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
That Sheen Condenser Microphones
Old 25th July 2014
  #331
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by archfrenemy View Post
I have to admit that I switched from an RME to a UR824 and I definitely consider it an upgrade in converters. Not that the RME was bad, it just sounded a bit more digital and less natural than the UR824.
yup
RME has a harsh hard digital sound
Old 25th July 2014
  #332
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 007 View Post
This thread is like going on a viewing binge with a great tv series - with many episodes lined up and ready to go.
You want to unsubscribe from "that sheen" madness, the gmail notification alerts are on the fritz, and just when you think you've had enough...

No.

One more, let's see one more reply, it's 2 am and, well, why the fvck not.
But after this next reply, I swear, that's it.
Oh wait, here's a juicy one, another "sheen is all about the converters comment!"


Sweet lord, k, one more and then I'm shutting the motha' down...

At the end of the day it's just good entertainment, everyone just needs to relax.
Old 25th July 2014
  #333
007
Lives for gear
 
007's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
at the end of the day it's just good entertainment, everyone just needs to relax
Damn right chainrule, it's nice to agree on something at last!
Old 25th July 2014
  #334
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 007 View Post
Damn right chainrule, it's nice to agree on something at last!
group hug
Old 25th July 2014
  #335
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
20 pages later someone posts how it might be a clocking issue and everyone starts to agree with him. Wow...... ummm... ok .... then why not jut buy a good converter that has a nice clock? You can get ADCs and nice line amps as a bonus.
I don't think this was the case, some people mentioned clocking (why?) and I fail to see how this would help the issue...as you said if you just use one interface it might as well be one that has a nice clock.

Yeah I don't really get why clocking was being talked about...
Old 25th July 2014
  #336
Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
I don't think this was the case, some people mentioned clocking (why?) and I fail to see how this would help the issue...as you said if you just use one interface it might as well be one that has a nice clock.

Yeah I don't really get why clocking was being talked about...
Indeed - I don't recall ANYONE (certainly not substantial numbers) agreeing with this point. Maybe not as vehemently disagreed with as your point though.
Old 25th July 2014
  #337
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
yup
RME has a harsh hard digital sound
Whilst I think you're exaggerating a great deal, it's not really the issue - which is the whole point of this disagreement.

It may well be that the RME doesn't help and the burl would help a bit - but going by the initially posted tracks, it's in no way the biggest issues with them! IMO it's the vocal sound which is the biggest weak link, not a slight brittleness to the whole recording.

As for your comments re mics and so on...I don't know of you're being misunderstood, but it's a bit of an odd viewpoint. Yes, maybe a 57 will get you a cool sound on anything... But it's not going to be the "right" sound for eg a floaty female vocal on a jazz track, or a string line, is it? Saying "we use 57s on guitars!" doesnt really make the point - we use them on guitars out of choice, not through necessity most of the time.

Even your burl and a 1073 won't make a 57 the right vocal mic choice for a female singer most of the time, and your overheads example is also a bit odd - I alternate between 4038s, u67s and occasionally 84s/4011s for overheads, each for a specific reason. None sounds exactly like the other, and changing the converter won't make that so!
Old 25th July 2014
  #338
Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
I don't think this was the case, some people mentioned clocking (why?) and I fail to see how this would help the issue...as you said if you just use one interface it might as well be one that has a nice clock.

Yeah I don't really get why clocking was being talked about...
There was a big external clocking fad around the time the afore-referenced Big Ben celeb-producer/engineer endorsement ad came out -- what, maybe 5 or 6 years ago? (I think it was maybe a few years before that SOS article, which was 4 years ago.)

It was, for some, the 'magic bullet' of the moment. And it still has some adherents, to be sure.

And, you know, it may just be that some folks really do prefer increased jitter -- which is, ultimately, sampling inaccuracy. At least one person, perhaps whimsically, has pondered that maybe what the world needs is a handy device that can dial in just the 'right amount' of jitter.

I'll leave it to others to imagine what that amount might be.
Old 25th July 2014
  #339
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
They may be cheaper, but they also sound rather nicer........
I know. I have one hooked to my Digiface, a long with a Rosetta 200 and RME ADI8 QS, and don't hesitate to use it. Great sounding pres and converters and I only paid about 450 used.
Old 25th July 2014
  #340
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Price has nothing to do with it, MR816 is not 15 years old and is not a poor design. Anyway I suggested buying a better converter not necessarily a more expensive one. Price is irrelevant when it comes to gear, what is relevant is quality. Ironically lots of people assume a FF is good because it is on the expensive side. I have heard interfaces 1/2 of the price that sound better. MOTU and Alesis come to mind.
Sorry must have misunderstand. All the converters you were arguing for earlier were all high end and expensive so I assumed the Steinberg would fall in the prosumer category for you.
Old 25th July 2014
  #341
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
Sorry must have misunderstand. All the converters you were arguing for earlier were all high end and expensive so I assumed the Steinberg would fall in the prosumer category for you.
suggesting is a better word, but not a big fan of pre / converter combos
Not that they can't be good but It sort of intrigues me how they can make a high quality 8 channel interface with converters and preamps and house it in a single rack space.

I have opened up some of my 2 channel converters and the pcb is rather large and fully populated and takes up most of the chassis considering an isolated power supply inside. This is no mic pres either, So considering the footprint for a high end 2ch converter, that means they are stuffing a whole lot of circuity into a small space to accommodate 8 channels and a headphone amp in some cases. So where are they cutting corners in quality? are they sacrificing something? I'm not sure, but it seems like they would have to. Plus they are all punched out in china, which is not very rock and roll. I would never play Chinese guitars, I'm certainly not going to use Asian mic pres and converters. You look at even mid level stereo mic pres and they take up a lot of space comparatively to a singe rack space. Also just not a fan of integrated circuits for mic pres. Especially in this era where you can buy class A discrete mic pres for $300-350 range

It's not that they can't make good stuff over in China it's that they don't. It's all about mass production and saving money. I'm all for saving money but not at the price of sacrificing quality. I worked for a company and we manufactured products in the US and UK, NZ and Australia for years and years. some manager got the bright idea to build some stuff in china to increase profits, that lasted all but a couple months, the quality was just so bad customers complained. It seems to just be a trend over there.
Old 25th July 2014
  #342
Wow! This thread...

I check back after a few days and man... one person here sure know how to keep an argument going!

Why has this polarized into "gear vs technique" when it's painfully obvious that it's BOTH?!

Yes, of course a great AE can do a great job (sheen included) with any reasonably decent gear, and yes, of course that same AE can do it even better and much faster using their favorite gear, which is obviously why they have favorite gear.

Technique vs gear. These two things are not in opposition to each other. Technique matters. Gear matters too.

How much time has been spent here debating this?
Old 25th July 2014
  #343
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trakworx View Post
How much time has been spent here debating this?
IDK. I never dreamed my question would spark such sprited debate and go on this long.

Gotta love Gearslutz! Long live Gearslutz!!!
Old 25th July 2014
  #344
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Do you mean the mastering Oden has done you approve Lance?

Are you a Mastering Engineer yourself? I assume so from this answer
I am all of the above and none of the above. That is to say I know a good recording when I hear one. I've long held that anyone that mixes and or masters a recording and the recording is successful from a sonic standpoint is by any definition a mastering engineer.

The recording I commented on is a pretty fine piece. If I were to hear it outside of the context of a discussion on mastering I would accept it as having been signed off on as ready to roll.
Old 25th July 2014
  #345
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

I have had a brief look over the SOS articles in regards to clocking. I am still with my original comment of although whilst I agree with some of it seems a very vague and a wishey washey argument.

This quote sais it all to me:

Quote:
In more complex systems, it's generally best to use an A?D as the master clock. If there's more than one of these you'll need to decide which one to use as the master, and everything else (including the other A?Ds) will have to be slaved to that. In some cases, the clock connectivity options on the equipment concerned will impose a particular way of working, but where you have a choice, it's best to try all the possible options of master device to see if one configuration provides better results than another. It's quite possible that there will be audible differences between different configurations, because (as we'll see) most A?Ds will perform slightly differently when configured as clock master and slave.
I assume hes effectively saying here. The technicality dont mean **** but best to swap stuff around until it sounds the best.

He later goes on to tell us why we shouldn't be using an external clock. I would assume if the science in the above paragraph is anything to go by why not chuck the external clock in the mix too?

Add that to the cauldron and see what happens LOL.

Whilst I do get what people are saying in regards to clock I think using these SOS articles as some kind of GURU reference certainly hasn't convinced me.

If it is truly a case of suck it and see as the guy implies then my reaction to this would be a clock could "potentially" help. not the B all or end all in terms of "Sheen" deliverance but certainly not something to overlook.

Quote:
Wow! This thread...

I check back after a few days and man... one person here sure know how to keep an argument going!

Why has this polarized into "gear vs technique" when it's painfully obvious that it's BOTH?!

Yes, of course a great AE can do a great job (sheen included) with any reasonably decent gear, and yes, of course that same AE can do it even better and much faster using their favorite gear, which is obviously why they have favorite gear.

Technique vs gear. These two things are not in opposition to each other. Technique matters. Gear matters too.

How much time has been spent here debating this?
You keep coming back mate why if its so awful?
Old 25th July 2014
  #346
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

So what is this sheen that you speak of? I submit it comes from the instruments and voices and simply capturing those things properly. The equipment, and effects, and choices of what to use, where to put what, can simply get in the way, or not.

Something from 1967, not a converter or digit in sight. Well, except to get it from the master tape to your computer output.

Of course the real deal is to hear it without any of that, like tonight as I had my record player feeding my phones directly, sounding just like it did it 1967. Plenty of sheen, right to that final gong.

Old 25th July 2014
  #347
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
Capture of sound in a free air environment is probably the trickiest single stage of the audio chain, with speakers and room close behind. (The latter, of course, not directly affecting the sound when making records, but certainly directly affecting how that sound is mixed and signal processed.)
There is without a doubt a serious serious science to this. In a sense such a science the only option is to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. it seems most of the true words are spoken by those who have done exactly this and very often for many years,

Quote:
FWIW, a lot of fine recordings have used SM58's along the way. Some vocalists swear by them.
The SM58 is kind of my reminder of the Yamaha NS10 or the Technics SL1210. They have elements of awfulness but also elements of the hot chick that you cant live
without LOL

Quote:
But, of course, it's horses for courses -- some mics are simply better suited to certain tasks. I've used (in a pinch) an SM58 as an overhead and, overall, the whole drum kit sound worked (and was going to a low end 4 track reel deck, anyhow) but if I'd had a nice condenser or the right small diaphragm dynamic, even, I probably would have gone for that.
Is it a case of there really are rules for this ie mic A is usually only suitable for task X and mic B is only usually suitable for task Y. Or can these these rules be broken with elements of success?

Quote:
I've posted this before by way of illustration however probably worth posting again. A Beyer MC930 into the stock pres of a Steniberg MR16 . No EQ at all was just to test them out with my acoustic which , at the time, had strings about two months old on it.
I really like this sounds pretty sweet. Is this a case of Kick ass mic and potentially childs play convertor? proving the point of debate.

Quote:
In the end, it's your choice, you have to go with what you personally prefer. That said, I'd seriously try to borrow a Beyer MC 930 and try it on Cello and guitar and then ask yourself do they have that "sheen" you are searching for?
Would it be fair to say this mic has "sheen" qualities?

Quote:
Mastering ...it's hard to compete with half million dollar finely tuned and maintained gear...not that you can't get that sheen.
This I agree with. Would I sat behind this lot with a 2 hour tutorial make a better master than a 30 year plus guru using Cubase SX3, Ozone plugin and a Soundblaster live? trust me I have tried and tried and tried with low end gear and it just doesnt sound right. I do accept there is an awful lot of skill at play but with really high end kit I think any old tom dick and monkey can get sheen on tracks.

Quote:
Beyer MC930 Mic 6 inches from the 12th fret a smidge of UAD LA2A on them , no eq at all. The room it was recorded in has some treatment however, it was just the easiest place to hit record from, I took no special effort to set up my playing position or the mic's position. I wanted to give an impression of what the mic could do "in the raw" as it were.
Nice to see what kit has been used no one seems to want to name drop kit. This is gear sluts come on!!

Quote:
I have found that getting that polished sheen sound can often come from minute changes in analog gain staging.
Arch would you mind explaining what you mean here in a bit more detail?
Old 25th July 2014
  #348
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
I have had a brief look over the SOS articles in regards to clocking. I am still with my original comment of although whilst I agree with some of it seems a very vague and a wishey washey argument.

This quote sais it all to me:



I assume hes effectively saying here. The technicality dont mean **** but best to swap stuff around until it sounds the best.

He later goes on to tell us why we shouldn't be using an external clock. I would assume if the science in the above paragraph is anything to go by why not chuck the external clock in the mix too?

Add that to the cauldron and see what happens LOL.

Whilst I do get what people are saying in regards to clock I think using these SOS articles as some kind of GURU reference certainly hasn't convinced me.
Not really...it states in what cases you will need a master clock, and that one has to be the master and others slaves. Some pieces of gear work better than others as a slave. He doesn't know which ones you own, so you should test out the different orientations that work best in your situation. It then goes on to show tests of the gear that they have their hands on.

There's like...graphs and stuff....super wishy washy and guru-ish
Old 25th July 2014
  #349
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Just one other thing to add. I think this sentence in the SOS Article pretty muchs sums up the arguments in this thread so far.

Quote:
it's important to take on board that in all of the above examples, where there was an increase in noise and distortion when running on an external clock, the change was always very small, and arguably even negligible in some cases. Without superb monitoring conditions these subtle changes might be inaudible, and would certainly be much less significant than, say, a sub?optimally placed microphone as far as the overall quality of a recording is concerned. Moreover, the audible problems of not synchronising multiple digital devices together correctly are far worse than the very small potential increases in noise and distortion that may result from forcing an A?D to slave to an external reference clock.
I had already learnt this lesson from many useful comments made, my own tests and some additional research however, this paragraph seems to summarize it all pretty nicely.
Old 25th July 2014
  #350
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
There's like...graphs and stuff....super wishy washy and guru-ish
A graph is not wishey washey but stating that you need to experiment to figure out whats best is kind of vague.

It would seem the vast array of clock circuitry without a review conducted on this kind of level (ie spectrum analysis, scopes, S>N ratios etc) for every possible scenario then it really is a case of suck it and see.

there are many elements of this article whilst on the surface look very detailed it looks kind of hap hazard to me.
Old 25th July 2014
  #351
Gear Addict
 

Heh ok...I'll take from their article the knowledge of what a clock is, what is clock jitter, why I need to worry about it, and some potential issues that some gear has. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't plugged every interface produced over the past 25 years together to see how well they play in every circumstance, and say that they can still publish the article anyways.
Old 25th July 2014
  #352
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
I have had a brief look over the SOS articles in regards to clocking. I am still with my original comment of although whilst I agree with some of it seems a very vague and a wishey washey argument.

This quote sais it all to me:



I assume hes effectively saying here. The technicality dont mean **** but best to swap stuff around until it sounds the best.

He later goes on to tell us why we shouldn't be using an external clock. I would assume if the science in the above paragraph is anything to go by why not chuck the external clock in the mix too?

Add that to the cauldron and see what happens LOL.

Whilst I do get what people are saying in regards to clock I think using these SOS articles as some kind of GURU reference certainly hasn't convinced me.

If it is truly a case of suck it and see as the guy implies then my reaction to this would be a clock could "potentially" help. not the B all or end all in terms of "Sheen" deliverance but certainly not something to overlook.



You keep coming back mate why if its so awful?
Old 25th July 2014
  #353
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
Heh ok...I'll take from their article the knowledge of what a clock is, what is clock jitter, why I need to worry about it, and some potential issues that some gear has. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't plugged every interface produced over the past 25 years together to see how well they play in every circumstance, and say that they can still publish the article anyways.
Can we just beg to differ otherwise this becomes a dick waggling contest and fills the thread with endless bickering.

You like the article

I do like the article but elements of it i don't

Can we just agree on that
Old 25th July 2014
  #354
Gear Addict
 

Sure, I learned some things from it and I generally like SOS...their secrets of the mix engineers articles are awesome.
Old 25th July 2014
  #355
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
Sure, I learned some things from it and I generally like SOS
I do too certainly whilst were debating this topic that article is for sure not irrelevant by any means

Just out of interest on the topic of clocking what kind of setup are you using yourself? Do you just use an internal clock or some kind of external config.

Quote:
Moreover, the audible problems of not synchronising multiple digital devices together correctly are far worse than the very small potential increases in noise and distortion that may result from forcing an A?D to slave to an external reference clock.
this effectively confirmed what psycho monkey was saying about use of a clock. In my case I have no choice as I just have so much wacky kit I have to get to sing together.

When I did my tests earlier in the thread using the EXT vs the INT on a RME 9652 I could hear no audible change on the output. the clock was an Aardsync with a LAB power supply so pretty solid. Was using a 75ohm 0.5m BNC so negligible signal loss or distortion from the lead.

I am starting to get this message about CLOCK in relation to sheen. As stated earlier its a NEGLIGIBLE difference. Possibly audible on super posh monitors etc but for the average mid range setup not the magic pill we are all seeking.
Old 25th July 2014
  #356
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So what is this sheen that you speak of? I submit it comes from the instruments and voices and simply capturing those things properly. The equipment, and effects, and choices of what to use, where to put what, can simply get in the way, or not.

Something from 1967, not a converter or digit in sight. Well, except to get it from the master tape to your computer output.

Of course the real deal is to hear it without any of that, like tonight as I had my record player feeding my phones directly, sounding just like it did it 1967. Plenty of sheen, right to that final gong.

analog tape will give you that sound by default, plus this is probably 1 in 8 track or 1/2 4track which is an even bigger bonus. + they used real orchestra with an established conductor , How can it not sound good? I think pretty much anyone could get a good recording with those variables. Plus the Moody Blues were a great frikkin band. That singer is one of a kind. Also this is one of the first records to use an analog sampler.

Try getting this sound with a DAW ITB and a crappy modern band.....good luck with that. That would be some feat if you could.
Old 25th July 2014
  #357
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post

I am starting to get this message about CLOCK in relation to sheen. As stated earlier its a NEGLIGIBLE difference. Possibly audible on super posh monitors etc but for the average mid range setup not the magic pill we are all seeking.
But a great converter with a great clock will give you lots of nice upgrades. The clock... The converters and the analog font and back end on the unit.
collectively that's a pretty big deal. That is 3 potential areas that can be improved over average converters. I think collectively with all those attributes, it would be a noticeable upgrade.

(following not directed towards you futura )

Even if you have a nice clock in a converter you still have to consider the quality of the line amps and the power supply and the ADCs and the DSP filtering algorithms and DSPs. Not all this stuff is necessarily standard across product lines and or other brands names.

You have to try this stuff out see if you like it. If it shows no improvement fine, then look for another unit that might, don't just buy one unit and give up..... and don't throw your hands up and say "there is no difference with converters". You can't make a blanket decision off one sample size. I went through 5 units before I found one that was an "upgrade", then I kept looking till I found one that blew me away. I'm glad I did, it's audio heaven on earth.

Forget about what you think, consider the possibility and then make an attempt to try out some units. Reading SOS or internet hype is not going to give you the truth, you have to find the truth, but it's out there either way. But if you haven't personally looked for it you won't find it via hearsay and internet hyperbole. You may try out $10,000 converters and determine you don't like them...... that's fine, but not trying any out is not fine if you claim there is no difference, since you haven't done any comparisons and that's not right.
Old 25th July 2014
  #358
Lives for gear
 
deng's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So what is this sheen that you speak of? I submit it comes from the instruments and voices and simply capturing those things properly. The equipment, and effects, and choices of what to use, where to put what, can simply get in the way, or not.

Something from 1967, not a converter or digit in sight. Well, except to get it from the master tape to your computer output.

Of course the real deal is to hear it without any of that, like tonight as I had my record player feeding my phones directly, sounding just like it did it 1967. Plenty of sheen, right to that final gong.

Great minds think alike !!

Had to chime in because this was one of my favourite albums back then.
Had the original vinyl, bought the master vinyl edition and then the CD compilation.
Thanks for reminding me that I have got a gem and sheen in my collection.
Old 25th July 2014
  #359
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
analog tape will give you that sound by default, plus this is probably 1 in 8 track or 1/2 4track which is an even bigger bonus. + they used real orchestra with an established conductor , How can it not sound good? I think pretty much anyone could get a good recording with those variables. Plus the Moody Blues were a great frikkin band. That singer is one of a kind. Also this is one of the first records to use an analog sampler.

Try getting this sound with a DAW ITB and a crappy modern band.....good luck with that. That would be some feat if you could.
But what about a GOOD modern band? You can't compare the worst of today with the stuff that's lasted from yesteryear.

I wish I could share what I've been working on today...jazz trio (drums, double bass, piano) tracked live, added guitar, violin, vocals and a little synth strings to mask the budget string orchestra! Tracked in quality room, great instruments with quality mics (67s, Coles, 149s, Royers etc), quality outboard (API/neve/schoeps, pultecs, la2a etc). Straight to digital, currently being balanced 100% itb (though I may go hybrid for final mix) - I'm going for minimal processing, but no doubt I'll probably do more than I intend to!

It sounds "pro" to me - isn't missing "sheen" or sounding "hard". No, it doesn't sound like "kind of blue" but I don't want it to either - it's a Christmas bonus track for one of our artists, it still has to sound "pop" in a Buble sense.

No I didn't track through a fireface. But if you're telling me that if I did, all the tone I've captured would somehow disappear, I think you're crazy. Might sound different; might not sound quite as good. But it wouldn't be destroyed. Likewise if I'd used the 192 and not the hd io. Recording everything with 57 s on the other hand....would destroy it!

I'm very lucky I get to work in the situation I do of course - I'm well aware that others don't get this chance. But this is why I hold the opinions I do.
Old 25th July 2014
  #360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trakworx View Post
"glue" and "sheen" are two separate things to me, though they are often found together. I think of "glue" as the mix elements all becoming part of one whole instead of separate sounds, whereas "sheen" has more to do with a very clear but smooth high end. I like your term "shrink wrap" - it aptly describes a combination of glue and sheen.

I don't think any one single process or piece of gear gets you "shrink wrap", rather glue and sheen come from a combination of many steps from tracking through mastering, including many great pieces of gear and engineering techniques. That's why you hear it on commercial mixes - because they have the budgets to use great recording engineers, mix engineers, mastering engineers, along with all the great gear that those engineers insist on working with.

It's the culmination of all of that gear and experience. Not so easy eh?
This is excellent advice. I would suggest exploring multiband compression as full-bandwidth compression can be clunky when you want to get surgical.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump