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
Al Schmitt “On the Record” and Mic as EQ Theory Condenser Microphones
Old 1 week ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Al Schmitt “On the Record” and Mic as EQ Theory

So I’m reading the book and highly recommend it for anyone serious about recording. It’s a great read with lots of good information. Throughout the book he reidetates over and over mic placement and conservative use to no use of EQ. This is not new to me. Getting it right at the source is best practice and so that’s not up for discussion with me, but it’s the use of different mics that is. I just started building mics from kits and corrective EQ is a big part of mic circuits. I’m building the first set of circuits flat with no corrective EQ and matching capsules with flat frequency responses to the circuit. So here’s my hang-up.

1) Wouldn’t corrective EQ built into the mic circuit have the same effect as EQ after the fact? Your still using an electrical circuit to EQ the sound.

2) If a capsule is “bright”, “dark”, “nuetral”, isn’t it also by default adding EQ?

If so,

3) why is one preferred over the other?

Mr Schmitt says if what he hears in the speakers needs some highs he swapps out the mic to a brighter mic. I have no problem with this in theory and believe it to be best practice (I’ve been listening to his work as I read the book. The results speak for themself), but now that I’m building mics I know of corrective EQ within mic circuits and the difference in capsules.

School me on this please.

Brian
Old 1 week ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
So I’m reading the book and highly recommend it for anyone serious about recording. It’s a great read with lots of good information. Throughout the book he reidetates over and over mic placement and conservative use to no use of EQ. This is not new to me. Getting it right at the source is best practice and so that’s not up for discussion with me, but it’s the use of different mics that is. I just started building mics from kits and corrective EQ is a big part of mic circuits. I’m building the first set of circuits flat with no corrective EQ and matching capsules with flat frequency responses to the circuit. So here’s my hang-up.

1) Wouldn’t corrective EQ built into the mic circuit have the same effect as EQ after the fact? Your still using an electrical circuit to EQ the sound.

2) If a capsule is “bright”, “dark”, “nuetral”, isn’t it also by default adding EQ?

If so,

3) why is one preferred over the other?

Mr Schmitt says if what he hears in the speakers needs some highs he swapps out the mic to a brighter mic. I have no problem with this in theory and believe it to be best practice (I’ve been listening to his work as I read the book. The results speak for themself), but now that I’m building mics I know of corrective EQ within mic circuits and the difference in capsules.

School me on this please.

Brian
The EQ built in to mics is there to compensate for the action of the electronics on the capsule, to get the most even frequency response for that particular capsule.

In other words, its a compromise between frequency response and a natural sounding microphone.

Some of your favorite microphone sound signatures are created by these combinations of Mic circuit / capsule.

Whenever guys like Al Schmitt say "use as little EQ as possible" it must be taken with Grains of Salt. Because in my world, that is just not possible. Because Im not working with impeccable musical arrangements played by world class performers captured by world class microphones and signal chains, in the best designed rooms on planet earth.

EQ is just a tool to get to a certain place, and is as useful and musical as the engineer who uses it.

Use it with some taste and insight, and it will get to the place you want to be, in most cases.

I like EQ, and use it liberally, on everything. It usually helps.

Choosing the right mic with the right placement in most cases does not get 100 percent of the way to "mostly perfect".

It is just one way to get the "right" sound for the right source, in the right musical context...
Old 1 week ago
  #3
Gear Maniac
 

if you gave me the option;

- spend 30 minutes adjusting the position of a U87 on a Vox AC30 until it's how you think it should sound

- stick the U87 either on/off axis, on the best speaker, then apply liberal amounts of 1073 style EQ until it's how you think it should sound

i know which one i'd rather go with
Old 1 week ago
  #4
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
I'm of the philosophy that everything is an EQ. Change the mic, change the sound, move the mic, change the sound. Patch in a compressor, change the sound. Use an EQ, change the sound. Changing the instrument, or amp/cabinet, same thing.
Old 1 week ago
  #5
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I'm of the philosophy that everything is an EQ. Change the mic, change the sound, move the mic, change the sound. Patch in a compressor, change the sound. Use an EQ, change the sound. Changing the instrument, or amp/cabinet, same thing.
I completely agree: you can move a snare mic an inch and totally change the sound of it.

Same with a room mic: there are sweet spots all over the place, no need for different mic (or preamp).
Old 1 week ago
  #6
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface View Post
I completely agree: you can move a snare mic an inch and totally change the sound of it.

Same with a room mic: there are sweet spots all over the place, no need for different mic (or preamp).
Sometimes a mic swap is the best idea. All the things are useful.
Old 1 week ago
  #7
I agree with Drumsound, when I'm tracking I don't use an outboard eq, mic choice and placement are 99.9999999% all the eq I need, coupled with whatever pre I'm using. I totally agree with the concept that mic choice and placement is eq. Now in the mix that is a different matter but here I'm just using eq to help things fit better rather than going for the sound with an outboard eq.
Old 1 week ago
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Island View Post
if you gave me the option;

- spend 30 minutes adjusting the position of a U87 on a Vox AC30 until it's how you think it should sound

- stick the U87 either on/off axis, on the best speaker, then apply liberal amounts of 1073 style EQ until it's how you think it should sound

i know which one i'd rather go with
uuuhhhh if it takes you 30 minutes to adjust the position of a mic on a guitar cab, you need to work on your technique, so I would think you're grossly exaggerating . It should take a minute that's about it, of course if the source sounds like crap do what you need to do. When I learned to engineer 30+ years ago I eq'd because that's what the guy I learned from did, in my search to improve I discovered I could get better sounds without using eq when tracking.
Old 1 week ago
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
uuuhhhh if it takes you 30 minutes to adjust the position of a mic on a guitar cab, you need to work on your technique, so I would think you're grossly exaggerating . It should take a minute that's about it, of course if the source sounds like crap do what you need to do. When I learned to engineer 30+ years ago I eq'd because that's what the guy I learned from did, in my search to improve I discovered I could get better sounds without using eq when tracking.
It might not take me 30 minutes... but in order to a fair comparision and properly listen and analyse the results with careful A/Bing - then i'm gonna spend at LEAST 30 minutes on it.

adjust the mic, going back into the control room, checking the level, getting the musician to play something he can play almost the same way again, recording it, going back and repositioning the mic, repeating previous steps... then when i've tried maybe, 4 or 5 positions - line them all up and A/B them, note down obvious differences and then if i liked position 1 the best then hopefully i remembered it's position...

yeah, i reckon i'd allocate a good 30 minutes for that... but as i said, i probably wouldn't do that and go for option 2 instead
Old 1 week ago
  #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Island View Post
It might not take me 30 minutes... but in order to a fair comparision and properly listen and analyse the results with careful A/Bing - then i'm gonna spend at LEAST 30 minutes on it.

adjust the mic, going back into the control room, checking the level, getting the musician to play something he can play almost the same way again, recording it, going back and repositioning the mic, repeating previous steps... then when i've tried maybe, 4 or 5 positions - line them all up and A/B them, note down obvious differences and then if i liked position 1 the best then hopefully i remembered it's position...

yeah, i reckon i'd allocate a good 30 minutes for that... but as i said, i probably wouldn't do that and go for option 2 instead
I think you radically overdramatize this, it's pretty simple, put the mic in front of the speaker, which if you've been doing this for any real period of time means you have a really good starting point, it takes me a minute. It shouldn't take anyone 30 minutes. Unless you're comparing the difference between the center of the cone to the outside of the speaker, it's not going to be that radical.
Old 1 week ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I'm of the philosophy that everything is an EQ. Change the mic, change the sound, move the mic, change the sound. Patch in a compressor, change the sound. Use an EQ, change the sound. Changing the instrument, or amp/cabinet, same thing.
This is what I’m getting at. Swapping out mics to achieve what you hear in the room is still using EQ. And when you realize mic circuits are designed to attenuate or boost certain frequencies then the sound is still going through linear changes, just at the mic level and not in the console or inserted EQ. So as I start my mic locker journey my goal is quickly becoming to build mics that I can use as EQ’s to capture the source. I’m starting with a Shoeps circuit and a K47 style capsule first to get a baseline. Then plan to move onto a KM84 style circuit with a C12 style capsule. After that I’m kinda stumped on what to build next. But it just kinda seems like Shoeps style mics with a flat frequency response should be all you need. Pair it with a transparent mic pre and mix back through a transparent console and call it a day. This may seem naive but I’ve been recording since roughly 1999 and the more transparent my equipment gets the better my recordings get and the less I have to do to make them sound better. Am I wrong?
Old 1 week ago
  #12
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
This is what I’m getting at. Swapping out mics to achieve what you hear in the room is still using EQ. And when you realize mic circuits are designed to attenuate or boost certain frequencies then the sound is still going through linear changes, just at the mic level and not in the console or inserted EQ. So as I start my mic locker journey my goal is quickly becoming to build mics that I can use as EQ’s to capture the source. I’m starting with a Shoeps circuit and a K47 style capsule first to get a baseline. Then plan to move onto a KM84 style circuit with a C12 style capsule. After that I’m kinda stumped on what to build next. But it just kinda seems like Shoeps style mics with a flat frequency response should be all you need. Pair it with a transparent mic pre and mix back through a transparent console and call it a day. This may seem naive but I’ve been recording since roughly 1999 and the more transparent my equipment gets the better my recordings get and the less I have to do to make them sound better. Am I wrong?
I think building a mic locker around having different 'tonalities' is a really good idea. I like having contrast, so I have things the are darker, and others that are bright. Some mics are pretty neutral, and others have color. When I swap a mic because I don't like what its doing to a source, I instinctively grab something that reacts differently that what is on the source.

As for the transparent thing, that's more of an esthetic than a rule. If YOU like transparent gear, than you should continue down that road. I lean that way, and have a lot of "true" sounding gear, but not exclusively.
Old 1 week ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
I agree with OP its all in just getting there... multiple ways if possible. Insane ideas could result in some insane sounds.

If you aren't scared of your goals... you are not dreaming big enough...
Old 1 week ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

It’s not really the same as EQ because there is physical phenomena that goes outside of that realm which can’t exactly be emulated with EQ.

I say that to agree with Schmitt’s method...to say, it isn’t the same to just EQ after the fact.

For instance, if you put a ribbon as a mono overhead, over snare, it will not only tend to have the top end be a bit down compared to a cardiod LDC or SDC, it will also tend to reject more on the sides, further bringing the level of cymbals down. It will also have a bit different transient response...slower...which may at times be perceived as darker/smoother.

That’s just contriving one example.

Mics aren’t necessarily uniform in pickup pattern across frequencies, and that’s another reason that it becomes within the realm of “you can’t emulate that with an EQ”. Mic circuits don’t usually create harmonic distortion evenly either...it winds up happening in signature areas for a given mic.

Now, if you HAVE to match something recorded with a different mic via EQ, to punch in a line or whatever...it can often be done. But there are still other phenomena that sometimes keeps it from being exact.

Last edited by toledo3; 1 week ago at 07:11 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
I do agree that the idea the EQ is either to balance sound or to achieve a specific sound, and most anything done is a form of EQ such as bass traps or mic wind screens or intentionally changing your voice or using outboard or digi software.

Unless your are referring to Emotional Quotient...
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 View Post
Mics aren’t necessarily uniform in pickup pattern across frequencies, and that’s another reason that it becomes within the realm of “you can’t emulate that with an EQ”. Mic circuits don’t usually create harmonic distortion evenly either...it winds up happening in signature areas for a given mic.
This is a great point. Some of the EQ factor is the pattern. Cutting it out (in that it’s not recorded) is better than EQing it out. Does anyone know how corrective EQ in the circuit of a mic affects the sound? It seems to me a fixed EQ in the circuit is no different from an EQ on a console electronically speaking. Also, seems like I read in another thread that if we saw the frequency response of capsules before the circuit we’d be terrified. So even a Shoeps circuit which is “flat” isn’t really flat, but uses corrective EQ to make the capsule flat. Can anyone comment on this?
Old 1 week ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
This is a great point. Some of the EQ factor is the pattern. Cutting it out (in that it’s not recorded) is better than EQing it out. Does anyone know how corrective EQ in the circuit of a mic affects the sound? It seems to me a fixed EQ in the circuit is no different from an EQ on a console electronically speaking. Also, seems like I read in another thread that if we saw the frequency response of capsules before the circuit we’d be terrified. So even a Shoeps circuit which is “flat” isn’t really flat, but uses corrective EQ to make the capsule flat. Can anyone comment on this?
"if we saw the frequency response of capsules before the circuit we’d be terrified" LOL
RLMFAO my goodness haha
Old 1 week ago
  #18
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
This is a great point. Some of the EQ factor is the pattern. Cutting it out (in that it’s not recorded) is better than EQing it out. Does anyone know how corrective EQ in the circuit of a mic affects the sound? It seems to me a fixed EQ in the circuit is no different from an EQ on a console electronically speaking. Also, seems like I read in another thread that if we saw the frequency response of capsules before the circuit we’d be terrified. So even a Shoeps circuit which is “flat” isn’t really flat, but uses corrective EQ to make the capsule flat. Can anyone comment on this?
Some capsules have a rising frequency response at the top end, which is then curved off with the electronics.

These kind of designs can be related to the technique of “pre-emphasis”. The idea is that by boosting frequencies that are most susceptible to noise early in the chain, that subsequently correcting afterwards-after whatever happens that adds noise floor- that overall noise floor is then brought down.

For example, say a mic capsule has a rising frequency response starting at 12k. Let’s presume that the electronics create some hiss noise floor in the same area, but *after* the capsule. If towards then end of the circuit, the rising frequency response is attenuated, it will also bring the self noise downwards.

The issue is that it is hard to match and inverse a rising frequency response curve of a capsule perfectly. New corner frequencies will occur which influence the overall frequency response. Practically speaking though, it is part of what creates the character of a mic, and not a bad thing necessarily.
Old 1 week ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 View Post
Some capsules have a rising frequency response at the top end, which is then curved off with the electronics.

These kind of designs can be related to the technique of “pre-emphasis”. The idea is that by boosting frequencies that are most susceptible to noise early in the chain, that subsequently correcting afterwards-after whatever happens that adds noise floor- that overall noise floor is then brought down.

For example, say a mic capsule has a rising frequency response starting at 12k. Let’s presume that the electronics create some hiss noise floor in the same area, but *after* the capsule. If towards then end of the circuit, the rising frequency response is attenuated, it will also bring the self noise downwards.

The issue is that it is hard to match and inverse a rising frequency response curve of a capsule perfectly. New corner frequencies will occur which influence the overall frequency response. Practically speaking though, it is part of what creates the character of a mic, and not a bad thing necessarily.
Your doing an excellent job of educating me. I have no formal education in any of this but I’ve been studying all this stuff for years at the console/compressor/preamp level. I’m just getting into mics and your bringing it all together nicely. It’s already clear to me I’ll be building lots of mics in different combinations to achieve the voicings I want. I’m gonna have to take detailed notes on the mics I build so I know how I set up the circuit. This is gonna be fun.
Old 1 week ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
Your doing an excellent job of educating me. I have no formal education in any of this but I’ve been studying all this stuff for years at the console/compressor/preamp level. I’m just getting into mics and your bringing it all together nicely. It’s already clear to me I’ll be building lots of mics in different combinations to achieve the voicings I want. I’m gonna have to take detailed notes on the mics I build so I know how I set up the circuit. This is gonna be fun.
One of my spring projects will be making a ribbon mic out of dumpster items... great learning from the school of H knocks. Heck it might even work. He has educated me too.
Old 1 week ago
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
One of my spring projects will be making a ribbon mic out of dumpster items... great learning from the school of H knocks. Heck it might even work. He has educated me too.
Here’s a pic of my MXL R144 project. I already put a Lindhal transformer in it which was an approvement. I’m gonna try to squeeze a Bumblee RE-254 ribbon motor into it. I’m gonna have to cut a slit in that plate and put a grommet in it and countersink the motor into place. I’m still trying to decide if I should ditch the MXL and find a donor mic that has headbasket room for the motor. I’m pretty sure the R144 body is the same as some of MXL’s LDC mics so I could use it for a custom LDC build.
Attached Thumbnails
Al Schmitt “On the Record” and Mic as EQ Theory-87b51a2d-82f3-432e-8063-b3f044e78ed9.jpg   Al Schmitt “On the Record” and Mic as EQ Theory-29580777-d502-49fc-a4dc-412d8302f431.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #22
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
Here’s a pic of my MXL R144 project. I already put a Lindhal transformer in it which was an approvement. I’m gonna try to squeeze a Bumblee RE-254 ribbon motor into it. I’m gonna have to cut a slit in that plate and put a grommet in it and countersink the motor into place. I’m still trying to decide if I should ditch the MXL and find a donor mic that has headbasket room for the motor. I’m pretty sure the R144 body is the same as some of MXL’s LDC mics so I could use it for a custom LDC build.
Nice I am into that....
Old 1 week ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Nice I am into that....
The issue with the MXL is there’s not enough room for the motor in the headbasket. The motor is 3”+ and there’s only about 2.5” of room. Didn’t know I was gonna go this route when I bought it. I tried it as is on snare and it has that country thud sound and rejects the high hat very well. Put it up on a female vocalist along side a V67 with the mic parts Schoeps circuit and the stock capsule and I was impressed. Was a little darker which is to be expected and not as clean/clear butnit was subtle enough that it took critical listening to hear the difference. That V67 is getting an Advanced Audio Mic’s AK47 capsule to finish it off. I’m in experimental mode.
Old 1 week ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
The issue with the MXL is there’s not enough room for the motor in the headbasket. The motor is 3”+ and there’s only about 2.5” of room. Didn’t know I was gonna go this route when I bought it. I tried it as is on snare and it has that country thud sound and rejects the high hat very well. Put it up on a female vocalist along side a V67 with the mic parts Schoeps circuit and the stock capsule and I was impressed. Was a little darker which is to be expected and not as clean/clear butnit was subtle enough that it took critical listening to hear the difference. That V67 is getting an Advanced Audio Mic’s AK47 capsule to finish it off. I’m in experimental mode.
I once saw a beautiful mic made out of a maglite flashlight. If you cut it and re-thread the cut side and add another screw cap. Very interesting permutations with all the different sizes. I always wanted to make a makeshift mic out of things in a field... doable I think. Dremmel and chop saws are great. You never quite know how they will work as a whole... without all the R&D but that is the fun and exciting thing about it... nice job.
Old 1 week ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
I saw this in another thread and I’ve been on the hunt for plied wood tubes to slide over a mic body. It would add mass to the otherwise thin body and lower the harmonic frequency. Should help with ringing also.
Attached Thumbnails
Al Schmitt “On the Record” and Mic as EQ Theory-c7af7c95-f70f-4cea-9a5a-4ec65a9aed6b.jpeg  
Old 1 week ago
  #26
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M. Boykin View Post
I saw this in another thread and I’ve been on the hunt for plied wood tubes to slide over a mic body. It would add mass to the otherwise thin body and lower the harmonic frequency. Should help with ringing also.
Nothing like a good drill press and lathe... There was plenty of a rare Ironwood in CT growing up... would nice to have a wood cylinder of that... I miss wood working too! Iron wood is the most dense wood in the world (or top 3) - walnut ain't bad either. I agree pinging and dampening... and oh ya ... lil organic sound too literally...
Old 1 week ago
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Found these but haven’t contacted them yet. 1 1/2” to 6” tubes in 1/2” increments. I want to say most LDC mix bodies are 3” or so.
Attached Thumbnails
Al Schmitt “On the Record” and Mic as EQ Theory-fedc969d-e772-489a-9002-9a7feac342fc.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #28
Gear Head
 

analog EQ's also introduce phase shift into the signal. it's part of how they work. It's not really a big problem but it's a concern to some. phase shift in this context really just means to delay a frequency range by a certain amount of time. essentially an eq uses caps and inductors to delay the signal at a certain frequency and then adds it back to the original signal to cancel or boost frequency ranges. the more times you do that the more phase shift you are introducing into your signal. it can lead to a smeared kind of sound.

so some mic's often have corrective EQ built into them which will introduce some amount of phase shift into the signal. EQing on top of that only introduces more. things like mic position and instrument changes won't effect the signal like this. so some people see those options as a more "pure" way to capture sound.

it's not something i ever think about because if you just make a judgement based on the way it sounds, you're all good. but academically the theory of using less EQ in a signal will leave it closer to the way it was captured (not saying that should be the goal though)
Old 1 week ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Brian M. Boykin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrovertigo View Post
analog EQ's also introduce phase shift into the signal. it's part of how they work. It's not really a big problem but it's a concern to some. phase shift in this context really just means to delay a frequency range by a certain amount of time. essentially an eq uses caps and inductors to delay the signal at a certain frequency and then adds it back to the original signal to cancel or boost frequency ranges. the more times you do that the more phase shift you are introducing into your signal. it can lead to a smeared kind of sound.

so some mic's often have corrective EQ built into them which will introduce some amount of phase shift into the signal. EQing on top of that only introduces more. things like mic position and instrument changes won't effect the signal like this. so some people see those options as a more "pure" way to capture sound.

it's not something i ever think about because if you just make a judgement based on the way it sounds, you're all good. but academically the theory of using less EQ in a signal will leave it closer to the way it was captured (not saying that should be the goal though)
This is really what spawned this discussion. Using mic placement and polar patterns to EQ out (or actually not record) unwanted frequencies/bleed is preferred over actual EQ because of phase shift and linear issues created by the inherent process of EQ, but, mics have corrective EQ so one needs to keep this in mind with mic selection and how much your willing to let slide in the tracking process to be corrected with EQ in the mixing process. My experience has been the more I get it right at the source and the less I process, the better the final mix turns out. Or at least, the closer it sounds to the original source. Better is subjective. I lean hard on the transparency side of recording.
Old 1 week ago
  #30
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Two sides to this token. Is Schmitt talking about avoiding EQ during tracking? I think a lot, maybe most of us do that. I have no traditional EQ devices in the input side chain in any of the studios where I work, but I do move the mic around to get the sound right (not 30 minutes worth, maybe 5). And I'll very often choose a different mic to a darker or brighter selection.

On the mix side, a different story. EQ yeah, all day long. Everyone does. Certainly he's not claiming to use no EQ while mixing.
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
jindrich / High end
111
The Press Desk / New Products - Coming soon
0
KIDBILL / High end
61
Rick Sanchez / So much gear, so little time
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump