Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default question on small room acoustics.

I'm hoping smart people like Mr. Dorsey will chime in on this one:

I saw this design for an iso booth (it's like a pentagon):
http://www.vocalbooth.com/products/diamondseries.html

I thought this would be a great idea since there are no parallel walls.
But it is roughly approaching a "round" floorplan. And I learned from
people that a concave "round shape" is terrible for a room.

So would you give this shape a thumbs-up or thumbs-down?
(I'm building an iso-booth this week).

  #2   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GP,

it is roughly approaching a "round" floorplan. And I learned from people

that a concave "round shape" is terrible for a room.

Round and similar shapes are a problem, but that problem goes away if all
the surfaces are covered with absorbing material. A small booth needs to be
covered mostly or completely anyway, so with enough absorption on the walls
that shape will be okay.

--Ethan


  #3   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
I'm hoping smart people like Mr. Dorsey will chime in on this one:

I saw this design for an iso booth (it's like a pentagon):
http://www.vocalbooth.com/products/diamondseries.html

I thought this would be a great idea since there are no parallel walls.
But it is roughly approaching a "round" floorplan. And I learned from
people that a concave "round shape" is terrible for a room.


The reason a round shape is terrible is that it concentrates all the
reflections right in the center. An octagonal shape is almost as bad
because it has a bunch of parallel walls. The pentagonal shape is much
better because you never have two surfaces directly opposing one another,
so you don't get direct reflections between them.

In the case of the isolation booth, though, your whole goal is to make it
totally dead at higher frequencies, so the reflection problems aren't
severe except at lower frequencies where they turn into standing wave
problems. And I don't think the pentagon will really help to deal with
the standing wave issues much anyway.

So would you give this shape a thumbs-up or thumbs-down?
(I'm building an iso-booth this week).


I would give it a thumbs-down, because I am not sure it is really any
better than a simple rectangle, and it is a _lot_ harder to build than
a simple rectangle. Mitering all those wacky angles will take some time.
It might be a little bit better but it's a lot of work for a little bit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #4   Report Post  
Truth
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I thought this would be a great idea since there are no parallel walls.
But it is roughly approaching a "round" floorplan. And I learned from
people that a concave "round shape" is terrible for a room.

So would you give this shape a thumbs-up or thumbs-down?
(I'm building an iso-booth this week).


With the right acoustical treatment, I have never had problems with any
room, no matter what the size or shape.


  #5   Report Post  
Truth
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The reason a round shape is terrible is that it concentrates all the
reflections right in the center.


What reflections? Acoustical treatments get rid of reflections.




  #6   Report Post  
Steve King
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Truth" wrote in message
...
I thought this would be a great idea since there are no parallel walls.
But it is roughly approaching a "round" floorplan. And I learned from
people that a concave "round shape" is terrible for a room.

So would you give this shape a thumbs-up or thumbs-down?
(I'm building an iso-booth this week).


With the right acoustical treatment, I have never had problems with any
room, no matter what the size or shape.


I guess we'd have to know what kind of material you record to understand why
you make that assertion. IMO, for many recordings the room is an important
part of the sound. Further, where that applies, some rooms simply cannot be
'fixed'. Of course, they can be made to essentially disappear from the
recording, but that can be a bad thing. If you're recording mostly direct
or close-miked instruments you can get away with a lot. Before I had the
experience of working day-in and day-out in a really well proportioned
studio of sufficient size to provide a variety of acoustic areas, I had no
idea how much the room affected the results and how much easier it became to
do first rate work.

Steve King


  #7   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Truth wrote:

The reason a round shape is terrible is that it concentrates all the
reflections right in the center.


What reflections? Acoustical treatments get rid of reflections.


Not in a tiny vocal booth, and nowhere else, either, except for anechoic
chambers.

--
ha
  #8   Report Post  
reddred
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
GP,

it is roughly approaching a "round" floorplan. And I learned from

people
that a concave "round shape" is terrible for a room.

Round and similar shapes are a problem, but that problem goes away if all
the surfaces are covered with absorbing material. A small booth needs to

be
covered mostly or completely anyway, so with enough absorption on the

walls
that shape will be okay.


How big could you build a shape like this, assuming that the walls are
covered in Auralex or the eqivelant, before you would start to have a
problem?

jb


  #9   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
reddred wrote:

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
GP,

it is roughly approaching a "round" floorplan. And I learned from

people
that a concave "round shape" is terrible for a room.

Round and similar shapes are a problem, but that problem goes away if all
the surfaces are covered with absorbing material. A small booth needs to

be
covered mostly or completely anyway, so with enough absorption on the

walls
that shape will be okay.


How big could you build a shape like this, assuming that the walls are
covered in Auralex or the eqivelant, before you would start to have a
problem?


Auralex will kill the high end issues, so your first problem is going to be
low end resonances.

If we figure that the foam becomes pretty useless around 500 Hz, then a
round room that is a wave across at 500 Hz is going to start being a problem,
right?

And that would be... what, about 32 inches?

Hmm... anyone care to try a better back-of-the-envelope calculation?
This doesn't sound quite right to me, overall.
--scott
(who thinks there is a special place in hell for architects who
design octagonal churches)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #10   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

thanks for the insights, Mr. Dorsey.

the two most important functions of the iso booth will be to record
vocals and to record a cranked 4x12 guitar cabinet.

would getting some of these RPG "modex corners" actually help?

http://www.rpginc.com/products/modexcorner/index.htm

i could almost see myself raising up the guitar cabinet and then
"surrounding" the perimeter of the guitar cab with these modex things.



  #11   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott, I'm killing you here with all these questions.

But since you thought the pentagon shape would only bring marginal
gains over the rectangle in this example...

do you think a rectangle that adheres to one of the "golden ratios" (1:
1.4: 1.9 for example) would be a better strategy than the pentagon?
you have me thinking about standing waves!

  #12   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
thanks for the insights, Mr. Dorsey.

the two most important functions of the iso booth will be to record
vocals and to record a cranked 4x12 guitar cabinet.

would getting some of these RPG "modex corners" actually help?

http://www.rpginc.com/products/modexcorner/index.htm

i could almost see myself raising up the guitar cabinet and then
"surrounding" the perimeter of the guitar cab with these modex things.


I don't know. I'd bet that if there _were_ big standing wave problems in
the room, you could compensate for them with placement, in the case of
the guitar amp. You can move the amp and the mike around to deal with
all kinds of problems.

I can't see the RPG gadgets really doing much at the low frequencies where
the problems are really going to be. But I might be wrong....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #13   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JB,

How big could you build a shape like this, assuming that the walls are

covered in Auralex or the eqivelant, before you would start to have a
problem?

It's not at what *size* you need more than thin foam on the walls, it's what
*frequencies* will be sounding in the room. If it's for voice only, the
requirements for a booth are not as stringent as when recording a guitar or
bass amp or string bass player or drum set.

--Ethan


  #14   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GP,

the two most important functions of the iso booth will be to record vocals

and to record a cranked 4x12 guitar cabinet.

For a cranked guitar cabinet you need substantial absorption at low
frequencies. Thin materials won't do that.

would getting some of these RPG "modex corners" actually help?


RPG Modex bass traps are great, if expensive, but they're not appropriate
for this application. Modex traps are available tuned to different frequency
ranges, and those ranges are better suited for larger rooms. What you need
is broadband absorption that works well down to the lowest frequencies, not
just over a narrow range.

i could almost see myself raising up the guitar cabinet and then

"surrounding" the perimeter of the guitar cab with these modex things.

Modex traps are meant to be stacked in corners, not placed out in the room.
If you get EQ magazine, the current (January) issue has a review of my
company's MiniTraps. The reviewer specifically mentioned how successful
MiniTraps are for exactly what you describe.

--Ethan


  #15   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GP,

do you think a rectangle that adheres to one of the "golden ratios"

(1:1.4: 1.9 for example) would be a better strategy than the pentagon?

Yes. There are other good ratios too. If you download my Graphical Mode
Calculator (PC only) it lets you play with different dimensions to see their
affect. It also lists several "preferred" ratios. Here's the link:

http://www.realtraps.com/modecalc.htm

--Ethan




  #16   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

thanks guys,

Ethan, I have a question for you:

Do you make any Realtraps that go way down into the bass range?

Those might work out well.

thanks for the room calculator link. i figured out a 1:1.5:2.10 that
will work with the space i'm playing with.

  #17   Report Post  
EganMedia
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How big could you build a shape like this, assuming that the walls are
covered in Auralex or the eqivelant, before you would start to have a
problem? BRBR


Small rooms tend to have more problems and are harder to treat than large
rooms. A larger room, if nothing else, affords you the space necessary to
build proper bass traps. Auralex and the like won't do anything to tame low
frequencies, so a round room whether covered with Auralex or not will have gobs
(the technical term) of low frequency energy reflected toward its center
center. A spectacular example of this is the globe room at the Christian
Science Monitor building in Boston. It's a globe-shaped room with a bridge
spanning the horizontal axis. At the center you can hear everything anyone in
the room is saying. It's really cool, but I wouldn't want to record or mix in
it.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com
  #18   Report Post  
DeserTBoB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:26:50 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

RPG Modex bass traps are great, if expensive, but they're not appropriate
for this application. Modex traps are available tuned to different frequency
ranges, and those ranges are better suited for larger rooms. What you need
is broadband absorption that works well down to the lowest frequencies, not
just over a narrow range. snip


I've not attacked this particular problem personally, but what
experience I do have with tiny environments would bear this out. When
you use tuned "traps" to suck up acoustic energy, it's somewhat of a
rule of thumb that as the enclosured space (room) gets smaller, the Q
of these devices rises seemingly exponentially. Thus, instead of the
relatively broadband trap it would be in a largish room, it becomes a
very sharp trap in a small room, thus giving you a "comb filter"
effect, which can be VERY nasty.

i could almost see myself raising up the guitar cabinet and then
"surrounding" the perimeter of the guitar cab with these modex things. snip


Hmmm...thus making the tiny room "look" bigger aurally? Not a bad
idea, really.

Modex traps are meant to be stacked in corners, not placed out in the room.
If you get EQ magazine, the current (January) issue has a review of my
company's MiniTraps. The reviewer specifically mentioned how successful
MiniTraps are for exactly what you describe. snip


Smaller trap for smaller room...form follows function. Works for me
as a "guestimate," I'd gather!

dB
  #19   Report Post  
Neil Henderson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
How big could you build a shape like this, assuming that the walls are
covered in Auralex or the eqivelant, before you would start to have a
problem? BRBR


Small rooms tend to have more problems and are harder to treat than large
rooms. A larger room, if nothing else, affords you the space necessary to
build proper bass traps. Auralex and the like won't do anything to tame
low
frequencies, so a round room whether covered with Auralex or not will have
gobs
(the technical term)


Actually "gobs" in itself is not a technical term, it's only when you start
breaking it up into "milligobs" & "nanogobs" is when it warrants a tech
definition.

Neil Henderson



  #20   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GP,

Do you make any Realtraps that go way down into the bass range?


Yes, that's exactly what our products are for! The MiniTraps demo video on
our site www.realtraps.com shows them making a real improvement all the way
down to the 40 Hz lower limit we tested. Our larger MondoTraps absorb twice
again more below 100 Hz.

thanks for the room calculator link. i figured out a 1:1.5:2.10 that will

work with the space i'm playing with.

Great. Also, at the urging of a customer I updated my ModeCalc program just
yesterday to accept feet and inches instead of only feet with decimals. So
now you can enter 13'6" instead of 13.5 feet, or 162" and all other such
combinations.

--Ethan




  #21   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dB,

When you use tuned "traps" to suck up acoustic energy


There are a lot of issues with tuned traps that make them inappropriate for
smaller rooms. Not just booths, but bedroom sized control rooms too. The
biggest problem is that *all* rooms have peaks and nulls at *all* low
frequencies, not just those frequencies related to the room's dimensions.
Another problem is bass traps need to cover a large amount of surface. So if
you load up the room with traps tuned to match one or two dimensions, you
don't have space left to handle all the other frequencies that also need
attention.

thus making the tiny room "look" bigger aurally? Not a bad idea, really.



This is true for all absorption. For example, putting absorbers on the
ceiling over a drum set makes the ceiling appear to be much higher. If you
think about it, there's no difference between a ceiling that's fully
absorbent and one that's infinitely high. Either way, sound that goes up
does not come back down later as a reflection.

--Ethan


  #22   Report Post  
agent86
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

thus making the tiny room "look" bigger aurally? Not a bad idea, really.



This is true for all absorption. For example, putting absorbers on the
ceiling over a drum set makes the ceiling appear to be much higher. If you
think about it, there's no difference between a ceiling that's fully
absorbent and one that's infinitely high. Either way, sound that goes up
does not come back down later as a reflection.


Here's something that's puzzled me, Ethan. I've read that when calculating
modes, etc, for a room with an acoustic ceiling, you should measure the
height to the actual hard surface above the acoustic tiles. It makes sense
that as you APPROACH full absorption, you would APPROACH infinite effective
height (i.e. zero reflection). But in practice, these are only
approachable limits, not actually attainable, right? Whouldn't any low
frequencies that are not fully absorbed be reflected in the same timeframe
as if the absorption was not there? Or does the absorption affect phase as
well as amplitude?

  #23   Report Post  
Neil Henderson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...

This is true for all absorption. For example, putting absorbers on the
ceiling over a drum set makes the ceiling appear to be much higher. If you
think about it, there's no difference between a ceiling that's fully
absorbent and one that's infinitely high. Either way, sound that goes up
does not come back down later as a reflection.


Ethan, how do you feel about diffusors above a drum kit or above a listening
position, as opposed to absorption?

Neil Henderson


  #24   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil,

how do you feel about diffusors above a drum kit or above a listening

position, as opposed to absorption?

I'm not an expert with diffusion, but I can see how it would be useful
there. It won't make the ceiling disappear like absorption does, but it will
make it seem farther away. The main goal is to avoid the obvious echoes and
comb filtering, and good diffusion can do that. Note the word "good" - all
of the cheap diffusors I've heard sounded worse to me than a bare wall. But
RPG's deep well diffusors are very good if a little pricey.

Peter D'Antonio who heads RPG, and is a real diffusion expert, says
diffusion is not useful if it's too close to your ears. Dr. D'Antonio says
the minimum distance is about 10 feet, but I've heard others say 8 feet is
okay. So that probably rules our diffusion as a practical solution in a
small control room having a normal 8 foot ceiling.

--Ethan


  #25   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Agent,

I've read that when calculating modes, etc, for a room with an acoustic

ceiling, you should measure the height to the actual hard surface above the
acoustic tiles.

Yes.

It makes sense that as you APPROACH full absorption, you would APPROACH

infinite effective height (i.e. zero reflection). But in practice, these
are only approachable limits, not actually attainable, right?

Right. You'd need (guessing) about 3 feet of dense rigid fiberglass to
absorb 100 percent at 100 Hz. And then there's 60 Hz and 40 Hz etc which
would require even more absorbing material. I've been in the large anechoic
chamber at IBM's acoustic lab, and they have *huge deep* fiberglass pyramids
all over. Even with all that the room is guaranteed anechoic only down to
100 Hz.

Wouldn't any low frequencies that are not fully absorbed be reflected in

the same timeframe as if the absorption was not there? Or does the
absorption affect phase as well as amplitude?

Yes, any waves that are not absorbed will get through to the rigid boundary
behind and be reflected back. As for phase, I honestly don't know. I do know
that waves passing through absorption are slowed down a little. So you'd
think that would affect the phase. As you add absorption to a room you
actually lower its resonant frequencies a little. This is why loudspeakers
have fiberglass inside them, to make the box seem acoustically larger than
it really is. So, yeah, phase may be affected, but this is more a theory
issue. In practice, just add as much absorption as you can. It will never be
100 percent in a typical size room no matter what you do.

--Ethan




  #26   Report Post  
agent86
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Wouldn't any low frequencies that are not fully absorbed be reflected in

the same timeframe as if the absorption was not there? Or does the
absorption affect phase as well as amplitude?

Yes, any waves that are not absorbed will get through to the rigid
boundary behind and be reflected back. As for phase, I honestly don't
know. I do know that waves passing through absorption are slowed down a
little. So you'd think that would affect the phase. As you add absorption
to a room you actually lower its resonant frequencies a little. This is
why loudspeakers have fiberglass inside them, to make the box seem
acoustically larger than it really is. So, yeah, phase may be affected,
but this is more a theory issue. In practice, just add as much absorption
as you can. It will never be 100 percent in a typical size room no matter
what you do.


My use of the word phase may have been misleading, but I think you more or
less answered the questtion I was trying to ask. I was thinking in terms
of the difference in the time it takes for sound waves to reflect back from
a high ceiling as opposed to a low ceiling. I was refering to phase only
insomuch as it relates to the reflection time, since comb filtering is, as
I understand it, essentially a product of phase differences between the
direct & reflected signals.

Your preference for hard floors & soft ceilings is well documented. What
are your thoughts on using a totally soft wall facing a hard wall if one
must record in a relatively narrow room ( 12')?

  #27   Report Post  
Neil Henderson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...

Peter D'Antonio who heads RPG, and is a real diffusion expert, says
diffusion is not useful if it's too close to your ears. Dr. D'Antonio says
the minimum distance is about 10 feet, but I've heard others say 8 feet is
okay. So that probably rules our diffusion as a practical solution in a
small control room having a normal 8 foot ceiling.


Ah, was just wondering... then I may have to trap above my listening
position, but I was also considering diffusion as an option. Unfortunately,
I've got 8' ceilings in my new room, so if the above is correct, diffusion
wouldn't work. I've got some bass traps in the corners & on the back wall,
and they help, but I'm still getting some very ****ing annoying low-end
buildup - I assume from the low ceiling.

Thanks.

Neil Henderson


  #28   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil,

I may have to trap above my listening position, but I was also considering

diffusion as an option.

With an 8-foot ceiling you're probably better off with absorption. Note that
the important places to treat in a small control room are the first
reflection points on the side walls and ceiling. These points are not
directly besides you or overhead, but about halfway forward between you and
the speakers.

I've got some bass traps in the corners & on the back wall, and they help,

but I'm still getting some very ****ing annoying low-end buildup - I assume
from the low ceiling.

Just as you can never be too thin or too rich, you can never have too much
bass trapping. What kind of traps do you have, how many, and which corners?
And how big is the room?

--Ethan


  #29   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A-86,

What are your thoughts on using a totally soft wall facing a hard wall if

one must record in a relatively narrow room ( 12')?

That can be useful, though I usually prefer to treat both opposing walls in
a checkerboard pattern. But having one totally absorbent surface gives you a
place to record acoustic guitars and vocals near, to avoid comb filtering.

--Ethan


  #30   Report Post  
agent86
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

A-86,

What are your thoughts on using a totally soft wall facing a hard wall if

one must record in a relatively narrow room ( 12')?

That can be useful, though I usually prefer to treat both opposing walls
in a checkerboard pattern. But having one totally absorbent surface gives
you a place to record acoustic guitars and vocals near, to avoid comb
filtering.


That would be my preference as well. I'm stuck with an immovable
ciderblock wall & an immovable (load bearing) 2X6 frame wall about 10-1/2"
apart. I was toying with the idea of putting 2 layers of 5/8 sheetrock on
the outside, then putting carpet or burlap right over the fiberglass in the
inside, without anything reflective. Kind of LSDS (live-side-dead-side)
instead of LEDE.

Thanks.



  #31   Report Post  
Neil Henderson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...

I've got some bass traps in the corners & on the back wall, and they
help,

but I'm still getting some very ****ing annoying low-end buildup - I
assume
from the low ceiling.

Just as you can never be too thin or too rich, you can never have too much
bass trapping. What kind of traps do you have, how many, and which
corners?
And how big is the room?


Ethan, I have one trap built as per some of your instructions (going to do
at least a couple more of those, as I have the O-C 703 on hand, but I wanted
to try one first just to see how it went), and I have four Auralex corner
traps that I got a good price on used from a local home theater installer...
he had them installed in a display at a home show recently. As for the
placement, I've tried a number of different combinations so far - I just
don't think I have enough trapping yet. It's making *some* difference, but
not enough. As for the room size, it's difficult to say exactly what the
effective room size really is, because of a couple factors like an alcove on
one side, and a large opening that shoots off into another room on another,
but the room "proper" is 19' x 19'.

Neil Henderson


  #32   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Les,

Why does a rough brick surface* seem so effective at acoustic

guitar/singer recording?

Great question. I'm sure a brick wall gives the same reflections and comb
filtering as any other surface, and probably more and to a higher frequency
than bare sheet rock. In a room with carpet a brick wall could be useful in
the same way a reflective floor is useful. You get *one* reflecting surface
that adds a nice ambience.

--Ethan


  #33   Report Post  
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil,

I have one trap built as per some of your instructions ... and I have four

Auralex corner traps ... I just don't think I have enough trapping yet.

I agree.

the room "proper" is 19' x 19'


Besides the square shape, which requires more bass trapping than usual to
counter, that's also a relatively large room. I'd say you need at least a
dozen serious bass traps.

--Ethan


  #34   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

x-no archive: yes

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Just as you can never be too thin


Wasn't Karen Carpenter too thin?

or too rich, you can never have too much
bass trapping.


She'd have been better off trying to trap fish, yes. Then frying them in
olive oil and devouring them.

--
ha
  #35   Report Post  
Eric Desart
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Ethan Winer wrote:
If you get EQ magazine, the current (January) issue has a review of

my
company's MiniTraps. The reviewer specifically mentioned how

successful
MiniTraps are for exactly what you describe.

--Ethan



Some other interesting DIY and commercial solutions:


http://www.acoustics-noise.com/AFBsi...erbank002x.gif

http://www.acoustics-noise.com/AFBsi...erbank003x.gif

http://www.acoustics-noise.com/AFBsi...nPosition2.gif
Warm regards
Eric Desart

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
small room acoustics Sidhu Pro Audio 6 July 1st 04 09:04 AM
Small room acoustics A. & G. Reiswig Pro Audio 13 April 9th 04 03:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"