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
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why .... Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 9th October 2011
  #811
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Yeah, I hear that Oxford joint runs a real sloppy shop. heh
Very. Michaelmas term doesn't start until tomorrow ... lazy buggers
Old 9th October 2011
  #812
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Perhaps it's time to inject yet even a little more reality into this thread and remind people that even Intel was preparing for the advent of 192kHz sample rate playback when they started integrating the PCI Express bus.

HD playback for movies, audio, and games.

For those who keep repeating the tired old argument that CD's only play at 44.1kHz so higher sample rates don't matter, I'm sorry but you have no imagination and no vision.

Technology improvements that seem impossible have always found a way to manifest and eventually integrate into the consumer market. Lest we forget the first 1GHz processor created in Los Alamos labs in New Mexico. A lot of people said it would be a long time before the public ever got their hands on technology like that. And months earlier most people would have said the concept was simply unapproachable. Well, we all know what happened after that, right?

192kHz audio will become the norm on home audio systems and in computers. So, if you can, and if you'd like, it's very realistic to look at tracking and mixing at the highest rates possible. And it's quite clear that arguments against an HD Audio future are weird (for lack of a better term). Just plain weird.

It's also interesting to that the latest Pink Floyd remasters box set comes with 24 bit 96kHz versions...oops. Higher resolution, higher definition.

Last edited by TurboJets; 9th October 2011 at 07:31 PM.. Reason: to add info
Old 9th October 2011
  #813
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
Perhaps it's time to inject yet even a little more reality into this thread and remind people that even Intel was preparing for the advent of 192kHz sample rate playback when they started integrating the PCI Express bus.
Business strategy of huge (or small) money making companies does not have any influence on physics and human hearing, believe it or not.

If Intel think they can earn money on a move they will likely do it, running business is (for most people and companies) about making money. If people believe that 192kS/s is good and therefore will buy such products of course someone will supply the market.

Quote:
For those who keep repeating the tired old argument that CD's only play at 44.1kHz so higher sample rates don't matter, I'm sorry but you have no imagination and no vision.
I agree that redbook should not set the limits for future formats.. human hearing and the market should do that. No imagination needed, just some well executed tests.

Quote:
Technology improvements that seem impossible have always found a way to manifest and eventually integrate into the consumer market. Lest we forget the first 1GHz processor created in Los Alamos labs in New Mexico. A lot of people said it would be a long time before the public ever got their hands on technology like that. And months earlier most people would have said the concept was simply unapproachable. Well, we all know what happened after that, right?
I don't see the connection to the subject. Yes, technology will progress but will not change our anatomy and sensory perception.

Quote:
192kHz audio will become the norm on home audio systems and in computers. So, if you can, and if you'd like, it's very realistic to look at tracking and mixing at the highest rates possible. And it's quite clear that arguments against an HD Audio future are weird (for lack of a better term). Just plain weird.
It's extremly unlikely that 192kS/s sample rates will ever be a consumer format even though storage and bandwith will easily handle it in the future. The reason is of course that it's just a waste of resources without any benefit what so ever.

You want HD audio? Redbook is HD audio.

Quote:
It's also interesting to that the latest Pink Floyd remasters box set comes with 24 bit 96kHz versions...oops. Higher resolution, higher definition.
Higher resolution does not automatically means higher audible definition. Again, just becasue someone sell something does not make it better. Of course the music production companies will try to sell albums in all sorts of formats as long as they can earn money from it, they always have and always will.


/Peter
Old 10th October 2011
  #814
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
192kHz audio will become the norm on home audio systems and in computers. So, if you can, and if you'd like, it's very realistic to look at tracking and mixing at the highest rates possible. And it's quite clear that arguments against an HD Audio future are weird (for lack of a better term). Just plain weird.

It's also interesting to that the latest Pink Floyd remasters box set comes with 24 bit 96kHz versions...oops. Higher resolution, higher definition.
You don't need vision to understand that there is no business future beyond 96 for a very long time.......



...next person that says "higher resolution" get's lobotomised.....
Old 10th October 2011
  #815
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Again, although fun and interesting, this is all pretty much pedantry.

Does anybody seriously think a person listening to a 128kps mp3 from an iPod while working out on the Stairmaster is going to stop dead and say, "This Lady Gaga song would have sounded so much better if they had recorded it using a sample rate of 192kHz!" Let alone an audiophile listening to the SAME song on 180Gram vinyl on a $1,000,000 stereo system (yes, they DO make those, you know).

A relevant anecdote: the other night at a store appearance, heard M.A. Battio playing a $300 electric guitar and it sounded AWESOME.

Follow me?
Old 10th October 2011
  #816
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Again... will someone wiser and more experienced than I (no, not OAG) explain to me the TOTAL disconnect between wanting "higher resolution" (whatever that means) and "analog is better?"

Please?!?
Old 10th October 2011
  #817
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
Again... will someone wiser and more experienced than I (no, not OAG) explain to me the TOTAL disconnect between wanting "higher resolution" (whatever that means) and "analog is better?"

Please?!?
And the winner of the free...

heh
Old 10th October 2011
  #818
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg
Again... will someone wiser and more experienced than I (no, not OAG) explain to me the TOTAL disconnect between wanting "higher resolution" (whatever that means) and "analog is better?"

And the winner of the free...

heh
there is no disconnect

they are different
each has strong/weak points

it is metaphysically illogical to even attempt to try to show that one is allegedly better

there is no better/worse
just different
Old 10th October 2011
  #819
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
there is no disconnect

they are different
each has strong/weak points

it is metaphysically illogical to even attempt to try to show that one is allegedly better

there is no better/worse
just different
Gotta hand it to you there.
Old 10th October 2011
  #820
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
You don't need vision to understand that there is no business future beyond 96 for a very long time.......



...next person that says "higher resolution" get's lobotomised.....
In DVD audio there is a future for 24/192kHz amigo, you'd better believe it. I would expect someone like you to understand that, at least from a practical point of view. Doesn't really matter what your personal opinion is on the matter. It exists and is being used. What's your problem with that?

...and "higher resolution" is a legit term, so what is your particular issue with it? Maybe you'd prefer the word Quality or audio acuity instead?
Old 10th October 2011
  #821
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
In DVD audio there is a future for 24/192kHz amigo, you'd better believe it. I would expect someone like you to understand that, at least from a practical point of view. Doesn't really matter what your personal opinion is on the matter. It exists and is being used. What's your problem with that?
Because there is no money in it. It's not my personal opinion. It will forever remain "boutique".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
...and "higher resolution" is a legit term, so what is your particular issue with it? Maybe you'd prefer the word Quality or audio acuity instead?
I refer to the of cited notion that 96khz has more "resolution" than 44.1. Or that 24bits has more "resolution" than 16bit.

96 has a higher bandwidth, 24 bit has a lower noise floor from smaller quantisation error. But you know this.....

Is a postal lobotomy okay for you guys?heh
Old 10th October 2011
  #822
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Because there is no money in it. It's not my personal opinion. It will forever remain "boutique".


I refer to the of cited notion that 96khz has more "resolution" than 44.1. Or that 24bits has more "resolution" than 16bit.

96 has a higher bandwidth, 24 bit has a lower noise floor from smaller quantisation error. But you know this.....

Is a postal lobotomy okay for you guys?heh
Look, there's no additional cost to print a project at 192kHz. Where do you get that?

2nd, 96kHz is higher resolution than 44.1 as is 24 over 16 bit. I have no idea where you're getting pulling your assertions from.

3rd, you keep mentioning bandwidth and no one's talking about bandwidth here, the thread is about sample rate. The bandwidth remains the same, 20Hz - 20kHz. 96kHz and 192kHz is a sample rate. The function of higher rates is to enhance or increase quality not extend audible frequency range.

A few others have erroneously thrown bandwidth into the discussion and I'm not sure why they're confused about this.
Old 10th October 2011
  #823
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
3rd, you keep mentioning bandwidth and no one's talking about bandwidth here, the thread is about sample rate. The bandwidth remains the same, 20Hz - 20kHz. 96kHz and 192kHz is a sample rate. The function of higher rates is to enhance or increase quality not extend audible frequency range.

A few others have erroneously thrown bandwidth into the discussion and I'm not sure why they're confused about this.
It could have something to do with you not understanding the sampling theorem.
Old 10th October 2011
  #824
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
Look, there's no additional cost to print a project at 192kHz. Where do you get that?
Ah but selling the damn stuff.... that's the point. And developing products that will play it back. There are very few on the market and, as blu ray has found, people just aren't willing to invest in the same way as they did when DVD came out. There is little market for it.

Syncs - 48khz or go away !!! There's no post market for 192 either. You're thinking as a lover of the high frequency rates - which is fine. However market forces are not dictated by how good something is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
2nd, 96kHz is higher resolution than 44.1 as is 24 over 16 bit. I have no idea where you're getting pulling your assertions from.
96 khz has a larger bandwidth, not a greater resolution.
24bit does not have greater resolution than 16bit, it has smaller quantisation error which manifests itself as noise floor. At this point I to boringly yell out "I have a doctorate in this subject - they wouldn't have given me it if I hadn't got the basics right" yet again and everyone thinks I'm an arrogant ass ...... heh. In other words; trust me I'm a doctor!! .... Or go read Shannon again...

Whether you sample some audio with components (for example) from 80hz to 1000hz at a sample rate of 48, 44.1, 96 or whatever, makes no difference. It is entirely and accurately captured (with quantisation error) at all rates equally (below nyquist). You can prove this to yourself - go and sample something at 96. Export it at 48 and re-import back into your 96 session..... See what happens.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
3rd, you keep mentioning bandwidth and no one's talking about bandwidth here, the thread is about sample rate. The bandwidth remains the same, 20Hz - 20kHz. 96kHz and 192kHz is a sample rate. The function of higher rates is to enhance or increase quality not extend audible frequency range.
NO NO NO ! heh..... you band limit 96khz records with filters at 48khz.... The function has never been to make "more accurate" samples.....NEVER. (stomping around in a childish manner here - well, jokingly anyway!!). It was done to move filters away from the audible band and capture sound beyond hearing to satisfy some theories about how we hear. Oh - and to stimulate market growth with other marketing banter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
A few others have erroneously thrown bandwidth into the discussion and I'm not sure why they're confused about this.
A few others being Lavry, Katz, Shannon, Nyquist etc etc and a few of us on here!!

The POINT of high sample rates is larger bandwidth (for those who subscribe to high frequency info being relevant - not me but I'm okay with it) and moving the brick wall filters further away from the audio band.

Turbo, as respectfully as I can possibly say it -> There is no greater "resolution",how could there be? It's just not how sampling works, you don't join dots.
Old 10th October 2011
  #825
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
there is no disconnect

they are different
each has strong/weak points

it is metaphysically illogical to even attempt to try to show that one is allegedly better

there is no better/worse
just different
You misunderstand. I'm not asserting that one is better than the other. What I'm getting at is this: there's an ostensible conflict between the overall fondness, even preference, for analog here at GS, and the frequently repeated assertion that higher sample rates are desirable because they yield higher resolution (which they don't).

In any case, using an fs>2B does NOT yield greater accuracy or resolution in the audible range. It's just a FACT. Anyone who has even a basic grasp of Nyquist-Shannon knows this. All you get from using a higher fs is capture of higher frequencies -- period. Personally, at age 50, I'm not hearing much above 16kHz anymore.

IMO, there are only two tenable arguments for using a higher (96khz+) sample rate:

>passband brickwall filtering issues
>more accurate measurement of peak values

Also, an argument for higher fs can be made with regards to capture of transients, IF, emphasis IF, there isn't any SRC before delivery in the final medium. Currently, almost all recorded music undergoes SRC before delivery, so this argument is moot
Old 10th October 2011
  #826
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
Also, an argument for higher fs can be made with regards to capture of transients, IF, emphasis IF, there isn't any SRC before delivery in the final medium.
I'm not sure about that. Have you read this thread before? I'm not all the way through it yet ...
Old 10th October 2011
  #827
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
I'm not sure about that. Have you read this thread before? I'm not all the way through it yet ...
Hey Tim

I have read that before. The transients argument is NOT one that I personally would make, I'm just saying, by way of reportage, that it's one that CAN be made. A similar argument is made with regard to phase, but that's another one that doesn't really hold water (even the throw of a speaker introduces more phase issues than anything to do with sample rates)
Old 10th October 2011
  #828
Lives for gear
 

ah I see ... it's a good read - enjoying myself
Old 10th October 2011
  #829
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
[...]

Is a postal lobotomy okay for you guys?heh
Oh, man... you mean we're gonna just get a padded envelope in the post with some scalpels and diagrams and such? I hope you at least throw in a little concave mirror on a stand for that tricky, up through the eye socket maneuver. Don't much want to nick the old optical orb.

That might just be taking DIY a wee stretch too far...
Old 10th October 2011
  #830
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
2nd, 96kHz is higher resolution than 44.1 as is 24 over 16 bit. I have no idea where you're getting pulling your assertions from.
They assert it has more bandwidth than 44.1.

Quote:
3rd, you keep mentioning bandwidth and no one's talking about bandwidth here, the thread is about sample rate. The bandwidth remains the same, 20Hz - 20kHz. 96kHz and 192kHz is a sample rate. The function of higher rates is to enhance or increase quality not extend audible frequency range.
Increased sampling rate has a larger bandwidth, increased wordlength a lower noise-floor.

Quote:
A few others have erroneously thrown bandwidth into the discussion and I'm not sure why they're confused about this.
They may not be as confused as you think...................


DC
Old 10th October 2011
  #831
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by swim View Post
You've got it all wrong.

Your premises are erroneous, and, as a result, so are your opinions. You never offer any evidence, authority, or proof, merely shortsighted, naive statements of your beliefs.

Comically, you always demand "proof, evidence, and so forth", yet you never have any to offer. The truth of the matter is that you have nothing to substantiate your smug arguments, other than the results of your own tinkering. Frankly, there is nothing whatsover to suggest that you have any qualifications at all.

There is nothing to suggest that "Audiop / Peter" even has a job, much less one with any authority.

Have you ever even done a full fledged professional project, in a major studio, with no expense spared from start to finish, using top shelf equipment, with highest sample rates and bit depth throughout the entire process?

After you have a few of those under your belt [not likely], then maybe you can come back and try again. Until then, taking your "advice" would be like letting the studio tech / runner run the session. Ridiculous.

Have you ever even tracked an orchestra, or a band, live? Mixed one? Brought it to market? Do you even own enough real gear to record a full ensemble live?

Or are you just playing around in your "lab", trying to insult people by purporting to tell them what their "limits of perception" are?

Anyhow, the burden is on you. You need to try to realize that. Maybe step outside your box and try to open your mind.
1) What I claim mostly has been proved by professionals using scientific methods.

2) Personal attacks is not allowed on GS. This thread is about sample rates, not me.

3) OAG claimed he had proof/evidence and I am hardly out of line when I ask to see it.

4) You are wrong on every point you bring up.


/Peter
Old 11th October 2011
  #832
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Oh, man... you mean we're gonna just get a padded envelope in the post with some scalpels and diagrams and such? I hope you at least throw in a little concave mirror on a stand for that tricky, up through the eye socket maneuver. Don't much want to nick the old optical orb.

That might just be taking DIY a wee stretch too far...
hha!!! Gross!!
Old 11th October 2011
  #833
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Ah but selling the damn stuff.... that's the point. And developing products that will play it back. There are very few on the market and, as blu ray has found, people just aren't willing to invest in the same way as they did when DVD came out. There is little market for it.

Syncs - 48khz or go away !!! There's no post market for 192 either. You're thinking as a lover of the high frequency rates - which is fine. However market forces are not dictated by how good something is.



96 khz has a larger bandwidth, not a greater resolution.
24bit does not have greater resolution than 16bit, it has smaller quantisation error which manifests itself as noise floor. At this point I to boringly yell out "I have a doctorate in this subject - they wouldn't have given me it if I hadn't got the basics right" yet again and everyone thinks I'm an arrogant ass ...... heh. In other words; trust me I'm a doctor!! .... Or go read Shannon again...

Whether you sample some audio with components (for example) from 80hz to 1000hz at a sample rate of 48, 44.1, 96 or whatever, makes no difference. It is entirely and accurately captured (with quantisation error) at all rates equally (below nyquist). You can prove this to yourself - go and sample something at 96. Export it at 48 and re-import back into your 96 session..... See what happens.



NO NO NO ! heh..... you band limit 96khz records with filters at 48khz.... The function has never been to make "more accurate" samples.....NEVER. (stomping around in a childish manner here - well, jokingly anyway!!). It was done to move filters away from the audible band and capture sound beyond hearing to satisfy some theories about how we hear. Oh - and to stimulate market growth with other marketing banter.



A few others being Lavry, Katz, Shannon, Nyquist etc etc and a few of us on here!!

The POINT of high sample rates is larger bandwidth (for those who subscribe to high frequency info being relevant - not me but I'm okay with it) and moving the brick wall filters further away from the audio band.

Turbo, as respectfully as I can possibly say it -> There is no greater "resolution",how could there be? It's just not how sampling works, you don't join dots.
the point of higher sample rates is NOT HIGHER BANDWIDTH... *IF* you wanted higher bandwidth you would need a higher sample rate.... But if you have already filtered the source to 20-20k the entire point of higher sample rate is exactly a more accurate a/d/a chain with real circuits as opposed to math theory...
Old 11th October 2011
  #834
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter8 View Post
It could have something to do with you not understanding the sampling theorem.
nope I fully understand the sampling theorem. And the related engineering applications of instantiating it.
Old 11th October 2011
  #835
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
You misunderstand. I'm not asserting that one is better than the other. What I'm getting at is this: there's an ostensible conflict between the overall fondness, even preference, for analog here at GS, and the frequently repeated assertion that higher sample rates are desirable because they yield higher resolution (which they don't).

In any case, using an fs>2B does NOT yield greater accuracy or resolution in the audible range. It's just a FACT. Anyone who has even a basic grasp of Nyquist-Shannon knows this. All you get from using a higher fs is capture of higher frequencies -- period. Personally, at age 50, I'm not hearing much above 16kHz anymore.

IMO, there are only two tenable arguments for using a higher (96khz+) sample rate:

>passband brickwall filtering issues
>more accurate measurement of peak values

Also, an argument for higher fs can be made with regards to capture of transients, IF, emphasis IF, there isn't any SRC before delivery in the final medium. Currently, almost all recorded music undergoes SRC before delivery, so this argument is moot
nonsense. if you knew engineering as applied to nyquist you would know why higher sample rates result in better a/d/a quality
Old 11th October 2011
  #836
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
the point of higher sample rates is NOT HIGHER BANDWIDTH *IF* you wanted higher bandwidth you would need a higher sample rate.
Old 11th October 2011
  #837
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
the point of higher sample rates is NOT HIGHER BANDWIDTH *IF* you wanted higher bandwidth you would need a higher sample rate. But if you have filtered the source to 20-20k the entire point of higher sample rate is exactly a more accurate a/d/a chain with real circuits as opposed to math theory
IF you have filtered at 20 - 20; I'm unsure why you would say that as the Prism, Mytek, Aurora and RADAR AD/DA I have here do NOT filter to 20 - 20k in higher sample rates. The brickwall filter is up at 48k on a 96 system. Or are you referring to something else or possibly something that nobody builds!!

Point of order - theorem, not theory.

Second - circuits. I cannot offer too much on this since this isn't my area, but I've spoken to Lund and Lavry and the chaps at Prism on varying occasions and neither offer that as a reason for higher sample rates. However, that isn't proof of anything I'll take what you say on this matter on board and ask around.

Sorry to be blunt - but can you tell me why I should believe you about circuits (I offered my reasoning before about theorem - career background and PhD in the area with several peer reviewed papers) but I'd like to know if you have experience building or designing AD and DA. I would be interested in reading any texts supporting your answer - I cannot find any .... none of the papers from the manufacturers say anything about "better" sampling due to practical advantages - only the implementation of pushing filters out of the hearing band. Of course, you may know of some texts and I would be grateful if you'd share them......
Old 11th October 2011
  #838
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
IF you have filtered at 20 - 20. The thing is me old mucker - you DON'T filter there at all. The brickwall filter is up at 48k on a 96 system. Or are you referring to something else or possibly something that nobody builds!!

Point of order - theorem, not theory.

Second - circuits. I cannot offer too much on this since this isn't my area, but I've spoken to Lund and Lavry and the chaps at Prism on varying occasions and neither offer that as a reason for higher sample rates. However, that isn't proof of anything I'll take what you say on this matter on board and ask around.

Sorry to be blunt - but can you tell me why I should believe you about circuits (I offered my reasoning before about theorem - career background) but I'd like to know if you have experience building or designing AD and DA. I would be interested in reading any texts supporting your answer - I cannot find any .... none of the papers from the manufacturers say anything about "better" sampling due to practical advantages - only the implementation of pushing filters out of the hearing band. Of course, you may know of some texts and I would be grateful if you'd share them......
my system, my circuits, my filter. If I only want to sample audio in the 20-20k range that is my choice. I do not want to sample higher freqs. After band limiting , the entire point of a higher sample rate than the mere minimum by nyquist, is that it does provide a more accurate a/d/a of the signal with real hardware.
Old 11th October 2011
  #839
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
my system, my circuits, my filter. If I only want to sample audio in the 20-20k range that is my choice. I do not want to sample higher freqs.
Ah - so you're talking about something you've built.

And I'm guessing you've built it that way because you have some tech knowledge that leads you to the conclusion that your system samples "better".

I'm okay with that even though I don't support it. The reason all the major manufacturers make higher sample rate systems is to move the brickwall filters out of the hearing range and to increase the bandwidth (for reasons I don't think are worth it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
After band limiting , the entire point of a higher sample rate than the mere minimum by nyquist, is that it does provide a more accurate a/d/a of the signal with real hardware.
I've heard of no-one who agrees with this but if it's something you posit then fair enough but it isn't supported by any current texts to my knowledge - again, if you know any then it'd be good to share.
Old 11th October 2011
  #840
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
I find 96K definitely feels better when tracking drums it seems to have a lot more dynamic range I don;t notice frequency response really at all I just find I have more headroom before clipping happens.
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