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
Why not "DEAD" room fro mixing and mastering?? Studio Monitors
Old 23rd February 2011
  #91
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

The opposite of semi-anechoic designs one might say, is the ESS design - which is also a quite interesting approach that is designed to work well in small rooms/spaces.

Early Sound Scattering & Control Room Design



Cheers,
Old 23rd February 2011
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Experience has shown that this is not necessarily the case - and that the semi-anechoic models, translate well to more conventional rooms. (kind of what DD has been trying to say i think)

Some read on that aswell: Recording Studio Design - Google Böcker
Sören, is this your personal experience that you are talking about? While I think that the Newell aproach has his merits and have absorbed his book ... we should always differentiate our personal experience from opinions that we have read in books or elsewhere.

The Newell school is one opinion/school, the LEDE/RFZ school is another opinion/school, and all have their merits.

I have worked in a semi-anechoic room for some years now and while I think that it worked well to a point I had exactly this problem ... mixes were not translating well (or let us say, not well enough for my demand). Great detailism but between me and my clients there were often issues about the amount of reverberation, even more than spectral balance problems. That is one reason why I am here again.
Old 23rd February 2011
  #93
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
Great detailism but between me and my clients there were often issues about the amount of reverberation, even more than spectral balance problems.
One of the reasons why organizations like ITU specify quality control rooms and listening rooms. thumbsup

Andre

Dan's post immediately after this one reminded me that the organization may EBU, not ITU.

Last edited by avare; 23rd February 2011 at 11:28 PM.. Reason: Addition
Old 23rd February 2011
  #94
Gear Guru
Spectrum

Quote:
I have worked in a semi-anechoic room for some years now and while I think that it worked well to a point I had exactly this problem ... mixes were not translating well (or let us say, not well enough for my demand). Great detailism but between me and my clients there were often issues about the amount of reverberation, even more than spectral balance problems.
Clearly the clients were wrong....:-)

The discussion has moved up to quite a high level. I, probably we, seem to be taking the basics for granted. In my experience spectral balance has always been the biggest problem issue, as with Hannes above. Seems like the basics may be worth revisiting. Tone.
I appreciate the EBU attempts at standardisation or at least narrowing the goalposts. I also have seen some intriguing BBC work. Unfortunately I haven't found a BBC specified listening curve or range of curves. Andre?
I see many examples of successful design and treatment resulting in a 'flat' FR.
I believe the size and deadness of a room can make 'flat' completely unworkable. 'Flat' in the target domestic room will get 'assisted' by all sorts of booms and honks. In a treated small room, without this bloom, flat can be horribly harsh, leading to dull mixes. This is common in my experience.
Sorry to trot out the hobby horse again but the B and K curve from the sixties does deliver translation magic in my experience. http://www.bksv.com/doc/17-197.pdf
Shorter, simpler, but the same wisdom, at Understanding RTA/studiotips.com

DD
Old 25th February 2011
  #95
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
Sören, is this your personal experience that you are talking about? While I think that the Newell aproach has his merits and have absorbed his book ... we should always differentiate our personal experience from opinions that we have read in books or elsewhere.
Hanne,

All i'm saying is that the experience of the the engineers and designers that are utilizing these semi-anechoic response models, are reporting good results and translation ability, which i believe, is the sort of experience that is actually interesting... the subjective opinion of only 1 person wouldn't count for much, especially if that person has never worked in a properly designed NE based space. heh

Besides the fact that i think the theory behind the semi-anechoic design makes sence (and what Phillip Newell says in his book, regarding the engineers opinions on the translation ability), my conclusion is based on correspondence with engineers and designers that utilize these designs regularly - and who describe excellent results and mixes that translate very well...

In fact, the opinions/answers i've gathered exclusively looks like this: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5893729-post54.html

I therefore find it very hard to believe that these rooms (semi-anechoic) would NOT translate well - and i'm sure that the guys around here that design such spaces (Northward, JHBrandt...), if one were to ask them, would have simular reports - based upon client opinions and declarations.

Quote:
The Newell school is one opinion/school, the LEDE/RFZ school is another opinion/school, and all have their merits.
Well spoken! and a good summation to this thread i think... I dont think that the semi-anechoic designs are necessarily better (or worse) than the other designs. As long as the engineer is happy with the translation ability, all is good.

"The proof of the pudding's in the eating" and as we say here in Sweden: "The taste is like the bottom (divided)" heh


Cheers,
Old 28th February 2011
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo View Post
Just adding that properly implemented returns of energy can aid in accuracy.(multiple looks in psychoacoustics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Lupo, I think we would have to define accuracy first.
IMHO, great headphones seem like the best way to hear exactly what is in the recording. Coupled with 'real' stereo recording, they also seem to deliver the closest thing to what ears do hear at a real concert. That's my example two types of accuracy.
Other definitions or examples?
First example that comes to mind is the human voice. Everybody seems to agree that it's difficult to hear what other people are saying when being in a very dead room. So they add deliberate reflections to avoid the problem. It's self evident from practice that the room reflections aids the hearing system.

I see no reason to assume that this does not hold true for speaker listening as well.

The problem is when the reflections contribute destructive interference. That should obviously be avoided.

My sonic nirvana is somewhere along the golden middle.
Old 28th February 2011
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
In fact, the opinions/answers i've gathered exclusively looks like this: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5893729-post54.html
This is your studio, Sören? Then why are you here?
Old 28th February 2011
  #98
What a great topic BTW. I wrote a little something last night about this that is pertinent. I haven't drawn the artwork for it yet and I borrowed some from a previous blogging.

audio blog: Tightening The Loudspeaker, Recording and Room Connection

Hopefully that helps sort out some reasoning. If you are mixing/mastering SS, dead might well be best. Stereo should require a good diffuse field and a smooth decay.

Dan
Old 28th February 2011
  #99
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo View Post
Everybody seems to agree that it's difficult to hear what other people are saying when being in a very dead room...It's self evident from practice that the room reflections aids the hearing system...
I see no reason to assume that this does not hold true for speaker listening as well.
It's more difficult to hear what someone is saying in a dead room than in a moderately live room when they are facing away from me. When they are facing toward me, though, I find it very easy to hear what they are saying.
I always listen to the speakers in my room when they are facing toward me.
Old 28th February 2011
  #100
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
This is your studio, Sören? Then why are you here?
Hanne,

You must have misinterpreted something about my post. Why would that be my studio? and why am i where?

The following quote was a referens to myself heh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
the subjective opinion of only 1 person wouldn't count for much, especially if that person has never worked in a properly designed NE based space. heh
Sincerely
/Sören
Old 28th February 2011
  #101
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I also have seen some intriguing BBC work. Unfortunately I haven't found a BBC specified listening curve or range of curves. Andre?
Sorry, I am good but my eyes do not always work, and I missed your query directed at me.

Nio, I am not aware of any work on this subject by the BBC. There is probably more than fig 35 in Rose, but I am not aware of it.

B&K is great.

Andre
Old 2nd March 2011
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

Hello again!

Was a bit too quick in the above reply to Dan. Busy days, too much else to think about. Just wanted this thread to have a wee bit of weight towards the other side from dead. There's a large group within acoustics that use early reflections as part of their design. Floyd Toole have about a hundred pages that I read as a strong advertisement for having a lively listening room. Moultons rooms is another well known source that claims that early reflections are good. It seemed this thread was rather devoid of such thoughts, so I thought it was worth a mention. I think both Toole and Moulton have some rather extreme ideas when it comes to reflections.

As noted, I'm leaning towards somewhere in between dead and alive. The difference in what I heard when adding a stronger ISD termination (Haas trigger) was startling to say the least. Other people that have tried the same have had pretty much the same reaction. "Wow!" The blast of energy definitely seems to help hearing what's really in the recording. The soundstage becomes clearer, panning is more definite and I can actually hear details that are hard to hear on headphones. Blind testing miniature details at or below the noise floor is easier when using noise isolation in ears. Pretty logical, given that they suppress the noise floor by 10-15dB's. Other things are easier to hear in the room than on the headphone. When blind testing quality issues, like mp3 vs wav, then speakers are easier for me to use. The combination of direct sound and reflection(s) is not only adding energy to the overall experience. It seems the brain use the added information for a sort of "multiple looks" to aid in hearing what's really going on.

Have also seen comments from notable persons that they experience the same; rooms give them ability to hear details that are otherwise buried when listening on headphones. This is pertinent to the issue of hearing reverb patches. Perhaps counter intuitively, but the room itself does seem to aid in hearing what's being produced by the speakers. My experience have been the same. Reverb patches are easier to tweak than ever before. BTW; Hannes, I totally agree with regards to algorithmic reverbs vs convolution. Algos FTW! Static convolution isn't fun. We never hear a room as a measurement mic hear it anyway. The IR's captured from halls are not only devoid of the human absorbers, they are devoid of the HRTF filtering we actually hear when being in the room.


The problem is how to add "room help" without creating interference. And/or, perhaps more advanced, without creating stress, as Thomas have mentioned.

My current room situation is still mostly LEDE. Now with some added wee small doses of earlier diffuse returns. Have installed a pair of 2D diffusers in the ceiling and a pair of the rear sidewalls. Both give blips of energy in the ETC that can barely be seen above the rest of the junk in the ISD. Have been experimenting for about half a year with various placements of these, removing them, putting them back again, moving again.. No definite conclusions drawn so far though I think they are there to stay. It was a bit surprising that it didn't hurt more, either aurally or in the ETC. It's not difficult to make them beam harder by angling them for that task. Tried that too, but didn't like the sound of it. As it is, with high angles of incidence on the diffusers, they are barely visible in the ETC. Surprised me that it would be possible to use a 2D diffuser in that way without larger effect in the ETC!

The rear sidewall 2D diffusers in particular was euphonic. Pretty neat stuff from a fun loving perspective. Though I think they mostly acted as a sort of pre-echo on the Haas trigger coming soon thereafter, therefore being detrimental in clarity and definition. I don't think they result would have been the same if they where the actual Haas triggers, not being followed by the rear wall soon after. The diffusion-within-the-IiSD idea is obviously inspired by Thomas' philosophy on creature comfort. Along with my own idea that the integration time of the hearing system is too variable to depend on the 20ms trigger alone. Very short transient sounds have a remarkably short integration times. Part of the idea with the early diffusers is to have some controlled energy taking care of those situations, instead of having a reflection structure within the ISD that is basically out of control, a mere by product of what incidentally happens after treatment of the loud early reflections. Am not quite sure if it makes sense from a science/psychoacoustics viewpoint, but it does seem to help the room feel more natural. Experimenting continues..


Best regards,

Andreas
Old 2nd March 2011
  #103
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 

Andreas,

I absolutely adore your posts. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your findings with the community.
Old 2nd March 2011
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

Cool! Glad someone gets something out of the musings.

Clarification: the rear sidewall diffusers are now parallel to the walls. The direct sound from the closest speaker hits at nearly grazing angle while the furthermost speaker speaker hits at rather high angle. The euphonic but too artifacty setup was with the rear side wall diffusers angled more towards the speakers.
Old 2nd March 2011
  #105
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo View Post
Hello again!

Was a bit too quick in the above reply to Dan. Busy days, too much else to think about. Just wanted this thread to have a wee bit of weight towards the other side from dead. There's a large group within acoustics that use early reflections as part of their design. Floyd Toole have about a hundred pages that I read as a strong advertisement for having a lively listening room. Moultons rooms is another well known source that claims that early reflections are good. It seemed this thread was rather devoid of such thoughts, so I thought it was worth a mention. I think both Toole and Moulton have some rather extreme ideas when it comes to reflections.
Extreme ideas indeed!

I would just like to add that, if we are going to 'defend' the live topologies (which i dont think is necessary in the first place, since such concepts are based on objective principles and substantive verified measurements and documentations) it might be better to name concepts that have actually been based upon these objective standards - NOT on subjective opinions on the percieved sound experience and lack of evidence to some new psycho-acoustic discovery.

So before anyone starts to compare these 'undefined' rooms with a properly designed semi-anechoic model (or runs of to investigate models that do not adheare to basic acoustic principles, but instead, makes up there own heh) it should be mentioned that both the NE and LEDE topology - no matter which of them you may prefer - are aiming to preserve the accuracy of the source material by adhearing to objectively defined psycho-acoustical concepts such as the Henry Precedence Effect etc.,

By contrast the Moulton topology seeks to preserve destructive cues, and thereby, exchange accuracy for a subjective improvement. As far as i'm aware the Floyd Tooles book is aimed at reproduction aswell...

So if we are going to do a 'Live' vs 'Dead' comparison, i think it would be only fare to do so between models that are adhearing to the same psycho acoustic principles, it's only fare! heh

Anything else would be like comparing a certified LEDE space (the 'live camps' contribution) while the 'dead camp' will have to make do with a subjectively 'improved', foam filled room.

EDIT: I like your posts aswell Andreas.

Cheers,
Old 2nd March 2011
  #106
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
So if we are going to do a 'Live' vs 'Dead' comparison, i think it would be only fare to do so between models that are adhearing to the same psycho acoustic principles, it's only fare!
This would be pretty hard to do over the internet . The whole point of reflections is to enhance the subjective impression of a space. There's no way to show that on a graph.

Given my lack of physical access to the various types of world-class control rooms, I'm more than happy to take Andreas' opinion for fact, especially since he's very careful to describe how he is subjectively affected.
Old 2nd March 2011
  #107
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulP View Post
The whole point of reflections is to enhance the subjective impression of a space.
Not in a critical listening environment it ain't. tutt

Quote:
Given my lack of physical access to the various types of world-class control rooms, I'm more than happy to take Andreas' opinion for fact, especially since he's very careful to describe how he is subjectively affected.
When i was talking about subjective response models i was not talking about Andreas room. I'm pretty shure he's got his facts down we all have to tweak our space until we are satisfied with the listening and translation ability - all the while beeing aware of, and adhearing to, objectively defined principles.

Sören
Old 2nd March 2011
  #108
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulP View Post
There's no way to show that on a graph.
But if one can not visualize the psycho-acoustic cues through measurements, how does one verify that the desired/defined response is achieved?


Sören
Old 2nd March 2011
  #109
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndykstra View Post
Andreas,

I absolutely adore your posts. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your findings with the community.
i too find much joy in reading your posts/findings.
thank you!
Old 2nd March 2011
  #110
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndykstra View Post
Andreas,

I absolutely adore your posts. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your findings with the community.
+1. Or is it 2? thumbsup

Andre
Old 2nd March 2011
  #111
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
But if one can not visualize the psycho-acoustic cues through measurements, how does one verify that the desired/defined response is achieved?
By listening to it .

Sure there are some psychological aspects that will show up on a graph, like a Haas trigger, but I don't think you can show the more subtle aspects, that together lead to the 'feel' of the place.
Old 2nd March 2011
  #112
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 

Paul,

I don't believe there is anything that is detectable by ear that can't be translated as well or better by use of measurement.

Such beliefs fall dangerously close to "wizzardry".
Old 2nd March 2011
  #113
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Not in a critical listening environment it ain't. tutt
Now that is one opinion. I find it interesting (well, kind of funny, really) that Toole says that the people who don't appreciate a room with spaciousness are usually music sound engineers and musicians. He thinks it's because they've become accustomed to a dead environment.
Old 2nd March 2011
  #114
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndykstra View Post
I don't believe there is anything that is detectable by ear that can't be translated as well or better by use of measurement.

Such beliefs fall dangerously close to "wizzardry".
Well, yeah. And one of our head wizards is Andreas. To whom I bow down in awe

(There are a couple of others...)

I'm sure that the best designers have a knack for getting the subtle parts right.
Old 2nd March 2011
  #115
Gear Guru
DOH

I don't think measurements can show euphonia.
However we are in recording studios, so how about we record the sound we hear. Binaural techniques, later heard via headphone can be remarkably 'there'.
Ideally it would have to be the same type of mics and speakers etc. However I reckon with what is at hand would be fine too if the capture is done well.
If we could agree something like Jennifer Warnes Bird on a Wire or whatever, we could 'hear' each others rooms.

DD
Old 10th March 2011
  #116
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

Thanks for the very nice comments! <blush>

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
So before anyone starts to compare these 'undefined' rooms with a properly designed semi-anechoic model (or runs of to investigate models that do not adheare to basic acoustic principles, but instead, makes up there own heh) it should be mentioned that both the NE and LEDE topology - no matter which of them you may prefer - are aiming to preserve the accuracy of the source material by adhearing to objectively defined psycho-acoustical concepts such as the Henry Precedence Effect etc.,

By contrast the Moulton topology seeks to preserve destructive cues, and thereby, exchange accuracy for a subjective improvement. As far as i'm aware the Floyd Tooles book is aimed at reproduction aswell...

So if we are going to do a 'Live' vs 'Dead' comparison, i think it would be only fare to do so between models that are adhearing to the same psycho acoustic principles, it's only fare! heh
Not sure if I understand you right. Do you mean to imply that Toole does not have a scientific basis for his view?

As far as I know, Toole and Olive at Harman are among the persons with the largest amount of research in this field. They have done extensive investigations on the psychoacoustics of sound reproduction. See the "detection of reflections typical in rooms" and "the modification of timbre by resonances" for some examples: Harman - Scientific Publications. The first paper mentioned should be of particular interest for those who believe all reflections are destructive.


I too got the impression that these chaps are more interested in pure listening spaces than in production rooms. Still, it's highly interesting research. Even though I do not personally agree with all of their conclusions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johndykstra View Post
I don't believe there is anything that is detectable by ear that can't be translated as well or better by use of measurement.
Oh, how I wish to share that optimism!

There is a fundamental flaw in the way we experience the universe vs the way we describe it. What we hear as "instantaneous spectra" do not have a meaningful correlation to anything practically useful in the sciences at large. We use "frequency" to describe what we experience as spectra as we have no other mental tool at our disposition. There's an enormous gap between the spectras we experience and the frequency based view of science/physics/math/measurements. This flaw have been there since Newtons mechanics shaped the way we think about the world. It'll take a seminal paradigm shift, like mechanics and relativity, to make progress in this regard. When that happens, people will think back to our days and wonder how we where able to get anything done.

Richard D Heysers thoughts on this subject is well worth the read for anyone interested in measurements vs reality. His credentials stand back to none in the field, having invented time domain spectrometry and being president of AES for some time. It's interesting that the most "heretic" thoughts I've found on the subject comes from such an extremely knowledgeable source.


Dans idea about dummy head recording is very good. Would not exactly be what we hear, given the individual variations of HRTF's, though it would at least give some sort of impression that can not be gleamed through measurements.


One very important thing to have in mind when looking at the graphs we typically see here is that they are short on three dimensions. The time and level graphs are only 2D. In real life, the situation is vectors in 5D, with time, level and XYZ directions. What and when is only a small part of the bigger picture, where is also a crucial aspect.


Cheers,

Andreas
Old 10th March 2011
  #117
Gear Guru
Different Stokes

+ 1, great discussion, great posts. Let's face it, when we're good, we're good!

Perhaps Tracking, Mixing, and Mastering rooms all have different purposes and requirements?

Mix and Master are closest but I do note that many Mastering rooms have speakers out in the middle of the floor, while not many mix rooms do.

I can see a very good argument here fro speaker and environment processing.
i.e. Different listen and decay curves for Mix and Master.
I, and many historically have found that Deadish PLUS HF rolled off translates extremely successfully.
http://www.bksv.com/doc/17-197.pdf
However this scenario does not sound like any modern living/listening room.
Perhaps we should use two speakers behind adding room ambience when Mastering.
Altiverb and such are brilliant at this.

DD
Old 10th March 2011
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Perhaps Tracking, Mixing, and Mastering rooms all have different purposes and requirements?
DanDan,

I think it goes way beyond "perhaps"....... at least in the case of tracking rooms and critical listening spaces.

I have thought this through quite carefully (as well as posted on this previously) and in a nutshell (at least in my opinion) it boils down to this:

A tracking space is that designed to have a multitude of locations for both source and "ears" (meaning microphones of course).

There are literally an infinite number of possible combinations between different sources - not only as relates to locations - but also to variance in the source itself, as well as the possibilities of "ears".

Picture the difference between even something as simple as a Marshall Stack and Fender Twin Reverb. Two totally different sound sources - with extreme differences in sound signatures.

Add to that the difference between instruments that might be plugged into those amps, and the microphones that might be used for the purpose of recording them.

Then add to that the varying possibilities of those amp locations within a space - coupled with all of the possible locations for the microphones that might be in use during the recording.

For just those 2 amps - the possible combinations of amps, coupled with location in the space, instruments play through them and possible ears is a pretty big picture to get into one's mind.

Try adding to that all of the other possibilities.......

Now let's picture a critical listening space.........

It has a clearly defines listening area.

The ears (in this case biological rather than mechanical) are going to sit in one (relatively) small area.

The source(s) is (are) going to be set up and reside within specific locations - and (once set) they remain a constant.......

I do not see (however) a real difference between a properly designed listening space be it mixing or mastering - this I see as mainly a difference in gear.

In my mind they should both provide the same acoustic qualities......

Rod
Old 19th March 2011
  #120
Gear Head
Pardon me for skipping a few pages...

I wonder what music would sound like in a very dead room, yet so few have access to anechoic chambers. What if, for example, I were to treat an 18' by 14' by 10' mixing room by covering all walls (and possibly the ceiling?) with 12" of fiberglass coated with 2" of studio foam diamonds? The highs would be absorbed instead of reflected because of the foam, and the lows would pass right through to be absorbed by the fiberglass. All but the lowest frequencies would be absorbed extensively, yes? However, it is nothing like an anechoic chamber.

First, would this be an effective way to deaden a room?

Second, could a room like this be advantageous for audio work?
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
lpettipoole / So much gear, so little time
78
thethrillfactor / So much gear, so little time
71
JDavisNJ / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
8
centurymantra / So much gear, so little time
12

Forum Jump
Forum Jump