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
Ethan Winer on... Condenser Microphones
Old 12th September 2008
  #361
Lives for gear
 
Jamzone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by badboymusic View Post
I just listened to them for the first time in the studio (without reading the file names). Yes, I hear quite a difference. IMO If you stacked instruments using the SoundBlaster you would hear the mud building up. The clarity using the Apogee in your examples is superior, and that's just one track.

And yes, you could rename these A and B (or A and S if you want to make it easy) and I could pick out which was which.

I just went and listened to the other instrument examples; the triangle tracks really display the difference in the high end quite dramatically.
Just waiting for Ethan to say:

I lied. I swapped the samples...

Haven't listened to them though.
Old 12th September 2008
  #362
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Ok, I see what you are saying but isn´t it different when you deal with something that relates to taste rather than anatomy.

I guess a field test could give an indication of what the average think is vibey or danceble. But wouldn´t this be extremely complicated since this varies with different sub cultures, age groups and even time since it´s probably related to fashion as well.
If we agree that depth, like equal loudness, is not a question of taste, then perhaps we can use similar logic to look at the other terms.

I think we can safely assume that rhythm is required for dancing but not necessarily 'music', so we can confine our test to relatively simple percussive rhythms.

From here we can test 'danceability', firstly with SPL - I would expect to see subjective 'danceability' rising with SPL.

Next we can subsitute RMS gain via compression or distortion for actual SPL gain, where again I would expect to see subjective 'danceability' rising with RMS gain, but not to the same extent as with pure SPL.

Finally we can use a constant RMS loudness and decrease crest-factor via compression. In this case I would expect to see a subjective reduction of 'danceability' as compression is increased.

Regarding 'vibe', I guess we could call that 'emotional impact'? It would most likely be harder to test this one, simply because the term is very vague, but I would nonetheless expect this to increase with SPL in the same manner as with 'danceability', where loudness gain - either pure SPL gain or RMS gain from compression - increases perception of 'vibe'.

We could also test 'swing' or 'groove' in a similar way, where I would expect compression to reduce 'swing', which is a function of accent (as well as timing).

I think we might find that while musical taste itself is clearly subjective, many of the descriptive terms we use can be demonstrated to be measureable and that much of what we consider subjective is only subjective in our evaluation of it.

Andy
Old 12th September 2008
  #363
Lives for gear
 

Wouldn´t an absolute objective knowledge of taste require that taste wasn´t subjective? But perhaps it isn´t nessesary for the purpose of what you were describing. But finding a formula related to distortion and frequency based on what the average person find vibey, would perhaps be something like the loudnes button on home stereos (minus the distortion part).

I thought that this was somehow similar to the proof that the saying "everything is relative" is false.

If it was true it would also mean that even the phrase "everything is relative" is relative, and thus disagreeing with it would make it false.
Old 12th September 2008
  #364
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
I took the time to download the files, listen to the samples on 2 different types of speakers as well as headphones, noted the differences I heard in relatively descript terms and still you quibble.
There's a method to my madness which I'll explain, but first I need to apologize. I try hard to be ethical and truthful, but this thread has devolved into he said / she said and we're getting nowhere fast. So I had to put things back on track.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
I hear more dimension on the Apogee track and more headroom allowing a smoother more natural representation of the performance. More realistic capture overall like you're listening in the room. Finger attack is more pleasant as well - more musical. Finger attack on the SB track is more metallic/harsh.

The transients on the SB track sound more harsh (like an ice pick), especially when you hear the finger-squeaks during chord changes. Less dimension so the track is a little "flatter" and pushed forward causing kind of a proximity effect, like the mids to upper mids are being shoved in your face. Sounds like you're listening through the microphone instead of in the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badboymusic View Post
The clarity using the Apogee in your examples is superior, and that's just one track.
"A man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest."

--Paul Simon, from The Boxer
Before I posted the links to the two guitar files, I renamed them so the one named Apogee is really the SoundBlaster, and vice versa. I'm truly sorry for the trickery, but I saw no other way to make the point about the importance of placebo effect and expectation bias. We all understand these effects, but for some reason everyone thinks they apply only to other people.

I just renamed the files to be correct, but I may rename them again without notice the next few days. If more people post their impressions here, without knowing which they're hearing, I'll explain how to tell which file is which by their sizes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcCirDude View Post
Funny that you say that, because I'll wager that the convertors in a late '90's soundblaster card are better than the convertors in the 3M deck on which Donald Fagan recorded the Grammy™ award winning album "The Nightfly".
This truly nails it. The key to making great sounding recordings is having good ears and knowing what you're doing. To proclaim this or that piece of gear "not capable of pro results" is just wrong. And insulting.

Some people here are mad at me because of the way I reply in all the "What should I buy next?" threads. I see these threads many times every day in every audio forum. Someone who is not satisfied with the quality of their productions asks what gear to buy to improve things. They list all the gear they have now, followed by a list of what they're considering buying. Sometimes they even apologize for the gear they have now. heh

From my perspective, what matters most is, in order:

1) Talent and skill as a recording and mixing engineer
2) Good full-range loudspeakers in a neutral sounding space
3) Microphones and all other gear

I purposely omit "a good song played well" because that's outside the scope of this thread.

If someone has mid-range gear and their recordings suck, the problem is not their midrange gear. Buying a new mic pre or A/D/A converter is not going to make an appreciable change. I am not opposed to good gear! At some point midrange gear can be the weak link. But not for most of us. Learning how to mix better will surely help, and so will treating their room. The damage done by even low-budget gear is miniscule compared to the damage done by an untreated room. Call me biased if you want, but these are the real reasons most newbies's mixes suck.

--Ethan
Old 12th September 2008
  #365
Gear Maniac
 

Ehtan, you speak a bit about having good ears, but you yourself must be over 30 years of age am I right? Or even a bit older? Have you checked your hearing lateley? (I almost wrote, "have you checked your ear ring lately".

Anyway, how do you know what sounds good anymore, surely you must have lost some ability to hear above 8 khz?
Old 12th September 2008
  #366
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Wouldn´t an absolute objective knowledge of taste require that taste wasn´t subjective? But perhaps it isn´t nessesary for the purpose of what you were describing. But finding a formula related to distortion and frequency based on what the average person find vibey, would perhaps be something like the loudnes button on home stereos (minus the distortion).

I thought that this was somehow similar to the proof that the saying "everything is relative" is false.

If it was true it would also mean that even the phrase "everything is relative" is relative, and thus disagreeing with it would make it false.
What I'm trying to say is that these terms ('depth', 'danceability', perhaps even 'vibe') are probably not a question of taste any more than equal loudness or auditory masking.

Whether we 'like' depth or danceability is another matter entirely.

Andy
Old 12th September 2008
  #367
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Anyway, how do you know what sounds good anymore, surely you must have lost some ability to hear above 8 khz?
Are you suggesting that:
  • Only those under 30 can know what sounds good?
  • Those over 30 don't know what sounds good?
  • Recordings made by those over 30 sound poor?
  • Recordings made by those under 30 all sound great?

Or are you just being silly for the sake of it?
Old 12th September 2008
  #368
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_simpson View Post
What I'm trying to say is that these terms ('depth', 'danceability', perhaps even 'vibe') are probably not a question of taste any more than equal loudness or auditory masking.

Whether we 'like' depth or danceability is another matter entirely.

Andy
You misunderstood me. It´s not a question whether we like it or not. It´s a question about what qualities does something have that is "dancable" or "vibey". It´s not definitive, it will vary depending who you ask.

Let´s say a person aproach me and tells me that he can prove in an objetive way that what he is about to play is "dancable" and "vibey". Ok lets play. Ater I heard the piece I say: I didn´t find that dancable and vibey at all. That would mean that the proof isn´t objective because then I would have to agree.

What´s considered dancable or vibey depends whether you ask grandma´ her grand son or in which country you ask since it´s linked with culture. It´s not the same with depth as it is related to anatomy and how the brain make assumptions on how far away a sound source is.
Old 12th September 2008
  #369
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
Are you suggesting that:
  • Only those under 30 can know what sounds good?
  • Those over 30 don't know what sounds good?
  • Recordings made by those over 30 sound poor?
  • Recordings made by those under 30 all sound great?

Or are you just being silly for the sake of it?
I just asked if he's over 30, the rest is your imagination, dude. You have lots of it.
Old 12th September 2008
  #370
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
you yourself must be over 30 years of age am I right?
I'll be 60 in a few weeks. And you are correct that my hearing is not what it used to be. I played some sine waves just a few weeks ago and couldn't hear past 14 KHz. I'm not convinced this precludes me from hearing detail though. And it certainly does not invalidate my scientific approach to audio, or the logic of my arguments. A lot of mixers - really good mixers, not hacks like me - are my age and mixing as well as ever. I've never considered myself a great mixer anyway, though my mixes the past few years are better than in the past. At least I think so.

The talent to make good mixes is different from an ability to hear very high frequencies. Good mixes sound good because they have a pleasing overall frequency balance, with no big midrange buildup, or clashes, or bass that's too thin or too full. Most people can identify a good mix, even if they can't make good mixes themselves. So it seems to me the real talent is knowing what to do, and how to get from "here to there" so to speak.

--Ethan
Old 12th September 2008
  #371
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
I just asked if he's over 30, the rest is your imagination, dude. You have lots of it.
No. you didn't 'just ask'
Your riposte says it all, though
Old 12th September 2008
  #372
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Before I posted the links to the two guitar files, I renamed them so the one named Apogee is really the SoundBlaster, and vice versa.

--Ethan
Prove it. I'd love to see your evidence.
Old 12th September 2008
  #373
Lives for gear
 
trock's Avatar
 

I am not smart enough to know any of this for sure. i do love my gear and have a couple of nice pieces in my home studio, a quartet is my prize possesion etc

but one thing when i was using SAW as my DAW that scared me to death in my search for the holy grail of gear etc was Bob Lentini trucking out in vegas with an older laptop and an behringer ada8000 and some mics and producing some of the best sounding music i ever heard

the steven lee group album he did with just the laptop, ada8000 and onboard SAW and SAW effects truly made me start to think about gear vs talent

you can hear some of what he did here

Steven Lee Group!

and since i still pretty much suck at mixing and stuff i still dig my gear!
Old 12th September 2008
  #374
Gear Maniac
 
virtualsamana's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
See, even when people say they can hear a difference it's still not good enough for the nay-sayers so people like Ethan will never be satisfied.

I took the time to download the files, listen to the samples on 2 different types of speakers as well as headphones, noted the differences I heard in relatively descript terms and still you quibble.

What a waste of time.

On top of which, the nay-sayers are listening mostly through crappy converters so the major differences are masked anyway. My Black Lion converters blow your Delta 66 converters out of the water so it's going to be difficult (if not impossible) for you to hear a difference anyway. If you listened back on high-end converters then the differences might be more noticeable to you.

Then you admit that, yes, people may hear a difference - but since it wasn't a blind test it didn't really qualify.

What a crock. What a crock.

Did I say "what a crock?"

What a crock.
Umm...crock? You just listened to the audio samples critically, on multiple systems. You called the SoundBlaster musical and compared the Apogee to an icepick. Maybe you need to upgrade your converters
Old 12th September 2008
  #375
Lives for gear
 

I just checked, I had already downloaded these files once in March. Labels (by size) were exactly the same back then as they were yesterday... Anyway, the bigger of the two files sounds better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

Before I posted the links to the two guitar files, I renamed them so the one named Apogee is really the SoundBlaster, and vice versa. I'm truly sorry for the trickery, but I saw no other way to make the point about the importance of placebo effect and expectation bias. We all understand these effects, but for some reason everyone thinks they apply only to other people.

I just renamed the files to be correct, but I may rename them again without notice the next few days. If more people post their impressions here, without knowing which they're hearing, I'll explain how to tell which file is which by their sizes.


--Ethan
Old 12th September 2008
  #376
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
As I mentioned above, that is coming eventually. It's all down to when my friend Grekim can find time to do it. Even if people can tell the difference, and I believe some will be able to on things like triangles and bells, it will be interesting to see if they can tell which is which. I didn't hide which A/D was used in my last tests, but perhaps I will next time and let people try to tell.

--Ethan
Also, if you had already renamed the files, why did you say the exact opposite thing after listening results from myself and other's were first posted? Did you suddenly just remember overnight you had renamed those files?

Seriously, what's up with the overnight complete change of story, my friend?
Old 12th September 2008
  #377
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
No. you didn't 'just ask'
Your riposte says it all, though
I got my answer, so you can crawl back thank you very much.
dfegad

(And to answer your pm, no, I'm not into that sort of thing but thanks for asking)
Old 12th September 2008
  #378
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

Ethan you old fart. You're all of a few weeks older than I am. I stopped relying on my ears for more than confirmation of what I measure more than 30 years ago. My last really subjective endeavor was a studio delay line/flanger back in the '70s.

Many people posting to this thread don't remember when gear really was a significant variable, and numbers on the spec sheets could actually predict which would sound cleaner. Now, thanks to first improvements in solid state electronics, and secondly inexpensive but decent digital technology, has made most of our audio chain all but transparent. As previously noted loudspeaker/rooms and microphones remain a significant variable.

Ethan's campaign to hold this in perspective is a valuable service to those who at least listen to his message. Industry likes it the way it is, with people pursuing the promise of more expensive gear making better recordings.

Ethan's blunt statements involve personal judgement so there will always be honest disagreement where the lines are drawn, but not that lines exist where better gear is of diminishing value (I hope).

Argue among yourselves about where you draw your personal lines. Some may consider Ethan's posts as selling his own book (room treatment). It's just as valid to say that room treatment is where he sees a significant shortcoming in low end recording setups and he's trying to help where it's needed most.

It's OK to disagree with Ethan by degrees but don't discount his broader message.

Keep up the good fight.

JR
Old 12th September 2008
  #379
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
I just checked, I had already downloaded these files once in March. Labels (by size) were exactly the same back then as they were yesterday... Anyway, the bigger of the two files sounds better.

Sounds like Living sounds is hoping that the Appogee is the bigger file...

It was suspicious that you would have hum in the converter with the balanced inputs and not on the one with the unbalanced inputs.

Great way to prove a point, Ethan.




-tINY

Old 12th September 2008
  #380
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
I got my answer, so you can crawl back thank you very much
I'm more than happy where I am, thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
(And to answer your pm, no, I'm not into that sort of thing but thanks for asking)
Strange, that's not what I was told at the time of the pics - you'd better have a chat with her...
Old 12th September 2008
  #381
Lives for gear
 

I think Ethan's posts are ridiculous for the most part. He seems to be trying to prove to everyone that their choices are unimportant and that their ears are tricking them. No piece of gear is transparent period. I'm glad the OP posted some of his ridiculous statements. What's the big deal? Learning to trust/distrust your ears is important. Everyone is at different stages. Why does Ethan get a free pass to ridicule everyone that disagrees with him?
Old 12th September 2008
  #382
Lives for gear
 
ArcCirDude's Avatar
 

You know, the internet was, for the most part, developed to be a communications tool for scholars. Somewhere, somehow, someone along the way forgot to lock the door on his/her way out and now look what's happened. Riff-raff indeed.....

This thread is an atrocity of ignorance and an insult to what this site was originally intended to be. My six year old son behaves better than some of you. Can you people PLEASE abstain from the useless, ignorant mud slinging. Let's save it for the elections.....

Better yet, perhaps just slam the lid on this sarcophagus. Hard.
Old 12th September 2008
  #383
Gear Addict
 
Nishmaster's Avatar
 

It's hard to see where Ethan is becoming ridiculing here.

I think the lesson is simple. The lesson is not to completely discount your ears. The lesson is to admit that your ears can play a whole host of tricks on you and admitting that and moving to a more impartial mind state with a balance of anecdotal evidence backed by hard evidence is where we should all strive to be.

Ethan's swap of the SoundBlaster and Apogee files in this test just goes to show that it is quite easy to be fooled. A number of posters described positively what they heard in the "Apogee" sound file, and negatively in the "SoundBlaster" file. Guess what? They were wrong.

Guess what? That's ok!

The point is not to invalidate anyone's purchase, or to say that those people obviously have crap ears, or anything of the like. The point is to say, "Well, damn, I guess I was wrong. Why did I hear those things? What are the objective reasons that I like what I like, and how can I isolate myself from my own self bias?"

Let us not forget that the converter in the SoundBlaster is orders of magnitude better than converters of years gone by, and many great (and hit) albums were created on those with no problem.

As an aside, it is tests like these that reinforce my opinion that converters are at best the last 1%-2% of your total sound, all else being equal. We use both Digi (which are a popular target of much GS derision) and Apogee converters in our room, and there has never been a time where I've thought, "wow, that sounds so much better, I must have recorded it on the Apogee." Converters mean precisely nothing before your monitoring and room are no longer suspect.
Old 12th September 2008
  #384
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

That's a great post Matt, thanks for clarifying my position so nicely. I try hard not to ridicule people, though I can see why some people might feel that I am ridiculing them. I also try hard to be civil even when people are tossing insults, which we've seen a lot of here lately. I do admit it's tough to be civil sometimes. heh
Old 12th September 2008
  #385
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
I'm more than happy where I am, thanks


Strange, that's not what I was told at the time of the pics - you'd better have a chat with her...
Her? I thought you were a bloke?
Old 12th September 2008
  #386
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishmaster View Post
It's hard to see where Ethan is becoming ridiculing here.

Ethan's swap of the SoundBlaster and Apogee files in this test just goes to show that it is quite easy to be fooled. A number of posters described positively what they heard in the "Apogee" sound file, and negatively in the "SoundBlaster" file. Guess what? They were wrong.
Some of you are missing an important fact here, Ethan agreed at first (after initial listening reports trickled in) that, yes, people may hear a difference between the 2 files but he was unwilling to agree how vast the differences really are. He said nothing about switching the files.

Then, much later, he changed his story completely and said he'd switched the file names to trick everyone. It was his reaction to the hearing test claims that was reversed, not the actual files.

I asked him to prove he had reversed the file names and he's not responded to that.

Yet you're willing just to take his word for it without even questioning the obvious self-conflicting posts. Blind belief? Who's exhibiting blind belief now?

On the surface it seems plain to me that Ethan's pulling the wool over everyone's eyes - intentionally. It's a game at this point. Sort of a joke, if you will.
Old 12th September 2008
  #387
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
That's a great post Matt, thanks for clarifying my position so nicely. I try hard not to ridicule people, though I can see why some people might feel that I am ridiculing them. I also try hard to be civil even when people are tossing insults, which we've seen a lot of here lately. I do admit it's tough to be civil sometimes. heh

Ethan your tone is often belittling. I wasn't talking about the apogee test. I was talking about your responses to others in here in general. You act like because you can present a chart that whatever someone is hearing is invalid. This is tiring, completely dismissive and frankly rude. That's what I was getting at. I'm sure you know a lot, but I don't care. Obviously others do. You have a lot of fans here. Good luck with that.

Nick
Old 12th September 2008
  #388
Lives for gear
 
duvalle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
Some of you are missing an important fact here, Ethan agreed at first (after initial listening reports trickled in) that, yes, people may hear a difference between the 2 files but he was unwilling to agree how vast the differences really are. He said nothing about switching the files.

Then, much later, he changed his story completely and said he'd switched the file names to trick everyone. It was his reaction to the hearing test claims that was reversed, not the actual files.
that's exactly what happened!

Old 12th September 2008
  #389
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
I asked him to prove he had reversed the file names and he's not responded to that.
I can prove what I did only to people who downloaded the files both before and after. It's clear to me that you got caught in the middle. My intent was never to pull a trick, but it was obvious this is the only way to make my point about expectation bias and sighted comparisons. Nick's post above highlights the problem perfectly. He considers my tone belittling simply because I disagree with him.

How do I disagree with someone while ensuring they won't possibly be offended?

I'm too old and impatient to beat around the bush and couch every post with, "with all due respect" and "I don't want to rock the boat but..." and so forth. Sorry if that offends some folks. If Nick prefers to believe my intent is to belittle him, there's nothing I can do to change his mind. But I'm telling you that my only goal is education and consumerism.

--Ethan
Old 12th September 2008
  #390
Gear Addict
 
Nishmaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickynicknick View Post
...I was talking about your responses to others in here in general. You act like because you can present a chart that whatever someone is hearing is invalid. This is tiring, completely dismissive and frankly rude. That's what I was getting at.
Please note that it's not my intention to come to anyone's aid or get in the middle of any pissing matches. That being said, though Nick, I do have one observation that should not also be dismissed.

Just because one hears something does not also make it valid.

All too much, someone says "I heard it, so it must be true." A more accurate statement would be, "I heard it, so it might be true." There is no point in discovering the what, only to ignore the why.

Once again, people seem to get so defensive about the things they hear. I really, really don't understand why. I am more than happy to admit when the things I hear aren't what I think they are, because those things enable me to understand why I hear it that way, and what the differences and reasons actually are, as opposed to what I may think they are at any given time.

Quote:
Some of you are missing an important fact here, Ethan agreed at first (after initial listening reports trickled in) that, yes, people may hear a difference between the 2 files but he was unwilling to agree how vast the differences really are. He said nothing about switching the files.
I'm not sure why one would give up the gambit before it has been played out.

Quote:
Then, much later, he changed his story completely and said he'd switched the file names to trick everyone. It was his reaction to the hearing test claims that was reversed, not the actual files.

I asked him to prove he had reversed the file names and he's not responded to that.
Indeed he hasn't, but that would be very difficult to provide proof for, and I'm not sure there is any evidence to the contrary, either.

Quote:
Yet you're willing just to take his word for it without even questioning the obvious self-conflicting posts. Blind belief? Who's exhibiting blind belief now?
The posts by necessity must be self conflicting in order to expose the bias for the "name" converter, and prove the point. I don't recall making any reference to any blind belief anywhere, but yes, in this case I am taking his word for it. I could be wrong, but I don't think it matters. The difference between the two files is not large enough to be truly striking, in either direction.

Quote:
On the surface it seems plain to me that Ethan's pulling the wool over everyone's eyes - intentionally. It's a game at this point. Sort of a joke, if you will.
Perhaps, but again, there is a greater lesson here if everyone would just leave his or her ego at the curb.
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
burke111 / The Good News Channel
4
dannygold / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump