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
Sounding Off: Is New Gear Better? (Ethan's article on SOS) Condenser Microphones
Old 21st November 2009
  #211
my first recordings in digital audio were in sound designer to record "masters" from my fourtrack cassette deck, to digitize stereo "masters" from vhs hi-fi and to edit those masters. it was like the heavens had opened.

my first experience with pro-tools was on the very first (get this) four track system - owned by a friend and we used it to mix/remix a song for an album that was recorded on four track cassette... we've come a long way.

listening to the cassette bounce of that session (in 1992), I thought to myself - omg - the tools! the eq was different than I had ever heard (and not even real time!).

maybe that was the best of it all - recording on a four track cassette and editing/mixing in protools!

time went on, we got more tracks, more real time tools, and ALOT of records have been made on some combination of early pro-tools and/or ADATS w/ 1604's... for a while in the early to mid 90s the official indie band album production tool kit was a 16bit Black Face ADAT and a 1604 - those followed by Pro-Tools III and Mackie 24/8's or 32/8's...

point being, people do the best with what they have and a lot of great albums have been made on a lot of less than great gear...

I know of one very high profile producer/engineer who works mobile and remote (for tracking, not live shows) and his primary rig is 12 solid mic pre's, 24 track Radar and a Tascam DM3200 for mixing... I kid you not...

so older, newer... I'll take mostly newer and make choices about the colors I want and not blame the gear if I can't get the sound I want.
Old 21st November 2009
  #212
Lives for gear
 
fossaree's Avatar
Steal the hits !

I've found it amazing ;-) !
Old 21st November 2009
  #213
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulbrother View Post
I do thank you, and I am quite happy with my results, as I am well aware that anything in them that is lacking is my own damn fault, and not about some mystical, magical mojo that one finds in the simple device that amplfies the gain on the mic signal.
If you're happy with what you're getting that's all that matters.

-R
Old 22nd November 2009
  #214
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
+1, and to add...man if you can't hear the difference between a solidbody and a hollowbody archtop you've got some problems. The difference between a new issue vibro champ and the real deal? Not to mention the sonic differences between quality NOS tubes and poor quality modern chinese tubes...
I think you're missing the point...guitars were brought up in relation to plugins...

is there a difference between plugins?

I say no, not really...

but I bet most everyone has more plugin EQs than they do guitars...
Old 22nd November 2009
  #215
Quote:
Originally Posted by fossaree View Post
Steal the hits !
I've found it amazing ;-) !
well, thank you.
Old 24th November 2009
  #216
Gear Nut
 
scrizly's Avatar
 

Hmmm I listened to the myspace and CD baby clips. Now maybe it's just the low-bit MP3s, but I think the sound quality of that recording is pretty bad. NOT the music... the music is great and the musicians are really talented. I would even say that despite the lack of sound quality the recording has a lot of life and a good groove... but I personally would be 10x more likely to buy it and play it at home if the sound quality was better. "Funny Thing" sounds like a Steely Dan track run through a cheese grater. The cymbals sound so brittle it's like shards of glass are flying into my ears.
Old 24th November 2009
  #217
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrizly View Post
Hmmm I listened to the myspace and CD baby clips. Now maybe it's just the low-bit MP3s, but I think the sound quality of that recording is pretty bad. NOT the music... the music is great and the musicians are really talented. I would even say that despite the lack of sound quality the recording has a lot of life and a good groove... but I personally would be 10x more likely to buy it and play it at home if the sound quality was better. "Funny Thing" sounds like a Steely Dan track run through a cheese grater. The cymbals sound so brittle it's like shards of glass are flying into my ears.

That's too bad. Wish there was a way for you to hear it on a home stereo, it does sound better. ...( I think) I heard the glass too on mp3.
If it sounds bad though, it's mostly my fault. I didn't engineer it but I mixed and produced it. Everything was close mic'd, LOTS of mics on the drums. Done mostly ITB . My first time dealing with their monitoring setup, the tracking sounds seemed descent at the time (although VERY hot)....I'm making excuses now.

I made two sets of mixes, one that was darker and lovely (to my ears), and one that had the same master buss compressor on every track to give it a "Hi-fi" lift and volume in case this first mix seemed too dull or old school for them. I gave the band both sets (??) with the option to choose the one they liked. I never thought they'd pick that one.

Steelyfan
Old 24th November 2009
  #218
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

I like Ethan, and I understand that the column is about fostering debate, but a sentence like this:

"A current consumer-grade soundcard beats the finest analogue recorder in every way one could possibly assess fidelity."

...should really come with some acknowledgement that "fidelity" is just one parameter, and not one that many people have a need to care about directly.
Old 25th November 2009
  #219
Gear Nut
 
scrizly's Avatar
 

Yeah me too... like I said, I do think the vibe is captured well.. it's just strange because it's like my brain recognizes the tones that should be there and is filling them in. Probably the same thing we do when "processing" a compressed jpeg image.

I think this has been a really good thread. Some excellent points from Ethan, Jim W, and many others. One thing I have learned from this thread is that I do appreciate the highest fidelity possible at some point in the chain, and definitely in the final delivery medium.

I think that was part of Ethan's point... regardless of whatever mojo inducing triple-recitifier-germanium-flux-capacitizer you use to get *your* sound, at some point you will want to store and reproduce that sound "perfectly", and modern consumer-grade stuff is actually really darn good at doing that.

I look at all the vintage outboard stuff as expensive tone-shaping devices. They are paintbrushes that make painting my pictures easier. Once I have something digitized, sure I could paint the same picture with Photoshop pixel by pixel... but it would be so tedious I would most likely just give up. Recording is a time-based art and business. Working quickly keeps clients happy, inspiration alive, and juices flowing. To that extent people will pay high dollar for the paint-brushes they need, but saying one brush is "better" than another is pretty silly.

Now I personally wouldn't risk my final masterpiece on a soundblaster card, but I do think there are lots of affordable converters that capture and re-produce audio signals very well. At least well enough that when I pop in Wilco or Andres Segovia I can have an emotional response and I'm not thinking...damn this 44.1/16-bit **** is just not doing it for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
That's too bad. Wish there was a way for you to hear it on a home stereo, it does sound better. ...( I think) I heard the glass too on mp3.
Steelyfan
Old 25th November 2009
  #220
Lives for gear
 
fossaree's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
T

I made two sets of mixes, one that was darker and lovely (to my ears), and one that had the same master buss compressor on every track to give it a "Hi-fi" lift and volume in case this first mix seemed too dull or old school for them. I gave the band both sets (??) with the option to choose the one they liked. I never thought they'd pick that one.

Steelyfan
That happened to me the other day ... They've picked the most unpleasant version I've done ! Why they choose the bad one ? LOL
Old 25th November 2009
  #221
Lives for gear
 
Batchainpuller78's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
I like Ethan, and I understand that the column is about fostering debate, but a sentence like this:

"A current consumer-grade soundcard beats the finest analogue recorder in every way one could possibly assess fidelity."

...should really come with some acknowledgement that "fidelity" is just one parameter, and not one that many people have a need to care about directly.
thumbsup

Quote:
Fidelity is a notion that, at its most abstract level, implies a truthful connection to a source or sources. Its original meaning dealt with loyalty and attentiveness to one's duty to a lord or a king, in a broader sense than the related concept of fealty. Both derive from the Latin word fidēlis (A III adjective), meaning "faithful or loyal"
Old 25th November 2009
  #222
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batchainpuller78 View Post
thumbsup
>>"fidelity" is just one parameter, and not one that many people have a need to care about directly.

What DOES this mean?

Does this mean that I should not care about "fidelity"?

My wife may take exception to this hypothesis! (As would others who care about being faithful to the idea of rightful reproduction!)
Old 25th November 2009
  #223
Lives for gear
 
DamnYankee's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer
...
LOL, there's two more myths that need busting. Terrible? Horrible? I remember the first time I heard a CD and was blown away at the sheer quality. Truly extended highs, no hiss or surface noise, no rumble, and you could play it an infinite number of times with no degradation.

--Ethan
I dunno Ethan...

I have to tell ya: I have an all McIntosh stereo system (with tube preamp & amp) and I have many CD and vinyl versions of the same albums. I can start a song on both and A/B them (Phono/Aux) and there is a night and day difference between CD and vinyl. On the CD, the bass isn't as meaty and the cymbals are brassy and not as clear. Even my tone deaf wife can easily guess which is the CD and which is vinyl.

Now I'll grant you the subsonic rumble of the turntable and pops/clicks are sometimes heard, but when a song starts rockin', the vinyl is more alive.

Nice article by the way.

DY
Old 25th November 2009
  #224
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DamnYankee View Post

Now I'll grant you the subsonic rumble of the turntable and pops/clicks are sometimes heard, but when a song starts rockin', the vinyl is more alive.
DY
It is much easier to overlook artifacts when they do not impede our ability to hear what we want to hear.

I don't know if that makes a vinyl record "better" than a CD, but I DO know that it makes it more enjoyable!

I will now stand by and let a bunch of people post their reasons why I am "wrong" (and about why I should enjoy the CD more than the vinyl).
Old 25th November 2009
  #225
Lives for gear
 
DamnYankee's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
These two mics were chosen for the most obvious difference, MP3 and so on. Your puny FFT won't show a difference between a Millennia and a GML!
Clearly science can explain why one mic sounds different i.e. different type of capsule or frequency response. However that is entirely missing the point. Why does the new one sound worse? Why make that choice, and why is it almost universal across the manufacturers? Why did AKG chose to bring out an inferior sounding product? Ditto why did Neumann come out with a worse sounding 84? Why is the M149 not better than a U47?
Surely it can't be simply money. When someone comes out with a great product we will pay. Brauner, DPA etc. I can only conclude that they are deluded by the numerical improvements in the tests which do NOT equate to experienced sound quality. They all actually think these things are better, just because the numbers say so, and they are wrong. We will improve measurement methods and find new paradigms in the future. In fact I have them here already......
It is widely accepted that 24 Bits are indistinguishable from 20 or so, and both sound better than 16. The artifacts in question are tiny, way below 80dB. Furthermore science would have us believe that if both are properly implemented they will be indentical. They are not.
The Sample rate issue is a red herring. It is widely believed that the raw difference between rates in inaudible. Conversely science would have us believe that 88/96/192 is better. Without the overall context of upsampled plug ins and other in-use details, it simply is not better, merely inaudible.
Research? Ethan are my tests not research? Are you speaking of reading and citing electronic tests, a self serving delusional activity which completely avoids listening tests? Do you not see the fallacy in assuming that these tests have it completely covered, when even a rudimentary sonic test gives a consistently opposite result?
That is incomplete science, the only kind by the way.

DD
You have another highly educated MIT engineer who's also a well-respected recording engineer and musician who completely agrees with you:

"People think digital is an accurate representation of music, and it's not. And because of the phase-angle error, all the things that your ear and your brain do normally to figure out where sounds are coming from to form a mental aural map, if you will, of your audio surroundings — it takes that and completely fools it. It turns something that had enormous depth and was recorded in a natural, beautiful hall and puts it into a little flat thing in front of you. So, as you can see, I've hated digital from the beginning. But it's cheap, and it's got a lot of features, and that's what sells..."
- Tom Scholz, Nov 2006

And here some research that also backs both Scholz' and your assertion regarding digital audio:

"Two types of experiments were conducted to assess the human discriminability of temporal convolution—one employed lowpass filtering and the other employed delays due to spatial misalignment. By using special ultrahigh-fidelity equipment, both experiments demonstrated discernment at a ~5µs timescale, which is much shorter than found previously. While the signal manipulations affect both the spectrum and temporal definition of the signal, the spectral changes in these experiments fall below the known just noticeable differences. The discrimination may therefore involve mechanisms additional to the auditory system's ability to distinguish spectral amplitude differences. Furthermore the present work shows that typical instrumentation used in psychoacoustic research has insufficient temporal speed and fidelity for properly assessing all aspects of human hearing and also that digital sampling rates used in consumer audio are insufficient for fully preserving transparency".
- Kuncher; Probing the Temporal Resolution and Bandwidth of Human Hearing; J.Acoust. Soc. Am. Vol 122:5; pgs 2967-2967; Nov 2007.
Old 25th November 2009
  #226
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossaree View Post
That happened to me the other day ... They've picked the most unpleasant version I've done ! Why they choose the bad one ? LOL
Why I even gave them an option is beyond me?? They wanted a "radio sound" and I labored over the first mixes for months (it can be a bitch mixing something you didn't track........not my thing). I'm into an older sound myself. But I wanted to let them know, "Here's another set of mixes that are hot and have a brittle top end....you'll hate these compared to the other ones". .??? Yet, everyone said they translated well on their end!?? Live and learn.
Old 25th November 2009
  #227
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
Why I even gave them an option is beyond me?? They wanted a "radio sound" and I labored over the first mixes for months (it can be a bitch mixing something you didn't track........not my thing). I'm into an older sound myself. But I wanted to let them know, "Here's another set of mixes that are hot and have a brittle top end....you'll hate these compared to the other ones". .??? Yet, everyone said they translated well on their end!?? Live and learn.
There ya go tryin' to mix for people who can hear again!
Old 25th November 2009
  #228
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

All those close mic'd condensors on the cymbals....!!

What's a brotha to do other than carve it up to death?? yikes..

Old 25th November 2009
  #229
Lives for gear
 
Kris's Avatar
Obviously hard to tell from myspace, but I'd bet the farm that by tracking with something besides that HORRIBLE B*****inger mixer, the recording would have sounded much more like a 'record' AND you would have spent much less time mixing it. I think you should give yourself more credit for it sounding as good as it does!
Old 25th November 2009
  #230
Lives for gear
 
Nolet's Avatar
 

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time taking seriously an opinion piece by a acoustic material manufacturer ABOUT the merits of room acoustics. He even goes out and says that people always asked what to buy next. Ethan gives the answer: my stuff.
Old 25th November 2009
  #231
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DamnYankee View Post
Two types of experiments were conducted to assess the human discriminability of temporal convolution—one employed lowpass filtering and the other employed delays due to spatial misalignment. By using special ultrahigh-fidelity equipment, both experiments demonstrated discernment at a ~5µs timescale, which is much shorter than found previously. While the signal manipulations affect both the spectrum and temporal definition of the signal, the spectral changes in these experiments fall below the known just noticeable differences. The discrimination may therefore involve mechanisms additional to the auditory system's ability to distinguish spectral amplitude differences. Furthermore the present work shows that typical instrumentation used in psychoacoustic research has insufficient temporal speed and fidelity for properly assessing all aspects of human hearing and also that digital sampling rates used in consumer audio are insufficient for fully preserving transparency".
- Kuncher; Probing the Temporal Resolution and Bandwidth of Human Hearing; J.Acoust. Soc. Am. Vol 122:5; pgs 2967-2967; Nov 2007.
Uh oh.

btw, Moorer wrote about the temporal/spatial deficiencies of lower sample rates years ago. I've re-posted his work here before. However his writing was based on decades old data. Interesting to see recent research finally being done and published to corroborate it.

Of course, then you get the "BUT NYQUIST SAID" or "BUT LAVRY SAID" knee-jerks, but the reality is it seems to be a bit more complex than that.

Science generally has at least a 5-10 year lag between what we can know and what we can prove. It's an aspect of the process a certain subset of the population often chooses to forget.

Moorer - New Audio Formats

Also the citation for the article you quoted:

Quote:
Experiments were conducted to assess the human discriminability of temporal convolution. The experiments employed either lowpass filtering or delays due to spatial misalignment. By using special ultrahigh-fidelity equipment, both experiments demonstrated discernment at a ~ 5 microsecond timescale, which is much shorter than found previously. While the signal manipulations affect both the spectrum and temporal definition of the signal, the spectral changes fall below the known just noticeable differences. The discrimination may therefore involve mechanisms additional to the auditory system's ability to distinguish spectral amplitude differences. Furthermore the present work shows that typical instrumentation used in psychoacoustic research may, for some purposes, have insufficient temporal speed and bandwidth. Also this work proves that that digital sampling rates used in consumer audio are insufficient for fully preserving transparency.
Probing the temporal resolution and bandwidth of human hearing
Old 25th November 2009
  #232
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris View Post
Obviously hard to tell from myspace, but I'd bet the farm that by tracking with something besides that HORRIBLE B*****inger mixer, the recording would have sounded much more like a 'record' AND you would have spent much less time mixing it. I think you should give yourself more credit for it sounding as good as it does!

Well, that's a nice thing to say. I think most of that record turned out pretty good ( although a hot top end), but still a bit.....processed for my taste. I sign of the times and working with someone else's recording template probablly didn't help. Honesty while I was there (the tracking studio) I never heard anything that was "offending" during the tracking/soundcheck/getting levels part of the process. But to be honest, the B-ringer was pretty transparent, as in no hiss/hum/ or.....mojo. Almost like it wasn't even part of the chain. I really can't blame the B. Part of the problem, and I remember this clearly, was that the tracking levels were WAY hot, AND there was lots of digital e.q. and reverb sent to everyone's phones mix, including mine during the tracking. Didn't want to rock the boat as they were used to this "sound" as they rehearsed to this setup everyday.

THEN... the material was put to disc, all the tracks, and sent to me to mix later.....sounding NOTHING like what we were tracking due to excessive digital e.q. and other pluggins placed on each track , sounds that should have been "properly captured" up front. Close mic'ing the drums, (10 mics on a 5 piece kit........I **** you not) with the combo of the hot levels, boutique condensors a foot above the cymbals , a 5 string bass Di with LOTS of pluggs on it's track. etc etc. , .

It was alot of work, and I cursed the raw material as it wasn't the same thing I was hearing during the process. Lots of time went into the record, and I even plyed alot of guitar overdubs/layers over it later and had friends do back up vocals at my own place.....went fast and smooth.

Oh well, I done with making excuses, It is what it is. But as a summary, I really don't blame the B, rather it was the hot recording levels/mic placement combo with lots of pluggs on each track.......oh HELL, it WAS the B! This IS GS for C_Sakes..... that DAMN MIXER!

cheers, Steely
Old 25th November 2009
  #233
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolet View Post
Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time taking seriously an opinion piece by a acoustic material manufacturer ABOUT the merits of room acoustics. He even goes out and says that people always asked what to buy next. Ethan gives the answer: my stuff.

That's a valid point, and although I have only read through this thread randomly, there's nothing wrong with someone selling something they truely believe in. That's pretty rare these days, to find someone who genuinely believes in what they sell and maintains a passion for it.

However, getting the chills isn't always fixed by putting on a jacket, nor is it always a result of cold weather.
Old 25th November 2009
  #234
Lives for gear
 
Nolet's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
That's a valid point, and although I have only read through this thread randomly, there's nothing wrong with someone selling something they truely believe in. That's pretty rare these days, to find someone who genuinely believes in what they sell and maintains a passion for it.

However, getting the chills isn't always fixed by putting on a jacket, nor is it always a result of cold weather.
Where I'm from there's a well known expression that was prompted by some toilet cleaner commercial. It goes: "we from brand A recommend....brand A!"
That's the vibe I get. It's just an advertisement disguised as an editorial piece.
Old 25th November 2009
  #235
Lives for gear
 
The Listener's Avatar
I definitely like the part about the BIG rooms of the past and that it's what is most lacking in contemporary "project" and home studios... Fortunately we can at least hire (if not own) recording spaces or go to small theatres and churches, too and then tweedle mixes in your (treated) bedrooms.

But this part reads like gross misinformation or at least an over-generalisation... For such claims the proof is needed:

"A current consumer-grade soundcard beats the finest analogue recorder in every way one could possibly assess fidelity."

Ok, let's make the same recording on a well maintained Nagra or Stellavox tape recorder and a Soundblaster to proove that statement.
I am prepared to accept it as fact if it would be prooven with a real world example.
Conversion of the tape recordings should be made through some high-end (even if the tester doesn't believe in it) AD converter, so the integrity of the signal remains the highest possible... or just listen to tape without conversion vs computer with an average consumer soundcard - even better, but no good for a public demonstration on a forum...
LISTENING is one of the most relevant ways to assess "fidelity". Opinions will differ, but big enough consensus should do the trick to evaluate something properly... I haven't heard any such test (consumer soundcard vs. high-end tape recorder) to proove any side, yet.


"I’ll argue that modern digital equaliser plug-ins are far better than any analogue hardware, no matter what the price."

Can this really be stated as such a broad generalisation? Really "any" and "far better"?
Even comparing something like Cranesong IBIS, Prismsound Maselec MEA2, etc. with let's say Waves RenEQ? Can anyone honestly state that the latter is really "far better"?

Are those only attention getting "shock" statements to provoke some sort of reaction, but that need much "small print" added to make any sense...
Old 25th November 2009
  #236
Lives for gear
 
fossaree's Avatar
I think you can get a nice result in this scenario :
great room - cheap gear

other scenario wich will be hard work to get nice results:
great gear - cheap room


and I ain't talking about skills , which is supposed to be sine qua non condition to nice results .

0.02 cents $
Old 25th November 2009
  #237
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossaree View Post
I think you can get a nice result in this scenario :
great room - cheap gear

other scenario wich will be hard work to get nice results:
great gear - cheap room


and I ain't talking about skills , which is supposed to be sine qua non condition to nice results .

0.02 cents $
Well, yeah.

Using great gear to record a bad room leans you toward a great recording of a bad sound!

It's like a high-def photo of an ugly subject!

(Unless that's what you're after, ya might wanna soft-focus!)

Old 25th November 2009
  #238
Lives for gear
 
fossaree's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post

It's like a high-def photo of an ugly subject!

(Unless that's what you're after, ya might wanna soft-focus!)

LOL
Old 25th November 2009
  #239
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperman View Post
Jeez Jim.

I think Ethan has provided an astonishing number of examples of what he can and cannot hear over the years.

Bewildering number, really.

I suspect that since so few potential room treatment customers, err... sycophants, err... ethanianados seem remotely interested in what he CAN hear... he has become especially adept at explaining that which he CANNOT hear.

I mean... MEASURE.

However, I feel compelled to unequivocally state that I am becoming both alarmed and concerned that this little dispute over any difference between ethan's cutting edge (soundblaster/spectrafoo?) system and your AP rig's MEASUREMENT RESOLUTION might, most terribly, cause you to end what has turned out to be such a brilliant and fruitful internot relationship on GS.

What a desperate and tenebrous turn of the cards that would prove to be.

I'm gonna go wear out a pew down at the local Church of Satan.


SM.
Somehow I get the impression you won't be praying FOR me?

Too many mixers, not enough fixers. First heard that in 1970. Still true. Don't worry your little heart out for me, there will still be more work than I can ever do when you are hunting down that last mixing gig. Say a little prayer for yourself.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 26th November 2009
  #240
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolet View Post
Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time taking seriously an opinion piece by a acoustic material manufacturer ABOUT the merits of room acoustics. He even goes out and says that people always asked what to buy next. Ethan gives the answer: my stuff.
it's not just you.
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
iagp / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
8
phillysoulman / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
4
warhead / So much gear, so little time
29
smoore98 / So many guitars, so little time
3
Relax / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump