The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Guitars for sale     Latest  Trending
Are Fender '68 and '65 Amps really that bad?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #31
Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
No, not really. It's easier to make a bad connection without a PCB because if everything kind of looks the same, a noob can get confused. It's also easy to make a "rat's nest" and basically a mess if you're a noob.
Yes, but you can redo a bad connection or joint. If you screw up a PCB and some trace is in the wrong place or some loop area is too big etc, you'll have to redo the whole thing including taking off all the parts you've already soldered on etc.
Also, I had a couple of amps that look like a rat's nest inside - they sounded fantastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
On the other hand, it's easier to fix mistakes on a turret board, if you repeatedly remove components off a PC board you can break the traces.
This too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
And real point to point (not turret board) is virtually impossible for a noob, dangerous too.
Yes, plain P2P involves a top-down design in mind - starting from the chassis and component placement. But its rarely used in more complex guitar stuff, and frankly, I don't see any real advantages of this method as opposed to turret or eyelet supported P2P.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 
guiatr_fiend's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
Yes, but you can redo a bad connection or joint. If you screw up a PCB and some trace is in the wrong place or some loop area is too big etc, you'll have to redo the whole thing including taking off all the parts you've already soldered on etc.
Also, I had a couple of amps that look like a rat's nest inside - they sounded fantastic.



This too.



Yes, plain P2P involves a top-down design in mind - starting from the chassis and component placement. But its rarely used in more complex guitar stuff, and frankly, I don't see any real advantages of this method as opposed to turret or eyelet supported P2P.
btw, have you ever come across one of these? Looks really interesting, but not too common I bet.
http://oecc.ru/amplifier/zu-430
Old 3 weeks ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
No, not really. It's easier to make a bad connection without a PCB because if everything kind of looks the same, a noob can get confused. It's also easy to make a "rat's nest" and basically a mess if you're a noob.

On the other hand, it's easier to fix mistakes on a turret board, if you repeatedly remove components off a PC board you can break the traces.

And real point to point (not turret board) is virtually impossible for a noob, dangerous too.
While I agree about the problems inherent in most PCB circuits, I don't relate to the problems you see in P2P. Back in the day when schematics were often hard to come by it was ez for me to follow the circuit path on P2P and a huge pita on PCB even before multilayered PCB boards. Also, since components are not quite so tightly mechanically in contact with the board on a P2P circuit it is far easier to narrow down microphonics, bad connections and cold solder joints. Maybe it's mostly about what you're used to, but I find P2P logical and ez to visualize, troubleshoot, repair and modify/ PCB doesn't even come close for me in all those areas.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
btw, have you ever come across one of these? Looks really interesting, but not too common I bet.
http://oecc.ru/amplifier/zu-430
No, never seen one of those. The specs look decent though as is the construction.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 
guiatr_fiend's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
Also, since components are not quite so tightly mechanically in contact with the board on a P2P circuit it is far easier to narrow down microphonics, bad connections and cold solder joints.
There is no board in point-to-point. You are referring to turret board construction.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #36
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post
I think you have a fundamental issue: No two instances of a classic tube amp will sound the same 40-50 years later...
To a certain degree, they didn't when they were new, either. Fenders, anyway. Whatever you think of the reissues overall, they're a lot more consistent.

And having heard several specimens of the RI '65 Princeton Reverb, I'd buy one in a heartbeat if didn't have a kid I can borrow one from.

Here's a couple of live-in-studio recordings with RI '65 Princetons on them. First one's a Gretsch of some sort, plus pedals. Second one's an old Gibson archtop with a single neck-position humbucker, no pedals. I threw this one in because it's so "plain" and out in the open -- you can really hear the character of the guitar and amp.




Last edited by Brent Hahn; 3 weeks ago at 03:17 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
Does this come from an engineer standpoint?.
Yes. Ask anybody competant who designs gear.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
I don't argue that the induced currents can screw things up in upstream stages, but what is the orders of magnitude for this kind of effects?
A huge order of magnitude. I have seen devices where the performance was utterly DESTROYED by bad layout.

My prime example is an early Plush amp which was a knockoff of a Fender Twin Reverb, built with all Fender factory components but with totally wrong layout, that sounded horrible, only produced around 40 watts instead of the 88 watts an AB763 Twin should, and sounded like total crap that I was asked to look at when I worked for the legendary Don Wehr's Music City in San Francisco. On the scope it had ultrasonic parasitic oscillation up the yin-yang, sapping the audio power. It would have cost more to fix than it would have to do it right in the first place.

Not sure what you mean by "upstream stages". There's nothing "upstream" about it.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
There is no board in point-to-point. You are referring to turret board construction.
No.

Fender construction, which was round grommets inserted into a "fish paper" board, is considered "point-to-point".

Turret board is similar, but not the same.

Another version is terminal strips. All types of "point to point".
Old 3 weeks ago
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
No, not really. It's easier to make a bad connection without a PCB because if everything kind of looks the same, a noob can get confused. It's also easy to make a "rat's nest" and basically a mess if you're a noob.

On the other hand, it's easier to fix mistakes on a turret board, if you repeatedly remove components off a PC board you can break the traces.

And real point to point (not turret board) is virtually impossible for a noob, dangerous too.
TOTALLY wrong.

Evidently you've never built an amp from scratch.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by guiatr_fiend View Post
There is no board in point-to-point. You are referring to turret board construction.
That's not what I was taught. Whether turret board, eyelet board or terminal strips all of those use dedicated wire to go from Point A to Point B, and so on. That's what I was taught and what I mean by P2P. Each wire then can be routed in a variety of ways while once a design is completed with PCB there is no alternate routing possible w/o major changes.

One example of this is heater wiring on tube amps. Early Fenders pushed the heater supply wires down against the chassis to help dampen 120 Hz crosstalk "infection" but later Fenders vault them above the tube sockets and both versions twisted them together for further cancellation affect. Twisting cannot happen easily on a PCB board. I've never seen it done though I can imagine a multi-layer board could possibly pull it off.

This isn't very important when DC heater voltage is employed, but only a few boutique amps still in PCB land do that. Almost no commercial PCB amps even bother.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
A huge order of magnitude. I have seen devices where the performance was utterly DESTROYED by bad layout.
By all means, John, don't waste your time reading what we write when you need to drown us in your expert opinion so badly.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #43
Lives for gear
 
guiatr_fiend's Avatar
 

Here are a couple of point-to-point guts I found on the net.







The bottom two do have terminal strips though.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
guiatr_fiend's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
That's not what I was taught. Whether turret board, eyelet board or terminal strips all of those use dedicated wire to go from Point A to Point B, and so on. That's what I was taught and what I mean by P2P. Each wire then can be routed in a variety of ways while once a design is completed with PCB there is no alternate routing possible w/o major changes.
Yeah, I guess it's a fine line and you say turret board construction is a type of point-to-point, even if you can connect several things to a post.

Perforated board might also fit into that category, where you just place components on a board with holes and wire them together, it's more common for effects than amps though.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #45
Like I said, I think turret or eyelet board constructions are a nice middle ground, those P2Ps don't look so serviceable.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #46
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Maybe it wasn't actually Leo himself but rather than some brilliant but nameless soul who chose the typical eyelet board method in old Fenders, or maybe it is just so many hours of familiarity from working with and on them, but I think that is yet another example of bona fide Fender "Chi-nius".
Old 3 weeks ago
  #47
Gear Maniac
 
chipss36's Avatar
 

Nothing wrong with a reissue fender.
Pretty decent amp.
The right guitar and if you have the chops can sound wonderful, the speakers can sound harsh till broke in, and many make opinions before that even happens.
And I build blackface amps that run 4-6 times what a reissue does. Pretty much only build blackfaces. That my thing.
As noted above, a pcb will show its age faster than an eyelet board, after a few cap changes.
Should not be a problem for one lifetime if the correct people do the work.
Fender never built point to point , not on the woody or tweeds, all eyelets. Turrets I think of Marshall.
Many of the cheep old Amps were point to point. Hate working on em.
The words point to point are abused by some major people now a days.
A hand wired amp is a better way of putting it.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #48
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipss36 View Post
Nothing wrong with a reissue fender.
Pretty decent amp.
The right guitar and if you have the chops can sound wonderful, the speakers can sound harsh till broke in, and many make opinions before that even happens.
And I build blackface amps that run 4-6 times what a reissue does. Pretty much only build blackfaces. That my thing.
As noted above, a pcb will show its age faster than an eyelet board, after a few cap changes.
Should not be a problem for one lifetime if the correct people do the work.
Fender never built point to point , not on the woody or tweeds, all eyelets. Turrets I think of Marshall.
Many of the cheep old Amps were point to point. Hate working on em.
The words point to point are abused by some major people now a days.
A hand wired amp is a better way of putting it.
Playing semantics.

The only things wrong with reissue fenders are:

They fall apart under hard use.
Poor component quality, especially in the more expensive parts like transformers.
They are a royal pain in the butt to work on, which drives service bills through the roof, which is exacerbated by the poor component quality.
Idiotic layout design, such as soldering tube sockets directly to PC boards, which is DUMB.


"Pretty decent amp" - that's damning with faint praise. The original Fenders were GREAT amps, not just "pretty decent".

Eyelet board amps ARE point to point. What do you call the eyelets? Are the any less points than the lugs on tube sockets? There sure as hell aren't any flimsy traces in place of wires. The average PC board trace can only take being soldered at best 3 or 4 times in any one place before the traces start pulling up, often less. Any point-to-point circuit, be it eyelet, turret board, or soldering to terminal strips or tube lugs can take being resoldered an INFINITE number of times without damage.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #49
Gear Maniac
 
chipss36's Avatar
 

John you would be wrong, yep just wrong.
Point to point is not an eyelet board and never has been.
That is a fact.
You are wrong.
Pretty much any tech, or electronics engineer will tell you the same.
You are believing marketing talk, an rookie mistake.
But it has been pointed out to you already.
Point to point , or even dead bug building still has its place today in prototyping....but not used In Modern manufacturing.
Keep believing otherwise if you wish, it will not make this true.
Transformers are expensive, nothing wrong with what fender now uses, and is in fact the same company they have always used, and is in fact the same company I use for output iron, after years of testing what is available to me.
have seen iron fail from other companies more than what fender uses. And other issues that get very complex, fender stock iron is As good as any other , better than a few , you are clearly at this point just making up stuff to reinforce what you believe. I get it.
Again it will not make you right.
Is an eyelet board better than a pcb, In some ways, in some ways not. That is a known fact.
Pcb s are used in boogie amps , are they bad amps?
Are Marshall’s bad amps?
I would say no, many use them to good affect as well as the fender reissues. Used on many records and used in many studios. No need for me to defend them.
No one is point to point building mic amps, or any pro audio, vintage or not, is a reason for that.
fender nor marshal ever used point to point, only cheep amps were ever build that way.
That is a fact and pointed out to you many times now. With pictures even of what point to point looks like. You are the guy that is never wrong.
I get it.
But you are wrong, bet you have “rims” on your car as well?

It’s funny I have been building and doing repair work for about 30 years, I also build blackfaces most never can afford, the reissue has its a place.
the reissue fenders are a pleasure to work on Compared to a boogie, carvin, crate, and many others,
You clearly have an opinion otherwise and I get it.
A reissue falls apart ? More than any other modern amp?
They are all about the same, take care of them they are fine.
Are they 1/4 finger jointed old pine, and built with hide glue? No but they do not cost what one that is does.
Again a reissue has it place.
If cost is not an issue.
I am the guy to talk to, or one of them, and build as close to 1960 blackface spec as I have ever seen.
Many parts are the same exact parts used in 1960.
And are built the same exact way.
However Building this way is crazy expensive.
Few can afford it. And I get that as well.
Many amps one should avoid if looking for a modern tube amp, the fenders are fine. And not one of them.
Many amps much harder to work on and more prone to failure, a simple channel switching amp will consistently have more issues sooner than fender circuits. And requires more bench time to trouble shoot, the higher gain the worse it gets.
Reissue or not.

Last edited by chipss36; 3 weeks ago at 06:17 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #50
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipss36 View Post
John you would be wrong, yep just wrong.
Point to point is not an eyelet board and never has been.
That is a fact.
You are wrong.
Pretty much any tech, or electronics engineer will tell you the same.
You are believing marketing talk, an rookie mistake.
You're funny. Also quite wrong. A rookie? Guess again, son. I'm probably close to twice your age (my avatar is me) and I've worked on amps since the middle '60s, professionally from 1972 until a few years ago when I had to stop for health reasons.

It's rookies who argue about the meaning of "point to point". Us old folks know.

And if you knew anything about me you'd know that I'm the last person to believe "marketing talk." In fact I'm constantly telling people not to believe what the marketing and sales weasels say.

Most of the more complex devices of the point to point era used some sort of solder terminals to connect parts to - it makes for a much cleaner, repeatable layout and when done correctly solves most of the potential problems with "phantom components" causing unexpected oscillations and poor performance.

A solder point is a solder point, where components connect to each other or to wires. This is different from a PC board because printed circuits have the conductors as part of the board - they're not "points". Before the advent of printed circuits EVERYTHING was "point to point". What's the difference if that point is an eyelet, a contact on a tube socket, or two or three leads twisted together and soldered (except that the latter is a lot messier and harder to work on.)

None, that's what.

Quote:
<blather deleted>
Transformers are expensive, nothing wrong with what fender now uses, and is in fact the same company they have always used, and is in fact the same company I use for output iron, after years of testing what is available to me.
have seen iron fail from other companies more than what fender uses. And other issues that get very complex, fender stock iron is As good as any other , better than a few , you are clearly at this point just making up stuff to reinforce what you believe. I get it.
The new Fenders I've seen have transformers that appear to be somewhat flimsy. Jim Williams has stated many times that in working on Dwight Yoakam's reissue Fender Deluxe Reverbs (he has a number of them stashed at various point around the country) that among various other things needed to bring the amps up to par that he found it necessary to replace transformers because the new ones rip free of the chassis under road conditions (I assume he's talking about output transformers, which mount with sheet metal tabs, not bolts through the laminations). Given a choice I will believe Jim Williams word over you.

And I have never seen an original Fender transformer rip free of the chassis.

Just because other companies use even junkier transformers does not absolve Fender. They're Fender, they have an expectation of quality to uphold. And they're not doing it.

Leo is turning in his grave.

Quote:
<blather deleted>
Is an eyelet board better than a pcb, In some ways, in some ways not. That is a known fact.
The only advantage that a PCB has over an eyelet or turret board is that it's much cheaper to assemble using computerized robotic machines. It has no advantages in performance, durability, or serviceability, quite the contrary.

Quote:
Pcb s are used in boogie amps , are they bad amps?
There's a huge difference between a PCB designed by Randall Smith for performance and a PCB designed by FMIC for "cost effectiveness". Hell, you can see it just by looking - Mesa boards are made out of mil spec fiberglass of the highest quality. Fender PC boards are made of flimsy crap. The same carrys through the quality of all their components.

Quote:
Are Marshall’s bad amps?
I haven't been inside every new Marshall, but most of the new ones I've been into were not that great. Better than Fender though.

I don't generally like most new Marshalls.

Quote:
But you are wrong, bet you have “rims” on your car as well?
What are you babbling about?

FWIW I currently drive a Prius, not that it has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Quote:
the reissue fenders are a pleasure to work on Compared to a boogie, carvin, crate, and many others,
You clearly have an opinion otherwise and I get it.
A reissue falls apart ? More than any other modern amp?
Well, most modern amps are junk, more or less. Boogies are different. The main problem with new Boogies is that, IMO, they have grown overly complex. But that's Randall's market.

Quote:
They are all about the same, take care of them they are fine.
Yeah, baby them and they might last 10 years maybe even 15. I want an amp that will last 50. How many "modern" amps do you think will still be around in 50 years? We live in an age of disposable electronics, built to a price point, assembled by machines, not humans, and designed for cheap assembly, not durability.

Quote:
Are they 1/4 finger jointed old pine, and built with hide glue? No but they do not cost what one that is does.
And they fall apart and are at least twice as heavy. If you drop an amp with an MDF/particle board case it chips and crushes.

Again, built for cheapness, sold for premium price.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #51
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
chipss36 it is quite possible and I believe you that you do decent amp work but that's not at all what this is about. It is about simple nomenclature and John and I have it right and you are mistaken historically, functionally, and every other way that matters. It is all about whether there is actual wire to connect components or wave solder. If you're good with electronics sure you know that the least amount of solder to do the job is best. Wire should be wrapped for a solid electro-mechanical connection and SECURED with solder. Solder is essentially the metallic equivalent of plastic which is why mass production loves that crap.

Look at this chart, please, and compare the resistivity of Lead and Tin to Copper.

http://eddy-current.com/conductivity...y-resistivity/

Silver Solder is better than simple lead-tin solder but the percentage of silver is single digit at best. Traces are a huge compromise. Are there decent amps made with PCB? Sure? Would they be even better with whatever-the-hell-name-you-choose-to-call what we old timers that were actually more evolved than a fetus when everything was made this way know to be so... eyelet,turret, terminal strip is all WIRED and therefore point-to-point... the answer is Hell Yes!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #52
The bottom line is how do the reisues sound. I saw George Benson play through a 65 RI and Lee Ritenour plays through two of them for stereo. I confirmed with Lee Rit that his are stock 65 RI's and no mods were made to them. Both guitarist sounded amazing with them. I also have a 65 RI which replaced by Fender Twin with the red knobs. The RI clearly had a tone that excelled over the red knob version when I A/B them. The only mod I di was adding wheels to it . The amp sounds amazing with pedals too.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #53
I have to agree with John on this one - when I joined in this thread I was calling turret or eyelet boards P2P as well. Whats the principle difference then?
@ chipss36 , how do you test your trannies? Genuine interest - PM me if you care to share some numbers.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci View Post
The bottom line is how do the reisues sound.
Not necessarily. Sturdiness is a big factor for live musicians too. Maybe even bigger than the tone actually.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
Not necessarily. Sturdiness is a big factor for live musicians too. Maybe even bigger than the tone actually.
Well if Lee Rittenour and George Benson can tour with them it must be pretty sturdy. I transport mine to church when I play with the worship band for the last several years with no issues. Please note I'm not saying the new reissues are the same build quality as the old ones, just that they seem to hold up pretty well.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci View Post
The bottom line is how do the reisues sound. I saw George Benson play through a 65 RI and Lee Ritenour plays through two of them for stereo. I confirmed with Lee Rit that his are stock 65 RI's and no mods were made to them. Both guitarist sounded amazing with them. I also have a 65 RI which replaced by Fender Twin with the red knobs. The RI clearly had a tone that excelled over the red knob version when I A/B them. The only mod I di was adding wheels to it . The amp sounds amazing with pedals too.
Both those guys would sound amazing playing through a tin can with a string.

The red knob Fender is not the classic design we are talking about. In fact it's radically different. And Twins need to be turned up VERY loud.

The reissues are OK, but just OK.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #57
Lives for gear
 
audioforce's Avatar
 

Not to crash the party, but an Ampeg V-4 or VT-22 is PCB [or mostly PCB, I guess], and will flat-out DUST any of the Twin Reverbs you guys appear to be arguing about.

[donning flame repellent suit].

No, by all means, back to your "discussion".



Best,

audioforce
Old 2 weeks ago
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioforce View Post
Not to crash the party, but an Ampeg V-4 or VT-22 is PCB [or mostly PCB, I guess], and will flat-out DUST any of the Twin Reverbs you guys appear to be arguing about.

[donning flame repellent suit].

No, by all means, back to your "discussion".



Best,

audioforce
Yeah I know. Great amps, but I've had to repair a number of them by hardwiring around holes burned in the circuit board material.

Not super common but it does happen.

And I wouldn't say "any". My 140 watt Twin Reverb with factory JBLs will AT LEAST hold its own against any V4 or VT22.

And then there's the 180 watt Supertwin....
Old 2 weeks ago
  #59
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
I guess we are actually talking about more than one subject which just happen to have some overlap. One is PCB vs/ P2P (old school definition) and the other has to do with miniaturization. VT22s and V4s erea of Ampegs used very high quality Phenolc boards, full sized components and had lots of room between components and rather heavy traces. IMHO early Ampeg PCB construction is among the best of PCB work BUT they are still more risky to work on and it isn't at all uncommon to see such amps with wire replacing fuxored traces.

I've owned several Ampegs worked on hundreds and still own an SVT and a Reverberocket. I LOVED both an ancient 1x12 @50 watt Ampeg combo I owned as well as the later 2x12 version.. Both did use quite a few terminal strips so they are kinda transitional hybrid but both had pretty solid PCB construction for much of the circuitry. As much as I loved them I'd much rather work on a Fender eyelet board P2P. Soundwise the early Ampegs did not suffer a bit from PCB construction.

That said I would put up a Tweed twin against any V4 or VT22, not only for sheer volume and headroom, but for tonality, even though PCB vs/ P2P has little or nothing to do with that difference.. Ampeg was extremely conservative in gain staging, used GOBS of negative feedback, and I've never been fond of 7027a power tubes which sound even "tubbier" than 6550s to me. THAT said one of the most magnificent live guitar sounds I have ever heard was The Stones thru SVTs. Ya Yas to this day is one of the most definitive live Rock 'n Roll tone albums of all time. Both Richard's and Taylor's tone has a gloriously potent majesty rarely heard anywhere or anytime since. They roll like a pedal to the metal freight train.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Both those guys would sound amazing playing through a tin can with a string.

The red knob Fender is not the classic design we are talking about. In fact it's radically different. And Twins need to be turned up VERY loud.

The reissues are OK, but just OK.
I respectfully disagree that the Twin needs to be turned up very loud. I have recorded 3 CD's of my own music with the Fender Twin 65 RI and my volume has never gone past 3. Granted I use a Mesa Boogie Flux Drive and Seymour Duncan 805 when I play rock and blues. But for my jazz songs, its clean with a Royer 121 and Audix I5. I have tinnitus so I have to be careful with keeping volumes in my studio and live controllable.

Here is a Jeff Beck song I recorded with a American Fender Tele and Fender Twin at volume 2.5 Granted the Sound cloud quality is only about 70 percent of how really sounds. https://soundcloud.com/user8815228/f...28/sets/5th-cd
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