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
Level riding in classical music. Dynamics Processors (HW)
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Gear Addict
 

Level riding in classical music.

I'll start by saying most of my formative experience in recording was jazz. Early on, I got the impression that classical recording was the ultimate purist pursuit, a perfectly accurate document of what actually happened, with no fixes or adjustments of any kind.

I've since learned that of course that's not true, either in terms of editing or mixing. I know that engineers pull down loud sections and sometimes raise quiet passages, but how much is too much?

Of course I know it will vary depending on the source, but just in ballpark terms, how much riding do you generally do? What's the most you'll comfortably raise and lower levels? Or, approaching from the other side of it, what kind of dynamic range do you prefer from loudest to quietest passages?

I'm currently experimenting with post production on a pipe organ recording, and the dynamic range makes it difficult to enjoy the quiet passages unless the loud parts are really blaring (my hearing is in bad shape unfortunately.) I'm tempted to move levels quite a bit, but don't want to ruin the experience for others.

Of course, regarding my hearing problems, I could always make myself a more squashed mix than what I provide the performer, but either way I'm interested in knowing what's "normal."
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
Many years ago, just before the "Loudness Wars" became the norm in pop music, there was a website which did a broad sweep survey of currently available pop, jazz, classical and 'audiophile' releases, and subjected them to assessments of peak to average levels, dynamic range and more.

That there was very little range for the pop releases surprised many (not that it should have, but the smallness of the range probably did)...however it was the trend of classical music to follow this trend which was disturbing. As I say, I don't recall the site and the numbers involved....

EDIT: I've found it ! ...... >> just click on the title of a CD/LP you know or admire or dislike, and examine the dynamics: Album list - Dynamic Range Database

For organ reference, there are lots of 'em !! >> Album list - Dynamic Range Database

Of course the need to fit the range into one which will encompass the tabletop radio/player, Bluetooth streamer, car CD player used in heavy traffic, in-earbud mp3 player is a big ask.

Common wisdom seems to be that gentle manual raising or automation is better than applying global limiting or compression...much like the old fader riding by hand, which aimed to skate the thin ice between tape hiss and over-modulation, and to second-guess the demands of lacquer/vinyl mastering (in terms of replay stylus excursion and bass centreing)

EBU standards seem to have settled on a radio broadcast level of -23dB LUFS as an average loudness, but whether that translates to a perceived healthy output level or a fair trade-off between dynamic peaks and average level, you'll have to make your own experiments.

I should add that today you have the option of providing a variety of release formats: from everyday compressed mp3 to uncompressed 24/192 and everything in between....several of the streaming and pay to listen download sites offer such choice. So you could target your release at 2 or 3 'golden ear calibration points'

A quite good overview, tracking the Loudness wars over recent decades, with graphical support data is here: Loudness war - Wikipedia

Last edited by studer58; 2 weeks ago at 04:17 PM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
EBU standards seem to have settled on a radio broadcast level of -23dB LUFS as an average loudness, but whether that translates to a perceived healthy output level or a fair trade-off between dynamic peaks and average level, you'll have to make your own experiments.
In my experience, most classical music fits nicely within the broadcast -23 dB LUFS spec. Sometimes it takes levelling 2-3 really (too) loud peaks. Often no action. Some extreme music may need some level riding, but it is my experience this is extremely rare.

As a general rule, I do not like level changes, unless it serves the music. A 1-2 dB level change in an edit has a very perceivable impact on weight/tonality, and so changes the musical relationship.

I would say, if you really need to do level riding, you are probably mixing for Vinyl, Youtube e.a.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #4
Gear Head
As to organ albums - depending on the destination I have used a spreadsheet to calculate peak level of individual pieces based on a target peak differential. I prefer the natural dynamic range of pieces, with no adjustment - but the loudness differentials are extreme; you can't listen in a car without riding the volume almost constantly. For example, if the difference in peaks of pieces is 25db, I might adjust gain so that peak differential is 10 to 20db, depending on taste. No adjustment for listening in quiet environments. Lately, though, it has been easier to make no adjustment and say "tough" to the target audience, friends and family members. It is sad to lose the beautiful soft sounds that organs produce.
Attached Thumbnails
Level riding in classical music.-normalizespreadsheet.jpg  

Last edited by blanneau; 2 weeks ago at 04:38 PM.. Reason: Add screenshot
Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Tommy-boy's Avatar
 

I do smaller gigs for local schools / churches. I typically aim for -17 to -18 LUFS for classical stuff, -15 to -16 for Jazz, -14 to -15 for modern/contemporary stuff. However, if the client desires different levels, they get what they want.

I use a variety of methods of getting to those LUFS levels. Limiting, compressing, volume envelopes (in essence - riding gain), multi-band compression, and anything else that works without screwing up the sound.

If I were doing fancy pants recordings for audiophile distribution, I'd consider aiming for quieter overall levels.

Personally, I find -17/-18ish to be a very listenable level for classical. There is still good dynamic range and I can listen in less than perfect environments and still enjoy the music. I have no desire to listen to anything at -23 LUFS (or quieter) unless I'm in a quiet environment with a good playback system.


-Tom
Old 2 weeks ago
  #6
I agree that -23 is too quiet for anything other than dedicated listening on loudspeakers (no conversations, nothing else, and in a quiet location) or good isolating headphones. The levels that the streaming services are using as targets are pretty good in my opinion for when we want to reduce dynamic range.

But as noted elsewhere, we have the flexibility to create our "perfect" mix, perhaps at -23 LUFS, even for pop, and then we can "master" that mix in different versions.

I know I'd kill to hear the "unmastered" versions of some of my favorite recent records. I'm afraid though that folks might be squashing things in mixdown nowadays.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #7
Gear Addict
 

This leads me to a tangential question. Any recommendations for a standalone LUFS analysis tool? I'm using very old DAW software with no good way to add plugins, so I don't have LUFS metering. I should probably upgrade my software at some point, but until then, it'd be nice to have an easy way to check LUFS values on my work.

I appreciate all the comments and insights so far.

I definitely agree with the concept of keeping safe versions separate from level-manipulated versions. I've learned the hard way in years past that what I think are brilliant mastering decisions, or "good enough" mastering tools, sometimes sound horrific years later. Having the unaltered original to rebuild from is great! I'm reasonably comfortable committing to mix decisions, but I can't be trusted with mastering!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeowulf17 View Post
This leads me to a tangential question. Any recommendations for a standalone LUFS analysis tool? I'm using very old DAW software with no good way to add plugins, so I don't have LUFS metering. I should probably upgrade my software at some point, but until then, it'd be nice to have an easy way to check LUFS values on my work.

I appreciate all the comments and insights so far.

I definitely agree with the concept of keeping safe versions separate from level-manipulated versions. I've learned the hard way in years past that what I think are brilliant mastering decisions, or "good enough" mastering tools, sometimes sound horrific years later. Having the unaltered original to rebuild from is great! I'm reasonably comfortable committing to mix decisions, but I can't be trusted with mastering!
Orban has a free (I think) analysis tool that can be used afterwards.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
Orban has a free (I think) analysis tool that can be used afterwards.
The basic loudness measurement approach is quite old but still valuable. I suggest downloading the "read me" .pdf for some of the rational in "loudness" measurement.

There are many other measurement tools available for common loudness measurement, including WaveLab and RME's digicheck. Likewise software from TC Electronic, not forgetting their delightful hardware display (at a cost).

Rules-based loudness measurement is fine if you believe the rules. However, ultimately it is a matter of judgement, with the operator/producer's understanding of both the musical performance requirements and the intended audience (which for radio is quite undefined). Knowing what transmission processing will be applied is also important, and how much dynamic range you can leave in without the broadcast console operator being tempted to "second-guess" your dynamic intentions. My usual dynamic range adjustment tool is "Graphic Fade" in Sound Forge.

Personally, I am a bit old school, which says low level passages should occasionally hit the lowest graduation on the meter (-20dB on VU, -22dB on a BBC PPM). Then have an overall look how much time the waveform should spend in the top 10dB of the range, -10 to -15, and -15 to -20. In the end, just have a good old fashioned listen in your normally domestic listening environment.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #10
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
Orban has a free (I think) analysis tool that can be used afterwards.
Awesome! It is indeed a free download, and judging by their website it appears to be exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks!

I have a busy couple of days ahead of me, but I'll try it as soon as I can and report back.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #11
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
I agree that -23 is too quiet for anything other than dedicated listening on loudspeakers (no conversations, nothing else, and in a quiet location) or good isolating headphones. The levels that the streaming services are using as targets are pretty good in my opinion for when we want to reduce dynamic range.

But as noted elsewhere, we have the flexibility to create our "perfect" mix, perhaps at -23 LUFS, even for pop, and then we can "master" that mix in different versions.

I know I'd kill to hear the "unmastered" versions of some of my favorite recent records. I'm afraid though that folks might be squashing things in mixdown nowadays.
I'm with you on desperately wanting un-mastered versions of otherwise great records. I'm not as picky as many, but there are some records with good music that I just can't stand because of squashed dynamic range. Such a shame.

I don't want to be the guy that unwittingly ruins this organ recording for someone else... although I am tempted to do some experiments with "reasonable" (a standard which has yet to be defined) volume automation. I'm definitely not planning any compression or limiting for this organ or any other classical work.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 

the levels i get can vary a lot, as does the music - if not asked to hit a specific level and i'm in charge of a mastered version (of which i'm sure it does not get altered on its path to the audience) i tend to land between -21db and -18db lufs for most classical music, around 3db higher for (acoustic) jazz while electric blues/rock/pop music may go up to -12db lufs - not any higher though: i simply don't like it and therefore send people off if they ask for more than this...



p.s. i'm not riding levels; i let dynamic devices do the work.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
I agree that -23 is too quiet for anything other than dedicated listening on loudspeakers (no conversations, nothing else, and in a quiet location) or good isolating headphones.
I often wonder what the point is in recording classical music if not for dedicated listening.

One quality of the recordings I make is, in no way one can play them as casual or background music.

The biggest drawback of the recordings I make is, in no way one can play them as casual or background music.

Take your pick
Old 2 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
I often wonder what the point is in recording classical music if not for dedicated listening.

One quality of the recordings I make is, in no way one can play them as casual or background music.

The biggest drawback of the recordings I make is, in no way one can play them as casual or background music.

Take your pick
i don't want to start an off-topic rant but imo classical music is as much a commodity as any other product - from this point of view, i think you're not necessarily doing your audience a favour by mixing with lots of dynamics: the world has become more noisy..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
i don't want to start an off-topic rant but imo classical music is as much a commodity as any other product - from this point of view, i think you're not necessarily doing your audience a favour by mixing with lots of dynamics: the world has become more noisy..
This is entirely relevant to the topic.
Level riding was invented to make the music fit the medium.

I do not agree at all classical music can be treated as a commodity.

60 years ago, they would have laughed at this "evolution". Hifi was about something else entirely. Real listening to real music ?

In short: I find level riding unnecessary, it is a mix-time or even recording time process. I agree one can master differently for different delivery media. Level changes in movements/passages - as well as sending everything through a limiter - should be considered mastering.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
This is entirely relevant to the topic.
Level riding was invented to make the music fit the medium.

I do not agree at all classical music can be treated as a commodity.

60 years ago, they would have laughed at this "evolution". Hifi was about something else entirely. Real listening to real music ?

In short: I find level riding unnecessary, it is a mix-time or even recording time process. I agree one can master differently for different delivery media. Level changes in movements/passages - as well as sending everything through a limiter - should be considered mastering.
i find bringing up levels necessary, for almost any genre and format!

only 'cause we can capture insane dynamics with modern gear does not mean we should distribute it that way...

it may not be necessary if one is into both high resolution recording/mixing (if any) - and here comes the most important aspect - high resolution delivery for those who really want to ride levels on their own upon playback and more likely have the gear, time and other luxury to do so :-)
Old 2 weeks ago
  #17
Lives for gear
Here's an associated thread, revived today, relevant to the topic: Mike Skeet on manual level tweaks for classical recordings
Old 2 weeks ago
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
i find bringing up levels necessary, for almost any genre and format!

only 'cause we can capture insane dynamics with modern gear does not mean we should distribute it that way...
I do not get this logic. You must be living/working in a noisy environment ?
Besides climate change/pollution, NOISE pollution will become a bigger issue in the next decades. But that is another story. Studies show accumulated noise levels by people living in cities amounts to the very same hearing damage as one can expect when being subjected to extremely loud levels, shortly.

Can you give 1 good reason to change the dynamics of a piece which has been meticulously composed centuries ago, practiced for years by musicians, who have been perfecting themselves for decades ?

Is this an "insane" dynamic ? Reproducing the original dynamic ? Seriously ?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
...Can you give 1 good reason to change the dynamics of a piece which has been meticulously composed centuries ago, practiced for years by musicians, who have been perfecting themselves for decades ?

Is this an "insane" dynamic ? Reproducing the original dynamic ? Seriously ?
easy man: i could ask the same...

my point is that there is big difference between experiencing unamplified music live and listening at home/in a car/wherever: nothing wrong with large dynamics if music gets played in rooms/halls which allow for very dynamic playing: enough air around an orchestra and things level out smoothly for the vast majority of the audience.

once dome electronic instruments become part of the orchestra, the comfort zone for the audience starts regarding dynamics starts shrinking dramatically.*

imo the same applies to most any listening environment: rooms are much smaller, muss less air will get moved, no more smoothing of dynamic swings and background noise from the neighbourhood etc. further reduces dynamic options.

* how much? your mileage may vary but from mixing live a lot (and sometimes measuring spl levels while recording unamplified music) i'd say healthy dynamics for playback are shocking limited; hence my recommendation to aim at -21 to -18dbfs lufs in a previous post...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
easy man: i could ask the same...

imo the same applies to most any listening environment: rooms are much smaller, muss less air will get moved, no more smoothing of dynamic swings and background noise from the neighbourhood etc. further reduces dynamic options.
easy, I know. These things I am passionate about

I never found literature with proof that dynamic swings are really smoothed over at 10-20 m. In a cathedral maybe, if it is swamped by the acoustic.

In my experience, even when putting mics at 50cm from all musicians, they will still remark during soundcheck "sounds nice, but there seems to be a lot less dynamic differences than when we are playing".

There is no way to reconcile that statement (which happens often) with the notion that we should reduce dynamics as a guideline.

The ONLY reasons are: too noisy environment together with no real intention to really sit down and listen.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #21
Lives for gear
Yannick, are you able to measure the dynamic range (min/max /peaks and average) of some of your recordings which you claim have extended, unaltered range ?

How do these compare with those published in the table linked in post#2, particularly of key examples of releases similar to your own recorded material...or artists whose CD's you own or admire ?

I'm accounting for the possibility that (according to your beliefs) all commercially recorded and released material suffers from unacceptable dynamics compression as part of the CD recording/editing/mastering process ? You should be prepared to subject your own recorded material to the sort of comparative evaluation as these commercial releases...to see where your recordings sit (objectively) along the "big swings continuum" !
Old 2 weeks ago
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
...I never found literature with proof that dynamic swings are really smoothed over at 10-20 m. In a cathedral maybe, if it is swamped by the acoustic...
while i have no problem with (most) other engineers of classical music doing things differently than me regarding dynamics, this statement is simply wrong: even the most powerful, highly directional pa systems show at least a 3db level loss per doubling of the distance: tons of literature dealing with the topic available and can be experienced anytime, in any venue, with any music, amplified or not...


...and a reason for using comp/lim on spots btw!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

I have been monitoring following the K20 “standard” for about 20 years.
In this context, many contemporary recordings are too loud.
I am not talking 1-3 dB here.

Older recordings, even Jazz, and even pop/rock are perfectly listenable in my studio, at the reference level.

The rest, which is part of the decline, could not interest me less. Some of it is so badly recorded I cannot even appreciate if it is played well.

That should be the point, to record something to such standard that the listener can appreciate the playing and the music. The race to louder and no dynamics goes against that notion.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
while i have no problem with (most) other engineers of classical music doing things differently than me regarding dynamics, this statement is simply wrong: even the most powerful, highly directional pa systems show at least a 3db level loss per doubling of the distance: tons of literature dealing with the topic available and can be experienced anytime, in any venue, with any music, amplified or not...


...and a reason for using comp/lim on spots btw!
That has nothing to do with it. Air does not compress audio, unless you are getting serious levels. A 3 dB level loss does not change dynamics.

A 3 dB level loss changes dynamics in a noisy environment !
A 3 dB level loss changes dynamics if you are outside critical distance in a 10 second reverberation.

Some sopranos can detect a 1 dB (manual) limiter on their solo spot, and make me switch it off, because they realise it makes them sound, dare I say it, limited
Old 2 weeks ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
That has nothing to do with it. Air does not compress audio, unless you are getting serious levels. A 3 dB level loss does not change dynamics...
wrong again... - of course dynamics (and reverb and spectral content etc) get affected at/over distance! just put a pair of mics at the rear of a hall (such as your beloved fig8's) to experience and measure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
I have been monitoring following the K20 “standard” for about 20 years.
In this context, many contemporary recordings are too loud.
I am not talking 1-3 dB here.

Older recordings, even Jazz, and even pop/rock are perfectly listenable in my studio, at the reference level.

The rest, which is part of the decline, could not interest me less. Some of it is so badly recorded I cannot even appreciate if it is played well.

That should be the point, to record something to such standard that the listener can appreciate the playing and the music. The race to louder and no dynamics goes against that notion.
there is a fine line (or huge difference) between making a mix louder and limiting the dynamic range...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
wrong again... - of course dynamics (and reverb and spectral content etc) get affected over distance! just put a pair of mics at the rear of the hall (such as your beloved fig8's) to experience and measure...
You are not reading properly. In a dryish&silent hall, the dynamics on 6th row (often considered the best seats in the house) are not significantly different from the conductors seat.

Using the argument of an ambient pair that does not pick up direct sound goes contrary to what you are trying to prove...

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
there is a fine line (or huge difference) between making a mix louder and limiting the dynamic range...
I actually agree. But if at the end of the day, when the difference has become more than 10 dB, we are talking about broken recordings ... Unlistenable in a good environment. I did not measure yet, but 10 dB would not surprise me if it were becoming the norm in classical as well.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #27
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
I have been monitoring following the K20 “standard” for about 20 years.
In this context, many contemporary recordings are too loud.
I am not talking 1-3 dB here.

Older recordings, even Jazz, and even pop/rock are perfectly listenable in my studio, at the reference level.

The rest, which is part of the decline, could not interest me less. Some of it is so badly recorded I cannot even appreciate if it is played well.

That should be the point, to record something to such standard that the listener can appreciate the playing and the music. The race to louder and no dynamics goes against that notion.
irrespective of what listening levels you monitor at, what is the typical dynamic range of your own recordings, that you edit and master...how would they measure against this scale....>> MAAT DROffline MkII
Old 2 weeks ago
  #28
Lives for gear
 

@Yannick

if i'm trying to prove one thing, it is that i can measure a difference in dynamics at a distance of 10-20m compared to dynamics at the main mics; the further away, the more severe the effect (actually several effects as you stated/implied correctly, one being a change in the ratio between direct and diffuse/reverberant sound) - doesn't have to be in a cathedral to get experienced...

the other thing i can recommend, if someone is into emulating this (and other) effect(s), for instance when trying to fit a spot mic into a mix, is to use limiters (and efx); they ain't evil but are very useful tools if applied with taste...

...or to quote a late friend/engineer/mentor, albeit with a sexist statement: "limiters are like push up bras: they can make something look [sound] even nicer which is already beautiful by nature!"

didier

___


sorry again to the op for my off topic comments/rant... - and to get back on track: do level adjustments if they help the music to get perceived more easily.

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 2 weeks ago at 03:41 PM.. Reason: typo and edited
Old 2 weeks ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
irrespective of what listening levels you monitor at, what is the typical dynamic range of your own recordings, that you edit and master...how would they measure against this scale....>> MAAT DROffline MkII
File Name | Format | SR | Word Length | Max. TPL | LUFSi | DR (PMF) |

FUG 610 CD2_44k-24b - 01 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -0.48 | -18.99 | 14 |
FUG 610 CD2_44k-24b - 02 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -2.96 | -23.15 | 16 |
FUG 610 CD2_44k-24b - 03 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -0.48 | -18.02 | 14 |
FUG 610 CD2_44k-24b - 04 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -0.49 | -21.56 | 16 |
FUG 610 CD2_44k-24b - 05 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -2.30 | -22.67 | 14 |
FUG 610 CD2_44k-24b - 06 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -2.13 | -24.33 | 16 |
FUG 610 CD2_44k-24b - 07 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -6.04 | -26.23 | 14 |

Number of EP/Album Files: 7
Official EP/Album DR: 15
Old 2 weeks ago
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Above was CD2 of a double cd.
Below is CD1 (both cds contain one big piece, spread over 2 discs, plus some additional tracks)

File Name | Format | SR | Word Length | Max. TPL | LUFSi | DR (PMF) |

FUG 610_44k-24b - 01 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -8.53 | -28.83 | 15 |
FUG 610_44k-24b - 02 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -2.76 | -26.49 | 17 |
FUG 610_44k-24b - 03 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -0.49 | -23.26 | 18 |
FUG 610_44k-24b - 04 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -0.83 | -25.88 | 20 |
FUG 610_44k-24b - 05 | .wav | 44.1k | 24 | -0.47 | -23.57 | 17 |

Number of EP/Album Files: 5
Official EP/Album DR: 17
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
studer58 / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
8
AVRAMOLEW / Post Production forum
24

Forum Jump
Forum Jump