics at the rear of the hall (and/or use efx devices) so i can blend in ambient sound as needed - i do go back a bit further on choirs though.
Old 1 week ago
  #28
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Early21 View Post
Hi Tom, thanks for the comments.

Yes, I like the AT 4041 sdcs a lot better than the 2020s - seems to be much more detail. I also picked up a pair of Rode NT5s, and they do a good job as well, but don't seem as detailed as the 4041s.

But I may use the NT5s to try your suggestion, since I also got omni capsules for them. At least to gain the experience.

The one thing that puzzles me about that setup is distance to the source. From my understanding, you want omnis in A-B to be a lot closer. Maybe for small chamber groups it's not so important, but when recording the orchestra, the ORTF mics need to be back far enough for the whole group to be within the SRA. So in last night's recording, they were probably 12 feet back from the conductor. If I had omnis that far back, wouldn't they pick up an unacceptable amount of room and audience? I notice when looking at videos of say Vienna Phil, the main pair will be hung from the ceiling and several feet in front of the conductor.

As I mentioned earlier, the only reason I went for DIN is that I could put the two pairs on the one stand, one on top of the other, and the upper pair is just slightly higher and just outside of the first pair without touching. I should probably take a picture next time I set it up that way. As far as stereo imaging is concerned, the two configurations sound very much the same to my ears, and I believe the SRA is the same for both of them as well.

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions.
The rationale given by Tony Faulkner in his few videos on the subject of the 4 mic array always gives the caveat that the idea originated when concert conditions (ie limited placement choices for main pair stand, or demands from video people that he minimise the number of spot mics onstage) forced him into compromises he wouldn't make otherwise.

In other words, the 4 mic bar is placed where it's clearly not the ideal for either Omni nor cardioid...but the blend possibilities later get him out of trouble...and also reduce the necessity to have multiple close spots on stage. 'Necessity being the mother of invention' was mentioned once or twice, as well as allusions to the purist maths and theory being violated....but that it sounded good regardless !

It's possible that he now adopts it more often, even when stand position compromises aren't compulsory....most likely for the mix/blend possibilities afforded ? It seems you are blessed with the opportunity to place your main pair optimally within the hall, so you aren't forced into the sort of compromises which the 4 mics on a bar approach seeks to avoid, which is a very desirable situation to find yourself in !
Old 1 week ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Tommy-boy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Early21 View Post
...The one thing that puzzles me about that setup is distance to the source. From my understanding, you want omnis in A-B to be a lot closer. Maybe for small chamber groups it's not so important, but when recording the orchestra, the ORTF mics need to be back far enough for the whole group to be within the SRA. So in last night's recording, they were probably 12 feet back from the conductor. If I had omnis that far back, wouldn't they pick up an unacceptable amount of room and audience? I notice when looking at videos of say Vienna Phil, the main pair will be hung from the ceiling and several feet in front of the conductor.
You're right in that Omnis are generally placed closer than cards. If you spaced your AB pair about 66cm, your SRA would be comparable to the SRA of ORTF and DIN.

-Tom
Old 6 days ago
  #30
Thanks, Studer58, your explanation makes sense to me.
Thanks, Tom, I will experiment with it.
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