The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Analog(ue) Again?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #31
Lives for gear
 
DirkP's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
The first crop of pop CDs were pretty underwhelming, regression....with the record companies sourcing 'master tapes' which were more like 'subsistence farmer serf' tapes...ie often cassette duplication masters, umpteenth generations down from anything like the 1st gen LP stamper. Then they got better, once those sleazy practices were called out. Now pop CDs (wait, they don't make em any more !) are ultra loud, fatiguing, minimal dynamic range. The CD era in the middle....not too bad.

I'm not referring to classical releases....
Good points. The main reason I still love vinyl is not nostalgia for analog. I simply hate most remasters and want to listen to older records like they were supposed to sound.
Otherwise I am guilty of buying new records and listen to them on Spotify. I love the covers and want to support the musicians with more than the 10,- Euros I pay for spotify. Win-win.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Yes, I seek out real DSD recordings, not because they are DSD, but because extra care was taken in setup and balance, because you can't fix it in the mix.

If all recordings were setup with the same care then ....

Of course there's still no guarantee that DSD and SACD will all sound good, but the probability seems higher.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
The first crop of pop CDs were pretty underwhelming, regression....with the record companies sourcing 'master tapes' which were more like 'subsistence farmer serf' tapes...ie often cassette duplication masters, umpteenth generations down from anything like the 1st gen LP stamper. Then they got better, once those sleazy practices were called out. Now pop CDs (wait, they don't make em any more !) are ultra loud, fatiguing, minimal dynamic range. The CD era in the middle....not too bad.

I'm not referring to classical releases....
Yes, CD's did get off to a shaky start. But not all of them were bad. The classical re-releases just sounded screechy in digital. DGG had a slew of them IIRC. But those houses who did a good ground up release would knock your socks off. << How's that for a trendy metaphor? It took awhile for everyone to get on the same page. But again, it is the shilly-shallying back and forth, sometimes by the same knowing people, whom I find amusing. Yeah, there are some great LP's, but they are the exception. Yeah, there are some great CD's, but they are more common IMO.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #34
Lives for gear
How many remasters (not even counting remixes, which are a different thing...not the same material even, once they start revising history by using alternate takes, unmuting tracks etc) are there of Hendrix, Stones, Beatles etc ? Add surround mixes and you virtually have a tour through the history of AD conversion...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #35
Gear Addict
 

The high frequencies were increased a little with analogue tapes was transferred to LP, I guess some of those masters, not expecting the arrival of CD, were a little on the bright side and initially released that way onto CD. I think CD took the blame for some of that.

I just love the editing possibilties with digital recording, and the transfer without loss.

However, analogue tape is still the bee's knees for me. It's just that I don't use it much anymore. It's very interesting to see the involvement that Plush has with it though.

Whenever I transfer older analogue masters for CD production, the quality of the original tapes is always so satisfying to hear.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #36
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Poulton View Post
The high frequencies were increased a little with analogue tapes was transferred to LP, I guess some of those masters, not expecting the arrival of CD, were a little on the bright side and initially released that way onto CD. I think CD took the blame for some of that.

I just love the editing possibilties with digital recording, and the transfer without loss.

However, analogue tape is still the bee's knees for me. It's just that I don't use it much anymore. It's very interesting to see the involvement that Plush has with it though.

Whenever I transfer older analogue masters for CD production, the quality of the original tapes is always so satisfying to hear.
The issue of tape hiss on the master..and the record company's scrambling for best guess answers to the recording and playback characteristics...was this NAB or IEC equalized, Dolby on or off (Dolby A or B or SR ) ? Did they bother to align the playback machine...oh dear, there's hiss exposed...oh well, let's just low pass it and hope the consumers don't pick it...a multitude of sins exposed in the rush to release analogue tapes on CD, especially in the early years.

Then there's that big master-tape fire at Universal Studios tape storage facility, back in around 2008 or 2009...which nobody's game to talk about yet....
Old 4 weeks ago
  #37
DAH
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
The issue of tape hiss on the master..and the record company's scrambling for best guess answers to the recording and playback characteristics...was this NAB or IEC equalized, Dolby on or off (Dolby A or B or SR ) ? Did they bother to align the playback machine...oh dear, there's hiss exposed...oh well, let's just low pass it and hope the consumers don't pick it...a multitude of sins exposed in the rush to release analogue tapes on CD, especially in the early years.

Then there's that big master-tape fire at Universal Studios tape storage facility, back in around 2008 or 2009...which nobody's game to talk about yet....
Definitely the fires killing both tape vault and lacquer plant were steps to the new world order.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #38
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
Definitely the fires killing both tape vault and lacquer plant were steps to the new world order.
Destroying earlier cultural icons, to make way for the new you reckon ?
Hmm..I think acetate tape melts/burns well below Fahrenheit 451 ?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #39
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Conspiracy theory!! Run with it baby!

D.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Then there's that big master-tape fire at Universal Studios tape storage facility, back in around 2008 or 2009...which nobody's game to talk about yet...
Quote:
Definitely the fires killing both tape vault and lacquer plant were steps to the new world order.
early on, i was taught not to buy into the idea that record companies/labels should be in the possession of the (only) master tape of any production, regardless of genre, common practice or contract!

one of my mentors split signals onto two machines and he kept a copy until after things got released or broadcasted, mostly as evidence that he did okay if things went wrong...

[...which i experienced to happen several times: on one occasion though, this led to a bitter dispute which was then brought before the courts and which, in addition to horrendous costs, led to nothing but a deep rift between people who had previously described themselves as friends and had worked together for decades...]

...but then gave it to whoever he thought would or should be the owner of the master tape; i'm pretty sure he got paid for the rule violation (and let me label the tapes - of course i had no idea what i was doing)!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 
hbphotoav's Avatar
 

After being chastised in 1972, in front of my girlfriend, by my LP mentor/guru for "grabbing" my new Elton John "Honkey Chateau" LP out of the paper sleeve (as opposed to sliding it out, thumb on the rim and fingertips-on-the-paper, then edge handling only to get it on the spindle)... followed by a thorough training of DiscWasher and Dustbug deployment (with the explanation of the permanent audible cost of dust fused into the groove by the stylus)... followed by playback, listening to his Thorens/Marantz separates/Large Advent system... I was saved to a life of audio mindfulness.

My friends were kind and patient after my conversion, though they did always seemed to want to listen to new stuff on my system; my to-be wife was favorably impressed 4 years later by "things I've never heard before" from Paul Simon, JT, Joni Mitchell and Ronstadt LPs. I still have my first PL12-D turntable (given to my Dad after I acquired a Thorens, then retrieved after his passing) and still listen daily to the AR9s I bought while working at a hifi shop in 1979, and am still using as primary a ReVox B790 linear tracking turntable acquired in 1983, replacing the Thorens. My early "taper" days began in the early '70s with a Teac 450 cassette machine, before a A3340S arrived in '75. I've been using some of my recent empty COVID days digitizing live tapes from the '70s to CD... it's both a blessing (plenty of emotional attachment to the music made by our bunch of Texas and Ohio friends back then) and a curse (threading, cueing, a bit of hiss).

My bottom line is that CDs finally removed the "limitations" of noise, dynamic range and distortion we all had to deal with (especially at 4-track level) and allowed for very nearly perfect duplicates of music that mattered to people I knew. Though I never did "serious" studio work, I've been able to document significant moments in my life, and in the lives of friends, with audio recordings, photographs and video (also hugely and positively changed by digital technology) without the problems inherent to tape and film. The medium was no longer as much a challenge and limitation as it was... the challenge was now in acquiring transducers (mics and lenses) and processing gear, and, of course, learning to properly and profitably deploy them. My life (and that of friends and clients) was, and is, better for it.

I still listen to LPs, and attempt to pass on their "proper care and feeding" to the newbies. I don't mind the occasional clicks and pops, but I do still notice them, in "high fidelity", and am thankful that for the past 20 years or so, it's been only my limitations, and not those of the chosen medium, that I must deal with.

One old guy's experience...

HB
Old 4 weeks ago
  #42
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbphotoav View Post
followed by playback, listening to his Thorens/Marantz separates/Large Advent system... I was saved to a life of audio mindfulness.
Funny how that first experience with a "real" playback has affected us. My experience, probably a few years later, 1974 or so, was my dope dealer's hi-fi (he could afford it) which was, gasp, a Sony PCM-1 digital tape recorder/player, not one but two GAS Ampzillas biamping a huge Mark Levinson HQD speaker pair. I can clearly remember listening, to what I do not remember, and thumbing through a 5x8 newsprint issue of Stereophile.

I was hooked.

Tried to explain to my dad about how dreadful his home hi-fi sounded. He didn't care.

D.

Oh and I too used some "time off" to dub a bunch of board tapes from my years on the road. Yes, lots of emotions there as well, and I had to borrow a cassette machine to do it.

Last edited by tourtelot; 4 weeks ago at 06:04 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #43
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
This thread is getting interesting. I distinctly remember once going to the home of a KJAZ DJ in Alameda, with my brand new favorite record, Sergio Mendes' Brazil '65 (NOT 66!) album. Sitting listening to his Empire floor standing towers, I heard for the first time I can recall the kick drum along with the bass. It was astounding! I immediately began upgrading my home system... I was only 15.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
hbphotoav's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
I was hooked.

Tried to explain to my dad about how dreadful his home hi-fi sounded. He didn't care.

D.

Oh and I too used some "time off" to dub a bunch of board tapes from my years on the road. Yes, lots of emotions there as well, and I had to borrow a cassette machine to do it.
As was I. My Dad was hip enough to have a stereo Wollensak reel machine and a pair of Shure 565SD (which are currently in my PA mics case), but his love of Montovani, Harry James and Pete Fountain made the 7' long MagnaVox "home entertainment center" completely adequate for his needs. I, of course, was on my "big blue" Stanton headphones, not only because I liked stuff louder than my mother would allow... but because subject matter of the likes of "Their Satanic Majesties Request" and "Ten Wheel Drive" and "Black Sabbath" just didn't fly in the parsonage.

However... after his trip to Texas for my graduation in '75 (and spending some serious time listening to my PL12-D/Sansui Au999/"stacked" Altec 891A "Mini Monitor" setup) HE was hooked. After graduation, I was doing DJ and had a nice biamped A7 VoT system, which lived in my apartment (with my darkroom). Dad got one pair of the 891As, and picked up a PL12-D and a 50wpch Pioneer integrated amp. Sounded way better than the MagnaVox.

My one "paying gig" since March 7 (the check is still "in the mail" from that one...) was transferring 10 cassettes from tape to CDs, mostly family history interviews done 20 years ago. Fortunately, my dual-well JVC TD-W717 (Dolby B/C "production" recorder from the late '90s) still runs hot. straight and normal. Hearing stories from the '30s and from WWII experiences was interesting... and, it covered the groceries for a month, with more on the way.

Ahhh, Life in the '20s...

HB
Old 4 weeks ago
  #45
Gear Addict
 

[QUOTE=studer58;14707125]The issue of tape hiss on the master..and the record company's scrambling for best guess answers to the recording and playback characteristics...was this NAB or IEC equalized, Dolby on or off (Dolby A or B or SR ) ? Did they bother to align the playback machine...oh dear, there's hiss exposed...oh well, let's just low pass it and hope the consumers don't pick it...a multitude of sins exposed in the rush to release analogue tapes on CD, especially in the early years.

I don't think this is going to go down well on the forum but.......................

At the time the noise reduction I could afford, and which I used was DBX. I heard horror stories about if from some quarters, but I only have good things to say about it myself. A friend of mine, in New York, recorded Philip Smith, the recently retired Principal Trumpet of the New York Phil. when he was younger. I remember buying the LP in the late 70s. He told me that he had problems with his DBX pumping when transferring the tape to LP.

I never did have that problem because I always transferred the tapes from the original machine on which the recording was made, but then I was recording to stereo and he was using multitrack.

I recall going to Tape One in London, a record cutting facility then, and the engineer telling me that I was the only one who came in with DBX. I took the DBX with me too. He was cutting a piano recording which starts very quietly. and carries on that way for some time (Liszt Sonata) before exploding into ff. He allowed me to cut the LP because I knew where the peaks were going to be before they arrived, and I could space the groove accordingly to avoid pre-echo. I've gone off the subject now.

He turned up the monitors so that he could hear what was going on, the dynamic range was substantial. Then, suddenly the ff arrived and nearly took the monitors off the wall!! I exaggerate, but it was startlingly loud. He was so impressed with the silence of the recording, which was pretty much like digital in that respect.

I never felt hard done by using DBX instead of Dolby. The compression and expansion was never apparent, and it appeared to deal with any noise from the tape machines too. The cutting engineers were never troubled by it either, apart from that one rather dramatic moment with volume level!!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #46
Lives for gear
[QUOTE=Geoff Poulton;14711586]
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
The issue of tape hiss on the master..and the record company's scrambling for best guess answers to the recording and playback characteristics...was this NAB or IEC equalized, Dolby on or off (Dolby A or B or SR ) ? Did they bother to align the playback machine...oh dear, there's hiss exposed...oh well, let's just low pass it and hope the consumers don't pick it...a multitude of sins exposed in the rush to release analogue tapes on CD, especially in the early years.

I don't think this is going to go down well on the forum but.......................

At the time the noise reduction I could afford, and which I used was DBX. I heard horror stories about if from some quarters, but I only have good things to say about it myself. A friend of mine, in New York, recorded Philip Smith, the recently retired Principal Trumpet of the New York Phil. when he was younger. I remember buying the LP in the late 70s. He told me that he had problems with his DBX pumping when transferring the tape to LP.

I never did have that problem because I always transferred the tapes from the original machine on which the recording was made, but then I was recording to stereo and he was using multitrack.

I recall going to Tape One in London, a record cutting facility then, and the engineer telling me that I was the only one who came in with DBX. I took the DBX with me too. He was cutting a piano recording which starts very quietly. and carries on that way for some time (Liszt Sonata) before exploding into ff. He allowed me to cut the LP because I knew where the peaks were going to be before they arrived, and I could space the groove accordingly to avoid pre-echo. I've gone off the subject now.

He turned up the monitors so that he could hear what was going on, the dynamic range was substantial. Then, suddenly the ff arrived and nearly took the monitors off the wall!! I exaggerate, but it was startlingly loud. He was so impressed with the silence of the recording, which was pretty much like digital in that respect.

I never felt hard done by using DBX instead of Dolby. The compression and expansion was never apparent, and it appeared to deal with any noise from the tape machines too. The cutting engineers were never troubled by it either, apart from that one rather dramatic moment with volume level!!
Wasn't DBX, at least for most consumer users, intended to be a decode add-on box only ? A record (or commercially recorded tape) during manufacture (presumably at the mastering stage ?) would be DBX encoded (compressed) then replayed at home through the DBX box (complementary expander).

I'm guessing is that if there was accurate congruity between the encode process and the decode box, you could expect convincing retention of dynamics as well as background noise reduction. Any disparity between the two = pumping, breathing. My guess is that the congruity was better with DBX than it was with the Dolby process...maybe the calibration process was more intricate with Dolby, and hence more scope for mistakes ?

That's certainly my experience with Dolby B commercial cassette tapes...it often sounded better to play back a Dolby B encoded tape with Dolby off on the player. My guess is that it tended to compensate for the replay head azimuth being 'off' with most domestic tape players ?

I'm sure many people also played back non-DBX encoded records through their DBX decoder/expanders...to give a sense of more dynamic range, perhaps ?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #47
Gear Addict
 

The analogue signal went into the DBX and onto 15ips tape, on replay it re-entered the DBX to be decoded back to analogue.

I believe you're right about the azimuth being 'off' and it not affecting the process. That is, as long as the encoded tape was replayed on the same machine as it was recorded. I kept my machines properly set up!

It was one of the most useful pieces of gear to use at the time. It solved the problems of tape hiss with a vengeance, and did not leave you with a nasty taste in your mouth, so to speak! And it did remove the noise of the tape machine itself. This was most apparent with a TEAC 3440 four track at the time. With the Studer machine, that wasn't a problem.

It's odd, there are certain pieces of equipment that you develop a real love for, because they just get on with their job in a competent and reliable manner. I had similar feelings too for the Sony PCM F1 when it came out.

Last edited by Geoff Poulton; 4 weeks ago at 08:22 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Poulton View Post
(...) it did remove the noise of the tape machine itself. This was most apparent with a TEAC 3440 four track at the time. With the Studer machine, that wasn't a problem (...)
...maybe not a problem as long as one kept track count reasonable, so say 12-16 tracks as typically used for most orchestra plus choir plus soloist recording in the late 70'/early 80's.

however, i remember that besides syncing machines, we started getting serious issues on a much larger projects: we were swapping mics, position them closer, add compressors on the way in, ride faders, even experiment with different alignment and whatnot only to keep noise down...

...until we could arrange for a demonstration of the then new dolby sr units: our head engineer (and my mentor) simply couldn't believe results he got! not without some artefacts either but we found ways to keep some 'air' aka noise/hiss (by not using dolby on the upper tracks on the studer machines, very much to the disliking of the archivist of the national broadcasting company though: poor guy was already confused with sync and click tracks).

imo dolby's claims what could be achieved in terms of improvment of the dynamic range were a bit exaggerated (our gear was very well maintained and the tape machines meticulously aligned, often from folks working for studer) - nevertheless, the difference on projects with high track counts was mind blowing!

THIS got me hooked (as well has hearing pre-recorded music getting played over a large pa for first time) - results were close to what we came to like about digital.
sometimes i still think it's kinda crazy what track counts have become possible without the hassle of going through heavy and costly noise reduction units; don't miss them though!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #49
Lives for gear
If I recall, Dolby SR (spectral recording) was a multiband processor, at least 3 if not more bands ?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 

i wasn't smart enough to grasp how it achieved what it did, i was just glad that it did what it did... - maybe i should read at least dolby's wiki article (again)?!

i feel a bit sorry for those who spent big bucks on a827's and dolby sr only to realize that their gear became obsolete just a few years later...

i was tempted to buy a 24 channel unit some years ago which by that time was crazy cheap. however, the sparse use would not have been justifiable and TODAY i decided to throw out my last remaining multitrack machine (and analog desk)!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #51
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
...maybe not a problem as long as one kept track count reasonable, so say 12-16 tracks as typically used for most orchestra plus choir plus soloist recording in the late 70'/early 80's.
Ah! The Studer I was referring to was a stereo machine!

It makes you wonder why multitrack ever became popular for classical music, because the mics were not placed on individual instruments.

With commercial music you could get the musicians out of the studio in double quick time and sort the mix out later, even to removing the odd bum note without running the whole take again, but with classical music it seemed like overkill to me at the time.

Multitrack gradually lead to musicians giving little attention to balance, because it was not going to be their balance that ended up on the recording, but the Producer/Engineers.
A retrograde step for music to be sure.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
I still lust after a professional 2-track reel to reel. Studer or Revox, PR99, A80 or something. Even a Mitsubishi or MCI.

But, it would just sit around un-used and unhappy, just like my Nikon Fs. Pretty technology but of absolutely no use to me whatsoever.

Sigh.

D.

Oh, and don't get me started on 35mm film cameras. I contend that Ferrais have nothing on a Panavison Gold.

D.
Attached Thumbnails
Analog(ue) Again?-panavision.jpeg  
Old 4 weeks ago
  #53
DAH
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
I still lust after a professional 2-track reel to reel. Studer or Revox, PR99, A80 or something. Even a Mitsubishi or MCI.

But, it would just sit around un-used and unhappy, just like my Nikon Fs. Pretty technology but of absolutely no use to me whatsoever.

Sigh.

D.

Oh, and don't get me started on 35mm film cameras. I contend that Ferrais have nothing on a Panavison Gold.

D.
Korg mr-1000 at 5.6 Mhz DSD128. I bet, wont be sitting unused. Hassle-free editing as in fadein fadeout, a bit cumbersome copy-paste in AudioGate in wide DSD.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Poulton View Post
(...) Multitrack gradually lead to musicians giving little attention to balance, because it was not going to be their balance that ended up on the recording, but the Producer/Engineers.
A retrograde step for music to be sure.
could be that, in the big picture, this was a retrograde step and there's no denying that having the option to redo things, some focus gets lost (which is another reason why i prefer working live these days over being involved in studio productions).

however, it also encouraged some clever folks to come up with mind-blowing compositions which (especially in the analog domain) simply wouldn't have been possible to realize or to finance as they would require vastly more menpower: times are gone when rich princes financed court composers/the taxpayer or his representatives seem to prefer other amusements nowadays!

i see the retreat of the state in matters of culture and its mediation as more critical than the entry of (tape or) computers and technicians into the spheres of music: after all, they enable the artists to realize their vision!

but yeah, not too much love for (some) producers or their role in general here either... - the real plague are bookers, promotors, agents, impressarios, folks in cultural management, social media managers, record company executives etc. though!




ähm sorry, what was the topic again?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
Korg mr-1000 at 5.6 Mhz DSD128. I bet, wont be sitting unused.
The problem with the Korg is that it uses a 40-gig hard disk in a non-standard size; it's the same hard disk that was used in early iPods. Not impossible to find but not easy either, and you can't get them from Korg anymore. Mine is amazingly still running fine after more than a decade of frequent use (bought it in 2009), but I've heard clicking noises once or twice that suggest the end is near for the hard disk. You can't replace the hard disk with an SSD.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #56
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
the real plague are bookers, promotors, agents, impressarios, folks in cultural management, social media managers, record company executives etc. though!

Talking about managers


ähm sorry, what was the topic again?
A similar topic.

In my home town, which I moved away from quite some time ago, there is a tradition of straight talking. I suspect this happens in other countries too. Towns build reputations for certain things, and in my home town it was telling it as it is.

Sir Thomas Beecham was booked with the Royal Philharmonic to play a concert in the main hall in the town, a large concert hall. He was asked by those who had booked him to play certain Beethoven pieces. He said that he would be playing Delius in the concert, and not Beethoven. He appeared unmoveable on the subject (he was like that). When the rehearsal began there was, on his stand, a large note which read: "No Beethoven, no fee". He had met with what might be termed an industrialist who ran a factory and had been the person who was paying for the concert.

In the concert, Beethoven was performed!

Now we are well and truly off topic, I'm not even sure what the original topic was!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #57
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Oh, good story!

D.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #58
DAH
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradh View Post
The problem with the Korg is that it uses a 40-gig hard disk in a non-standard size; it's the same hard disk that was used in early iPods. Not impossible to find but not easy either, and you can't get them from Korg anymore. Mine is amazingly still running fine after more than a decade of frequent use (bought it in 2009), but I've heard clicking noises once or twice that suggest the end is near for the hard disk. You can't replace the hard disk with an SSD.
Gotta be a workaround somehow, SSD too. I will be looking for solutions as you are stating that issue and I am going to get one myself. Too sweet a piece to not get. Any links\sources as why it is not possible are welcome - here or PMd. Thank you for figuring this out!
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…
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump