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 9th September 2008
  #181
Gear Head
 

but who cares? he fixed it and is happy with the results.[/quote]

Isn't this a lot of the point? You can spend a lt of money "fixing" a problem which you assumed to be some esoteric complex issue, which could only be resolved with some "high end" gear. Perhaps the same improvement could've been achieved with something more simple, cheap, and perhaps effective if you could be specfic about what the problem actually was.

That, to me, seems to be much of Ethan's thrust. As in his example of working on acoustics rather than replacing a cable with a magic one.

I think there's always an issue in the fact that any piece of gear changes more than one quality at a time. That makes it hard to figure out which quality is producing the effect you like / don't like. e.g a preamp can add EQ of a kind, and compress, and add distortion.
My Chiswick Reach compressor rolls off a bit of top end, which sounds very nice, but could I get the same thing by EQing, without havng to compress at all (and spend so much)? Or would I also want the compression and harmonic distortion that I get from the Chis? Perhaps a cheaper compressor and some EQ would give me results I'd like just as much.

The combination makes it hard to tell but that's all the more reason to test in the way that Ethan suggests.

Giles

A library has more books than you could ever read. Don't spend half your time reading books you don't like and the other half moaning about them.
Old 9th September 2008
  #182
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by melonmachine View Post
Perhaps the same improvement could've been achieved with something more simple, cheap, and perhaps effective if you could be specific about what the problem actually was.
That sums up my position exactly.
Old 9th September 2008
  #183
Lives for gear
 
CaptainHook's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Short of clipping or near-clipping, all of them.
No Saturation? Distortion?
Or is this covered under clipping for you?
What happens to the eq response in those cases?
Is it linear? Over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Yes it's still tiny unless it's the same coloration. For example, if you record 20 tracks in a crappy room having a nasty midrange resonance, that same resonance will be on all the tracks. So it's as if the entire mix were put through an EQ with a high-Q boost. Likewise for hum. If the same hum is on all tracks it will be louder in the summation. But most things do not add coherently, and so will not accumulate. A drum track and an acoustic guitar track will not add coherently, nor will noise or the distortion on different tracks.
What is coloration to you?
And how does distortion NOT effect frequency response?
So this effect(distortion has) on frequency would accumulate, just
like your room example.

A convertor imparting the same coloration(eq response/distortion/etc)
on every track certainly plays a part in how each element sits in
a mix. How is this not accumulatively coherent? Even if not
coherent (logical and consistent), doesn't mean it's still not accumulative.

Say the drum track and acoustic track were recorded in your imaginary
'crappy room with nasty midrange resonance'. You stated this resonance
will accumulate. Lets pretend the room had a subjectively pleasant
eq resonance instead. We can assume this eq resonance would also
accumulate. Lets pretend it wasn't the room imparting the nasty midrange
or pleasant eq resonance, but the convertor instead. In my experience
both accumulate. Where is your proof this doesn't?
Have you measured it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Harm: Enough change to think, "Damn, that just doesn't sound as good."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Well, that's different. It's difficult to capture anything with a microphone such that when played through loudspeakers it sounds exactly the same. I've come mighty close with my DPA 4090 though.
So how are you monitoring this harm, if not through another set
of speakers or headphones? Your definition of harm is still just a
subjective opinion on the QUALITY of sound, not the integrity.
Have you measured this 'harm'? How come in this situation,
you have no need to measure scientifically, because your assessment
based on what you HEAR rules what you define as truth?
You've pulled others up on following the same process.

Bias expectation Ethan. You don't believe the cheap convertor is
doing harm to your "fuzz" guitar so you don't hear it.
Or maybe it's the "fuzz" that's the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
I don't see how it matters. Fuzz is fuzz. Sometimes I mic an amp, sometimes I use my Zoom effects box. Both have their uses.
All distortion is not created equal.
Regardless, will you provide proof and data to support this claim?
Old 9th September 2008
  #184
Lives for gear
 
nosebleedaudio's Avatar
 

All distortion is not created equal.
Regardless, will you provide proof and data to support this claim?[/QUOTE]

All you have to do is go to a Gtr Center and see the endless amount of effect pedals...
Even the SAME ones with different players= different SOUNDS...
Old 9th September 2008
  #185
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Fuzz guitar: My tele through an amp with all the knobs turned up to 10.

I don't see how it matters. Fuzz is fuzz. Sometimes I mic an amp, sometimes I use my Zoom effects box. Both have their uses.

--Ethan


WHAT?!?!?


Errrr... whatever dude.


I've got about three dozen stompboxes and a half-dozen amps here and they all sound wildly different. The Big Muff is not a RAT, is not a SansAmp, is not a Fuzz Face, is not a JTM45 running flat out with the channels jumped which is also not a Boogie...






Even more disturbing is that just scanning this thread now, there's quite a few people with enough knowledge to be dangerous throwing out generalizations like gospel.


I can't believe the moderators haven't locked this trainwreck down yet.


It's truly an embarrassment to all...


Don't you people have anything better to do with your time?
Old 9th September 2008
  #186
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So Jimmy Page "fuzz" sounds the same as Jimmi Hendrix? Same as Carlos Santana? Same as Billy Gibbons?
That's not my point - of course all fuzz guitar tones are not the same! But once something is that distorted, who cares if an A/D/A adds 0.01% more? That was my point.

--Ethan
Old 9th September 2008
  #187
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHook View Post
What is coloration to you?
A change in frequency response, or the addition of distortion. What else is there?

Quote:
And how does distortion NOT effect frequency response?
In large amounts of course it does. But I'm talking about gear that aims to be clean. If the sum of all artifacts is 80+ dB below the music, then the artifacts are not audible.

Quote:
So this effect(distortion has) on frequency would accumulate, just like your room example.
Not if the tracks have different instruments or voices because in that case different frequencies are being generated.

Quote:
Lets pretend it wasn't the room imparting the nasty midrange or pleasant eq resonance, but the convertor instead.
Sure, in that case the converter is adding EQ. But what converter skews the response by more than a fraction of a dB? Versus the 10 to 30 dB colorations you get in many rooms.

--Ethan
Old 9th September 2008
  #188
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Just to add, you asked earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHook View Post
Define "fuzz guitar" and define "harm".
WTF do you want? You asked me to define fuzz and I did - a severely distorted electric guitar. That you and others take that to mean I'm saying all distorted guitars sound the same is a huge leap, and shows the problem with threads like this. You gotta be reasonable guys!

Stop being so argumentative and try to read what I'm actually saying, rather than ASSuming the most stoopid interpretation possible. Thank you.

--Ethan
Old 9th September 2008
  #189
Gear Head
 

This thread reads so much like so many "Evolution vs. Creationism" threads I've seen. Ethan - at some point you're just going to have to give up on this one, not because you're wrong, but because for many of the posters here that doesn't really matter. You asked earlier (if I recall correctly) whether one of these adversarial posters wasn't interested in the Truth. Well of course, the answer is "no". Those who rely on subjective experience, or intuition, or faith, or superstition to govern their decision making are not seeking the truth, and no amount of logical discourse is going to convince them that they didn't really see the Jesus in the tuna salad. And that's OK for them, although it does cause problems for those who would like to be able to use boards such as this to research whether a particular piece of gear is worth buying. That's how we wind up with the Avalon 737 in both the "favorite piece of gear" and "worst thing I ever bought" threads.

The beauty of science in this context is that with accurate measurement we can report performance without adding "YMMV", because in fact it won't, except to the extent that performance among different units might vary somewhat. That is of real value to decisionmaking, as opposed to "musicality" or the like, especially when it's clear just from reading this forum that reasonable people with real world experience with audio can disagree vehemently with each other about the audio quality of a particular piece of gear.
Old 9th September 2008
  #190
Lives for gear
 

This has nothing to do with "evolution vs. creationism". I'm not easy to offend, but I object against being put into the same category with those people. Creationists are just badly malinformed. On a major level. You cannot even do a double blinded test of creationism. It's bull**** from start to bottom. It's not a theory, it's not even base on observation.

What I'm talking about with regards to converters are real, testable, verifiable facts. Things that are so siginificant they translate into very audible, real world differences. Things you can, of course, measure with the correct test setup.

Anyway, Ethan, have you listened to my files yet? The download should have finished now... :-)
Old 9th September 2008
  #191
Han
Lives for gear
 

You know what we are doing here actually? We have a saying in Holland: ant ****ing. Ethan has a great number of strong points and actually he is right most of the times, but it seems very difficult to read with care.

Distorted guitars have lots of harmonics and this distortion is something completely different from the distortion caused by recording gear, both analog or digital.

Oh, I disagree with Ethan many times, but at least I (as a foreighner) try to read what he atually is saying.

We have 100+ pages of discussion on hi fi forums about the blind tests like ABX and the question is whether these blind tests are valide or not, for example.
Old 9th September 2008
  #192
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
This has nothing to do with "evolution vs. creationism". I'm not easy to offend, but I object against being put into the same category with those people. Creationists are just badly malinformed. On a major level. You cannot even do a double blinded test of creationism. It's bull**** from start to bottom. It's not a theory, it's not even base on observation.

What I'm talking about with regards to converters are real, testable, verifiable facts. Things that are so siginificant they translate into very audible, real world differences. Things you can, of course, measure with the correct test setup.

Anyway, Ethan, have you listened to my files yet? The download should have finished now... :-)
Sorry I offended you living sounds. I wasn't specifically addressing your comments (not sure why you thought I was) but those folks who don't care what the measurements say, they just know what they hear. And before I get yelled at by the Creationist lobby, I wasn't slagging them either, just illustrating that it's difficult to successfully make a point using science or logic with someone whose beliefs are rooted in faith or personal experience.
Old 9th September 2008
  #193
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsonage View Post
This thread reads so much like so many "Evolution vs. Creationism" threads I've seen. Ethan - at some point you're just going to have to give up on this one, not because you're wrong, but because for many of the posters here that doesn't really matter. You asked earlier (if I recall correctly) whether one of these adversarial posters wasn't interested in the Truth. Well of course, the answer is "no". Those who rely on subjective experience, or intuition, or faith, or superstition to govern their decision making are not seeking the truth, and no amount of logical discourse is going to convince them that they didn't really see the Jesus in the tuna salad. And that's OK for them, although it does cause problems for those who would like to be able to use boards such as this to research whether a particular piece of gear is worth buying. That's how we wind up with the Avalon 737 in both the "favorite piece of gear" and "worst thing I ever bought" threads.

The beauty of science in this context is that with accurate measurement we can report performance without adding "YMMV", because in fact it won't, except to the extent that performance among different units might vary somewhat. That is of real value to decisionmaking, as opposed to "musicality" or the like, especially when it's clear just from reading this forum that reasonable people with real world experience with audio can disagree vehemently with each other about the audio quality of a particular piece of gear.
I agree with this wholeheartedly and here's why:

It is the case that there is an immutable law of nature that supports the adage "to each their own".

Nature dictates every person has their own characteristics, qualities, and traits; some of which are unchangeable, whether by DNA, Astrological identity, Upbringing, Education, Indelible Experience, etc.. Every person then inherently hears and interprets sound (and the spectrum of sound) in a different way [thank god], right? Or we'd all be very bored with each other's musical ideas.

It is therefore extremely Naive to expect that every person in the world will subscribe to the same definition of "TRUTH" as one who might devote their life to defining "TRUTH" - whether by values of science or by art of verbiage. Extremely naive. To incessantly peddle (however free) a specified system as THE TRUTH is thereby an exercise in futility.
Old 9th September 2008
  #194
Gear Maniac
 
virtualsamana's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsonage View Post
This thread reads so much like so many "Evolution vs. Creationism" threads I've seen. Ethan - at some point you're just going to have to give up on this one, not because you're wrong, but because for many of the posters here that doesn't really matter. You asked earlier (if I recall correctly) whether one of these adversarial posters wasn't interested in the Truth. Well of course, the answer is "no". Those who rely on subjective experience, or intuition, or faith, or superstition to govern their decision making are not seeking the truth, and no amount of logical discourse is going to convince them that they didn't really see the Jesus in the tuna salad. And that's OK for them, although it does cause problems for those who would like to be able to use boards such as this to research whether a particular piece of gear is worth buying. That's how we wind up with the Avalon 737 in both the "favorite piece of gear" and "worst thing I ever bought" threads.

The beauty of science in this context is that with accurate measurement we can report performance without adding "YMMV", because in fact it won't, except to the extent that performance among different units might vary somewhat. That is of real value to decisionmaking, as opposed to "musicality" or the like, especially when it's clear just from reading this forum that reasonable people with real world experience with audio can disagree vehemently with each other about the audio quality of a particular piece of gear.

The Gearslutz Holy Trinity:

Brand Name (the Father)
Praise and Trash Talk (the Son)
Expectation Bias (the Holy Ghost)

Old 10th September 2008
  #195
Lives for gear
 
synthoid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
A lot of people love Mackie speakers, but I'm aware that many others do not. I'm not sure why some people dislike Mackies, but my two guesses are:
...
Well, debating the 824s here will only add mud to an already muddled thread.

My take-away from this thread is this:

-anything you can hear, you can measure; but

-it's not always obvious what to measure or how

Test and measurement is hard! It takes a lot of training and the folks who do it well are typically very careful not to overstate the value of measurements, or to generalize particular results.

Becoming a sensitive and sophisticated listener is also hard. It's a different skill. Not very many people can become both test-and-measurement experts and sensitive and sophisticated listeners.

-synthoid
Old 10th September 2008
  #196
Lives for gear
 
CaptainHook's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Not if the tracks have different instruments or voices because in that case different frequencies are being generated.
But you stated that "if you record 20 tracks in a crappy room having a nasty midrange
resonance, that same resonance will be on all the tracks. So it's as if the entire mix were
put through an EQ with a high-Q boost".

I never said 20(40) tracks of the same instrument and neither did you.
So do 20 tracks (not being the same) in a crappy room build up or not?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Sure, in that case the converter is adding EQ. But what converter skews the response by more than a fraction of a dB? Versus the 10 to 30 dB colorations you get in many rooms.
I never said a convertor skews eq as much a room with 10->30db colorations.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm just saying that say a 1/2db skewed response across 20->40 tracks makes an
appreciable difference. But i'm a person who doesn't follow mic/preamp/etc
shootouts either because what it sounds like in isolation is very rarely useful to me.
Experience sometimes helps predict what something in isolation will do in
a mix, but i prefer hearing results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Just to add, you asked earlier:
WTF do you want? You asked me to define fuzz and I did - a severely distorted electric guitar.
Uhh, what i wanted was an explanation like you gave. Why bring this up again
just to play the victim when you answered without problem before?
The reason i asked is the same reason you wrote this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
As I wrote above, warm and fuzzy terms mean nothing except to the person saying them.
I agree. And your words of "fuzz guitar" and "harm" meant nothing to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
That you and others take that to mean I'm saying all distorted guitars sound the same is a huge leap, and shows the problem with threads like this. You gotta be reasonable guys!
Where did i say that? Stop mis-quoting me please and read what i wrote.
That is a leap and the most stupid interpretation of what i said possible.
This is argumentative for no reason when i'm just asking you questions
because you've made claims that i disagree with. I think it's fair and reasonable
that i ask you to provide proof for your claims rather than your experience
of what you've heard or any 'fuzzy' logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Stop being so argumentative and try to read what I'm actually saying, rather than ASSuming the most stoopid interpretation possible. Thank you.
I admit you're good at being ironic. But who has been the most argumentative with
people in this thread Ethan? Or is that subjective maybe?
You seem to pick and choose which questions of mine to answer to which ever
suit your cause, or maybe it's because you have no answer to them.
It leaves me only to ASSume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
WTF do you want? You asked me to define fuzz and I did - a severely distorted electric guitar.
What i want, is that which you keep ignoring. Proof for your claims that
a cheap convertor does no harm to a fuzz guitar when recorded through it.
You've only provided your experience by listening to it.
And that the colorations of a convertor compounded across 20-40 different
tracks does not accumulate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
But what constitutes high fidelity with audio gear is very much science and can be tested using science methods.
So you should have no trouble testing and proving your statement about the
guitar recording and convertor colorations.

When a company or person makes claims to be truth with the only evidence
being what they've "heard", don't you challenge it?
Old 10th September 2008
  #197
Lives for gear
 
badboymusic's Avatar
 

CaptainHook,

Brilliant.

Bad Boy
Old 10th September 2008
  #198
Lives for gear
 
Mike Brown's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHook View Post
Where did i say that? Stop mis-quoting me please and read what i wrote.
He is not just responding to you.... I think your case is weakened by those who did not understand the context.

I think Ethan is a brilliant guy.... and this discussion is very disappointing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs View Post
WHAT?!?!?
Errrr... whatever dude.
I've got about three dozen stompboxes and a half-dozen amps here and they all sound wildly different. The Big Muff is not a RAT, is not a SansAmp, is not a Fuzz Face, is not a JTM45 running flat out with the channels jumped which is also not a Boogie...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosebleedaudio View Post
All distortion is not created equal.
Regardless, will you provide proof and data to support this claim?
Quote:
All you have to do is go to a Gtr Center and see the endless amount of effect pedals...
Even the SAME ones with different players= different SOUNDS...
Old 10th September 2008
  #199
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Old 10th September 2008
  #200
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Actually, in that case I have more to go on than the vendor's published data. A few years ago David French tested ten popular studio monitors at high resolution, and the Mackie 824 was by far the flattest of them all. Most of the speakers showed an intentional dip in the harshness range around 2 to 4 KHz, so it's easy to see why some people would find those other speakers smoother sounding and less fatiguing. But they were not accurate! I expect that sort of trickery in speakers sold to the hi-fi market, but not speakers sold as studio monitors.

Philip Newell's book Recording Studio Design has an extensive table showing the frequency response and distortion of 36 pro type loudspeakers. Again the Mackie 824 was proven extremely flat, with very low distortion compared to most other models.



A lot of people love Mackie speakers, but I'm aware that many others do not. I'm not sure why some people dislike Mackies, but my two guesses are:

1) Mackie 824s are flat down to 37 Hz, so if they're used in a room with no bass trapping the sound will probably be very boomy. But in that case it's the room, not the speakers.

2) As noted above, many speakers have a dip around 2 to 4 KHz, so by comparison the Mackies sound harsh. But it's the other speakers that are in error, not the Mackies.


--Ethan
This just goes to show how measurements and specifications do not always reflect the performance of a speaker. I think the Mackies sound boomy due to having a rear facing passive radiator in the back of a cheap chip board cabinet. Easily heard with music, not so easily measured. I use them as 'disco' speakers- all top and bottom, great for dance music, but difficult to have a mix done on them translate to more accurate speakers...even in a treated room.
Old 10th September 2008
  #201
Lives for gear
 
Ben B's Avatar
 

Okay guys... Move to adjourn? Anyone want to second the motion?



-Ben B
Old 10th September 2008
  #202
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Instead of continuing with the thread, maybe you could state your positions clearly and we could debate them (or not) intelligently instead of all this useless back and forth about what you may have said or not.
Seriously, it seems to me that of all of the people who have chimed in on this thread, only a few of them are actually taking the time to read and comprehend the things that Ethan is saying. I think he's stated his positions very clearly and if you read through every post in this thread you'll see many instances of Ethan making statments and people misinterpreting them and jumping on him right away. Why should he be expected to clear up things he's already said?

Quote:
But who has been the most argumentative with people in this thread Ethan?
Somebody read some statements Ethan made in a different thread and, rather than responding to them in that thread, felt moved to collect them and start a new thread here with Ethan's name in the title. I for one would expect anyone who was singled out like that to be at least a little bit defensive, and again, relating to the last paragraph...if you think that Ethan has been the most argumentative person who has participated in this thread you're reading very selectively.

Quote:
What i want, is that which you keep ignoring. Proof for your claims that a cheap convertor does no harm to a fuzz guitar when recorded through it.
What kind of proof do you want?

Why don't you take a recording of an acoustic instrument, and then take a recording of a distorted electric guitar, and run them through a plugin or something that generates a certain amount of distortion. Make it something that's fairly noticeable, maybe 5%. Tell us which source you think that the distortion does more harm to. Then dial it back to .01% and do the same thing.
Old 10th September 2008
  #203
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben B View Post
Okay guys... Move to adjourn? Anyone want to second the motion?



-Ben B
I'll second the motion...

All opposed?



JR
Old 10th September 2008
  #204
Lives for gear
 
badboymusic's Avatar
 

Nay,

I think Ethan should have a chance to respond to CaptainHook. CaptainHook seems to have delivered his questions and statements in the precise format as Ethan would require.
Old 10th September 2008
  #205
Lives for gear
 
badboymusic's Avatar
 

Tony,

Stop hogging the popcorn.
Old 10th September 2008
  #206
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by badboymusic View Post
Tony,

Stop hogging the popcorn.
heh
Old 10th September 2008
  #207
Lives for gear
 
imloggedin's Avatar
 

this thread sucks. way too many people putting words in ethans mouth.

people are under the impression that expensive gear is always better. neumann, neve, api, etc. i agree with ethan here, im sure theres several products that are much cheaper and sound just as good. just a placebo effect.

i dont agree that you can measure any mic though. i still think soundwaves + microphones + pre + ada have way too much going on for us to understand. science is full of holes.

friggin use your ears and if it sounds good use it.
Old 10th September 2008
  #208
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by imloggedin View Post
this thread sucks.
Of course it does.... the whole idea of the thread sucks, too.

Old 10th September 2008
  #209
Gear Maniac
 
RonCarlston's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont View Post
Of course it does.... the whole idea of the thread sucks, too.


and yet there you sit, devouring bag after bag of popcorn in front of the monitor waiting for the next round of multiquotes

come on admit it...you love this. the lock thread button is right there , press it. you cannot. you are powerless.

THERE HAS TO BE A WINER... i mean a winner. sorry.
Old 10th September 2008
  #210
Lives for gear
 
Martin Kantola's Avatar
 

Smile

The sad thing about this thread is that it shows that the two camps can't talk or exchange too much useful information, if you guys are correct.

Why is that important? Because one camp designs lots of gear for the other to use. Ever wondered why vintage (style) gear tends to sound so sweet while electronic engineering has made huge progress otherwise in the past decades?

Personally I see no conflict between a warm good sound and cold cruel science. There are enough good audio designers out there to prove it IMHO. If it can be heard it can be measured, and mostly vice versa too. But maybe not yet, and not by all of us. We need both brains and ears to make great gear. A whole lot of heart too.

Thank you all for your contributions.

Martin
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