The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Latest generation of AD/DA converters - will it get any better?
Old 20th May 2006
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Unknown soldier's Avatar
 

Latest generation of AD/DA converters - will it get any better?

Seems that the lastest generation of converters are the Rosetta 200/800, Benchmark ADC1, and mytek ADC. So what "stop" are we at in converter technology? We are past the model T stage, but of course haven't reached "perfection", and you could argue we never will. Keep in mind I'm talking about "affordable" converters, not $50K monsters which may be very close to that elusive perfection, but pointless to include here as it's not practical for most studios.

Can any manufacturers share some info on the lastest clocking technology, chip designs, analog components, etc.? Has the 44.1K sample rate improved in sound with this lastest batch of AD/DA?

I have an old DCS 900 from 1988, which probably was $6K in the day, and has the distinction of being the world's first 24 bit converter (according to their website). Still sounds pretty good, but a bit hazy at 44.1. If this was an analog piece it could still command some money, but I'd be lucky to get a few hundred for it now....check ebay soon!
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006
  #2
Just my personal opinion...

I think we are very much at diminishing returns for PCM, it's economics not techological ability.

I think 192k sampling is hype. 96k is good, but only because plug ins sound a bit better...but I question whether this is retained when going to 16/44.1 CD format anyway. I don't notice that much of a difference between 48k and 96k if mixing on a console with real outboard gear, in some ways the lower sampling rates sound better to my ears.

Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #3
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
synthoid's Avatar
 

It looks to me like more progress is being made in raising the sampling rate than in lowering the noise (raising the effective dynamic range). Application areas like software radio are pushing the sampling frequency up very high: you can buy 12-bit converters that operate in the hundreds of megasamples per second range today. What is needed for audio at this point, I guess, is not to raise the sampling frequency more but to increase the effective precision of the converters beyond 24 bits. This is probably as much about the surrounding analog circuitry (e.g., the preamp that is feeding the A/D converter) as it is about the converter itself.

-synthoid
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006
  #5
Lives for gear
 
uptheoctave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown soldier
Seems that the lastest generation of converters are the Rosetta 200/800, Benchmark ADC1, and mytek ADC. So what "stop" are we at in converter technology? We are past the model T stage, but of course haven't reached "perfection", and you could argue we never will. Keep in mind I'm talking about "affordable" converters, not $50K monsters which may be very close to that elusive perfection, but pointless to include here as it's not practical for most studios.

Can any manufacturers share some info on the lastest clocking technology, chip designs, analog components, etc.? Has the 44.1K sample rate improved in sound with this lastest batch of AD/DA?

I have an old DCS 900 from 1988, which probably was $6K in the day, and has the distinction of being the world's first 24 bit converter (according to their website). Still sounds pretty good, but a bit hazy at 44.1. If this was an analog piece it could still command some money, but I'd be lucky to get a few hundred for it now....check ebay soon!
Very interesting question.
It leads me to thinking "What will the next format be?"
Some random thoughts...

SACD is a non starter.
DVD audio pretty much the same.

Are we going to see mp3/aac be the dominant format?
But don't people wan't a thing to own, rather than just data?
Will it be USB keys? Barenaked Ladies did a USB release of an album already.

If we end up with a higher quality format- 24 or 32 bit and 192k or above then we are into BIG files.
I really don't see surround sound being more than a niche market.

I stopped using my ipod for the last 6 months- been listening to music at home, on CD or vinyl.
Started listening to mp3's again in the gym last week- I hatd to turn it off.
The jazz albums I have in Apple Lossless sound ok, but anything mp3 or aac is pretty much unlistenable to me.

What will HD-DVD or Blue Ray bring us as far as an audio content delivery?
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown soldier
I have an old DCS 900 from 1988, which probably was $6K in the day, and has the distinction of being the world's first 24 bit converter (according to their website). Still sounds pretty good, but a bit hazy at 44.1. If this was an analog piece it could still command some money, but I'd be lucky to get a few hundred for it now....check ebay soon!
dCS, Meitner and maybe others offered upgrades to the latest generation, always when there was a new generation. The upgrades have been not very expensive. This way it is possible to be always up to date - and in the end this way is cheaper than purchasing an Apogee or Motu, loose money within 2 years ans buy a new Apogee or Motu.
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Maybe worth a new thread but I only want to add that I find monitors with digital inputs not very attractive because sooner or later the DA card in the monitor will be outdated.
Thin of Dynaudio, the JBLs, KSdigital and so on.
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Pohaku's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar
Maybe worth a new thread but I only want to add that I find monitors with digital inputs not very attractive because sooner or later the DA card in the monitor will be outdated.
Thin of Dynaudio, the JBLs, KSdigital and so on.
Same problem for any peripheral device (monitor, microphone, board etc.) that has an internal converter. Perhaps why the digital mic concept never really got off the ground. I'd prefer to replace my converters only once per generation, thank you.
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #9
84K
Lives for gear
 
84K's Avatar
Fukc new/better converters, we need a replacement for speakers. Talk about old technology (1876 to be exact). Vibrating paper cone, voice coil and a magnet. There has got to be a better way to listen.
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
AlexLakis's Avatar
 

I think (and hope) that the next step will be seeing an increase in bitrate. 32 bit and then 64 bit. That's more important to me than samplerate above 44.1. I can hear the difference much more readily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondjames
Are we going to see mp3/aac be the dominant format?
But don't people wan't a thing to own, rather than just data?
Will it be USB keys? Barenaked Ladies did a USB release of an album already.
We got in a CD by a band named "Elefant," I believe? As we were putting up the CDs, we noticed something...The CD cases seemed strangely light in weight...We opened one up to find that there were no CDs in the cases!! We read the fine print on the front: "This is a special ONLINE pre-release copy. Look inside for your code to download the album in MP3 format."

I almost lost it completely. So you go to the record store, buy the CD case (instead of artwork inside, there's a bunch of advertising for other bands on the label, and the download site,) then go home and download the album on ****ty MP3 format? Wow. I mean...wow. Just wow.
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
AlexLakis's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84K
Fukc new/better converters, we need a replacement for speakers. Talk about old technology (1876 to be exact). Vibrating paper cone, voice coil and a magnet. There has got to be a better way to listen.
Some kind of digital cochlear implant that directly stimulates each follicle based on data? The whole thing could be digital. It would completely eliminate acoustical interference/monitoring issues cause by the room, etc...
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #12
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by synthoid
It looks to me like more progress is being made in raising the sampling rate than in lowering the noise (raising the effective dynamic range). Application areas like software radio are pushing the sampling frequency up very high: you can buy 12-bit converters that operate in the hundreds of megasamples per second range today. What is needed for audio at this point, I guess, is not to raise the sampling frequency more but to increase the effective precision of the converters beyond 24 bits. This is probably as much about the surrounding analog circuitry (e.g., the preamp that is feeding the A/D converter) as it is about the converter itself.

-synthoid
Actually, it's pretty much physically impossible to get "beyond" that.
The laws of physics are going to ever prevent converters from having a signal to noise ratio much better than about 21-22 bits. I once read an article that a 150 ohm input impedance coupled with a massive heat sink (power amplifier sized heat sink) could get you a true 24 bit signal to noise ratio. But would this be necessary or improve performance in a world where the noise floor of the world's best room/mikes/ and preamplifiers is not much greater than 20 bits? So we're close to the limit right now.

Your question is a good question, and it won't be long before converters will not be the limits of digital audio. In general, psychoacoustically you only need about 20-21 bits at each end of the conversion chain so noise at the conversion end is not the limiting factor in a current, state-of-the-art converter. If you take a maximum peak SPL of, say 120 dB, 20 bits takes us down to 0 dB SPL! Add a bit for a little more protective footroom, and MAYbe you're up to 22 bits. But the ear won't hear the noise below about 20 dB SPL in the world's most quiet room, and don't forget the noise floor of a quiet studio will be around 30 dB SPL and most studios and concert halls 10 or more dB higher than that. So, in summary, the wordlength of the converter is no longer the limiting factor.

In between the two converters, though, you need much greater calcuations to reduce quantization distortion. Bob Stuart demonstrated that you can hear a 22 bit truncation in an 18 bit system. In other words, the distortion artifacts of poor calculations can be heard BELOW the noise of the converters.
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Cojo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLakis
We got in a CD by a band named "Elefant," I believe? As we were putting up the CDs, we noticed something...The CD cases seemed strangely light in weight...We opened one up to find that there were no CDs in the cases!! We read the fine print on the front: "This is a special ONLINE pre-release copy. Look inside for your code to download the album in MP3 format."

I almost lost it completely. So you go to the record store, buy the CD case (instead of artwork inside, there's a bunch of advertising for other bands on the label, and the download site,) then go home and download the album on ****ty MP3 format? Wow. I mean...wow. Just wow.
What the...

Is this for real!!! I'm in shock here!

/Cojo
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
AlexLakis's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cojo
What the...

Is this for real!!! I'm in shock here!

/Cojo
Yup, I could barely believe it myself when I saw it. We've got 'em on the shelves right now. $7.99. Haven't sold one yet...The actual album came out a month or so afterwards, which we sold a couple copies of.

indeed.
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz
Actually, it's pretty much physically impossible to get "beyond" that.
The laws of physics are going to ever prevent converters from having a signal to noise ratio much better than about 21-22 bits. I once read an article that a 150 ohm input impedance coupled with a massive heat sink (power amplifier sized heat sink) could get you a true 24 bit signal to noise ratio. But would this be necessary or improve performance in a world where the noise floor of the world's best room/mikes/ and preamplifiers is not much greater than 20 bits? So we're close to the limit right now.

Your question is a good question, and it won't be long before converters will not be the limits of digital audio. In general, psychoacoustically you only need about 20-21 bits at each end of the conversion chain so noise at the conversion end is not the limiting factor in a current, state-of-the-art converter. If you take a maximum peak SPL of, say 120 dB, 20 bits takes us down to 0 dB SPL! Add a bit for a little more protective footroom, and MAYbe you're up to 22 bits. But the ear won't hear the noise below about 20 dB SPL in the world's most quiet room, and don't forget the noise floor of a quiet studio will be around 30 dB SPL and most studios and concert halls 10 or more dB higher than that. So, in summary, the wordlength of the converter is no longer the limiting factor.

In between the two converters, though, you need much greater calcuations to reduce quantization distortion. Bob Stuart demonstrated that you can hear a 22 bit truncation in an 18 bit system. In other words, the distortion artifacts of poor calculations can be heard BELOW the noise of the converters.
Interesting. In my book the real dilemma with digital recording is in the digital summing process. We have jitter, we have misalignment issues between tracks (maybe of variable sample), we stack up 20+ tracks, apply something on the mix bus and then the whole thing is finally summed up into "dirt" that we convert to 16-bit and apply not-so-effective dithering on. Let's say the converter manufacturers would succeed in making an internal crystal reference clock that is 100% stable (I guess this is not possible in practise though), what kind of calculation bit depth is needed to eliminate the rest of the audible artifacts on the final CD mix (if the rest of the analog circuitry would be 100% clean) and how much would have to be improved in terms of todays dithering and downsampling quality? Is 64-bit calculations transparent enough during heavy load?

Another thing that strucks my mind is the efficiency of for instance nth-order delta-sigma converters. When does the converter chip architecture in itself become the most limiting factor? (often performance driven) I'm not an expert or anything, but there are quite a few different architecture models out there and they all seem to have their pros and cons, is there any room for improvement in this area that would not make the precision in terms of storage any higher but would translate the "real" signal more accurately? I would guess that they operate accurately enough today and that surrounding circuitry, like connectors, op amps and power supply have a much bigger impact anyway...
Show replies
Old 20th May 2006 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLakis
Yup, I could barely believe it myself when I saw it. We've got 'em on the shelves right now. $7.99. Haven't sold one yet...The actual album came out a month or so afterwards, which we sold a couple copies of.

indeed.
That's freakin' me out completely... That's so hilarious. Why would I go to a store to get a code?! But of course, I'm not in perfect shape... heh
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Unknown soldier's Avatar
 

So with the lastest conversion boxes out there, are most people still sticking with 44.1 if it's going to CD format? I read that Metallica did St. Anger at 88.2 as they felt that was necessary to cature the resolution they were looking for.

Seems that higher sample rate recording is there for a reason - performance. Why even bother with PT HD and the higher sample rates if it didn't promise better recordings? Just for mktg purposes??

For you PT HD users - do you use the higher rates and then downsample? Or mixdown to an external 2 track 44.1 to avoid SRC?
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Addict
 
NoisyNarrowBand's Avatar
 

there are at least two different questions being tackled here: 1. does production need new and 'better' conversion? 2. does the consumer demand high-rez audio?

concerning the second question. I'd say we don't know, because until now no real choice was given to the consumer!

that may sound like an ridiculous statement. let me elaborate:

sacd and dvd-audio where introduced at to high price points both for hard and software in an environment where listing habits saw a massive (!) shift due to mp3 availabilty and iPods. people don't listen to albums anymore, they listen to libraries on the go.

storage restraints on iPods and computers, high price and lack of comprehensive catalog of content as well as the restriction to physical media for high rez audio made it impossible that consumers aside from die-hard audiophiles got exposed to these formats.

so mr. steve jobs essentially was right when he said: 'portability not quality is the key'

however: it would be interesting to see what would happen when people could download - say 24/88.2 - at high speed to iPods having enough space to hold 1000+ of these files.

of course this won't happen until the drm-problem is 'solved'. but I expect a massive push by both hardware and content industry once that is the case. just think george lucas: cash in on the same content on any new generation of hardware...

aside from these thoughts - 24bits provide more dynamics than feasible for a home-audio situation - <110db come on people!

moreover 192bit mp3 might just be good enough - in double blind test repeatably have shown that people can't distinguish 16/44.1 from mp3s encoded higher than say 150bit. read here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40

but again - given choice enough people may actually like the sound of 24/96 better.

then there is multi-channel audio. there are tons of multi-channel audio setups in living rooms and teens living quarters now. only people don't perceive them as such, cause they bought them for dvd and/or computer games. given the rise in sales of live concert-dvd people may slowly learn about music in 5.1 on these systems.

very little musical content is available in 5.1 and most of the stuff is mixed rather gimmickly. while the stereo-field is well understood and exploited by engineers, a similar knowledge how to use 5.1 hasn't developed yet.


concerning the second question: again a set of issues here. pcm vs dsd, bitdepth, jitter issues and last not least quality of the analogue component of converters.

fundamentally I think there is still room for improvement in converter and format technology for music production.

personally anything beyond 88.2 ain't necessary for me for years to come. philosophically higher is always closer to the 'real' thing. and once storage and computing power have grown by another order of an magnitude I am fine with to follow suit. until then 88.2 will do.

higher bitrates translate into more reserves for rounding errors. so in multi-track situations with lots of layering and many generations of altering the content going 32bit or beyond (which again is constraint by computing and storage) is an advantage.

as of dsd vs pcm. I don't see dsd going anywhere. once again sony hurt itself by constraining the accessibility of the format. they should have made it a roality-free standard, provide some engineering resources for hard- and software developers and just let it happen.

currently jitter-control and improvements on the analogue parts of converters seem to provide the most obvious benefit as well as possibilities to differentiate products sonically. so I expect the converter market to further grow and possibly evolve into flavors - neutral vs. colored anyone...
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Personally I find the 44.1/16 bit delivery format of the CD to perfectly acceptable. Very few places where there is any need to go higher (given the euipment I and other people actually use when listening to the music). In recording though I use 24bits as I am too lazy to track levels with the detail needed for 16 bit.

I also find that going above 44.1 is partly marketing, partly solving a problem with the sledge hammer, when it could be done with finer tools. There are converters that sound stunningly good at 44.1. But instead of going for improving at 44.1, which is difficult, the manufacturers take the cheap way out of going for higher sample rates. Well, as they say, the customer is always right, and the customers seems to be buying it. Same goes for inside the box plugins and such, why should they not sound equally good at 44.1 as on higher sample rates -- lazy programmers?

So what I wish for is that the medium priced converters of the future will start delivering what the 44.1 / 24 really can deliver, and what some of the premium machines does deliver today. Of course a falling price trend is nothing to be sad about as well. And just maybe, one bit more of conversion S/N, the about 19-20 bits you get from most converters today (S/N of 114 to 120) could go up one notch, ie 6 dB.

Guess I am wishing for the wrong things, the market has already accepted the "truth" that you need more than 44.1 to get good results.

Gunnar
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoisyNarrowBand
moreover 192bit mp3 might just be good enough - in double blind test repeatably have shown that people can't distinguish 16/44.1 from mp3s encoded higher than say 150bit. read here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40
That is true only when the speakers and the monitoring environment doesn't allow the listener to notice a difference.

If I take a well encoded 320 Kbit/s mp3 file and play that in my high quality DENON speaker system in my living room, the difference is noticable. If I lower the bitrate to something like 192 Kbit/s it's already like night and day. And on 128 Kbit/s the quality is already so bad that you pay attention to the jitter only, without even thinking. This is pretty interesting because it once again shows how important high quality monitoring is in recording.

But I agree I have a hard time noticing a difference in my computer speakers when I compare a 320 Kbit/s mp3 file with the CD. In order to be able to notice the difference I need to be aware that one version is an mp3 encoded file. But I hear a difference between for instance 192 KHz and 44,1KHz quality...
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
AlexLakis's Avatar
 

With mp3s, you can definately tell the difference. With .wav files, I dunno. Sometimes I've heard a difference between 48 and 44.1. Mostly on really quiet and soft acoustic stuff. For rock, I would say anything above 44.1 is overkill to my ears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown soldier
I read that Metallica did St. Anger at 88.2 as they felt that was necessary to cature the resolution they were looking for.
Honestly, they could have done that album in 11.025 and it would've sounded just as "good." stike
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
max cooper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondjames

Are we going to see mp3/aac be the dominant format?
But don't people wan't a thing to own, rather than just data?

Unfortunately, I think most people who buy music don't think of it as a lifetime investment. I think to many, music is like a magazine rather than a book; you get tired of it, you move on...

sad, huh?
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
synthoid's Avatar
 

>> n my book the real dilemma with digital recording is in the digital summing process. We have jitter, we have misalignment issues between tracks (maybe of variable sample), we stack up 20+ tracks, apply something on the mix bus and then the whole thing is finally summed up into "dirt"

This is utter nonsense. I don't mean to be unkind but you should really learn something about how this stuff works if you're gonna work with thousands of dollars of audio equipment.

Jitter does not enter into digital summing.

Misalignment of tracks and digital summing are unrelated.

Digital summation does not produce dirt. If you get dirt out of a good DAW when summing ITB then you are doing something wrong.

-synthoid
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Is this the future?

http://www.stagetec.com/stagetec/e_truematch.htm

Someone mentioned higher bit rate. This unit is 28bit, which gives over 150db of headroom. I doubt you would need anything more, as this is more than enough to to capture a mic level signal and boost it well beyond line level digitally.
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Cornvalley's Avatar
We need something to hear better with, that's all.
Show replies
Attached Thumbnails
Latest generation of AD/DA converters - will it get any better?-high-sample-rate-ear.jpg  
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
DeepSpace's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzleboy
http://www.stagetec.com/stagetec/e_truematch.htm

Someone mentioned higher bit rate. This unit is 28bit, which gives over 150db of headroom. I doubt you would need anything more, as this is more than enough to to capture a mic level signal and boost it well beyond line level digitally.
Not *headroom*, unless your operating level (notional 0vu) is set very low indeed.

However when you consider the fact that the bottom 30 to 40db of the dynamic range in digitalis low and that leads to distortion and an all-too-familiar grittiness. When you factor that out, even at 28bit, the 'desirable' part of the dynamic range which remains is only around 110db. Then, if you want to track with the sort of useable headroom we have with analogue (ie +15 to +20db) then you will have around 95db of desirable/useable dynamic range below your nominal operating level.

On that basis, it does not sound like overkill to me. As I see it, 32 bits is around the limit of what would be worth pursuing. I guess that is still a li'l way off, though.
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
kudzu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by max cooper
Unfortunately, I think most people who buy music don't think of it as a lifetime investment. I think to many, music is like a magazine rather than a book; you get tired of it, you move on...

sad, huh?

Sad, but true ... Sign O The Times I'm afraid ... I'd never thot of this B4, but I'm struggling from a huge dose of lethergy at the moment ... I've got **** loads of work on, but can't seem to get excited / pumped 'bout any of it ... Max, maybe u've hit the nail on the head ...
Show replies
Old 21st May 2006 | Show parent
  #28


I don't think that we will see any noticable improvements from formats above 24/96. You are well past the limits of human hearing. Higher resolution for internal processing can still make sense when you are doing things like auto tune, digital reverb modeling, radical filtering and so on.

Thing is - it's cheaper to make sufficient analog circuits at higher sample rates. And the digital parts aren't much more money. Clocking can be an issue, but the problems aren't particularly harder at 96k than at 44.1K. In fact, it may well be less expensive to use a sample rate converter (as processing power gets cheaper) in good playback hardware. You could then use a higher rate D/A so the analog filters aren't as critical or expensive.

A higher bit depth than 16 probably isn't needed for distribution. But, 24 isn't rediculous.

Let's not loose sight of the end of the road. The listening environment and playback system for all but a very few people isn't going to benefit form anything better than 24/96 (or even 16/88). Speakers are only so good and the acoustics in most living rooms (and even a lot of theatres) aren't very good.

I don't expect that the monitors with digital inputs will be obsolete any time soon. The digital cross-over and compensation that is used is a lot better than you can do in analog and using digtal inputs removes one D/A-A/D step where things can get messed up. The newer converters aren't going to get significantly better in a practical sensne anytime soon. If JBL did a good job from the input to each driver, it's still going to be good until the digital audio format is obsolete - which will be quite a long time.

But, what do I know....... ?





-tINY

Show replies
Old 22nd May 2006 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Cojo's Avatar
 

Wouldn't it be great if they "frooze" the 0dBfs to it's present value and added some extra bits on top so that it actually didn't clip until, let's say +6, +18 or maby +24!

/Cojo
Show replies
Old 22nd May 2006 | Show parent
  #30
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

A friend of mine says that the Achilles heel of current A to D converters are the RFI problems created by the very low audio signal voltages they operate at.
Show replies
📝 Reply
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…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump