Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Bob,
Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really about multisource/multipath interference. I do understand your distinction. But it seems to me it's still comb filtering, just more than one set of interference responses. I also agree with your basic premise. As I see it, the parent property of all of this stuff is boundary interference. Room modes and comb filtering are SUBSETS of boundary interference. You can have boundary interference off a single wall outdoors, and you can have comb filtering when sound waves are traveling in the same OR in opposing directions. --Ethan |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
William,
... listening to a variety of audiophile cables. On my initial listening, there were huge differences ... Whether or not these differences were "real", it's obvious that what I heard (or thought I heard) had nothing to do with comb filtering. But how can you be sure? And if not comb filtering, or expectation bias, then what? Magic? --Ethan |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
However, I do have a graph already posted that adds to the discussion. This graph shows a single location with and without first reflection treatment: www.realtraps.com/rfz-response.gif Interesting. Let us know if you ever do a positional comparison with RFZ. My only (qualitative) experience with an RFZ is that as you move your head the soundstage is much more static... I can't say I've noticed a more static (w.r.t position) spectrum though, and that makes sense since it's sort of hard to do A/B comparisons (jump up, pull down fibreglass, audition sample while moving head around, jump up, replace fibreglass, audition sample while moving head around) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
If impedence with piezo pickups is an issue, why when I plug my contact mics into the hi-z input on my mixer, it sounds the same as when I plug them into the regular inputs? Deafness? |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Paul Stamler wrote:
Yeah, but he was saying that the huge changes in response are not particularly audible, even though they're easily measurable. Until last week I would have agreed. Now, I'm not so sure. I got up to stretch during the news one day last week. I walked away to take a sip of coffee, and remained standing when I returned to the console. After a few moments I realized something was horribly wrong with the sound! I sat down to begin troubleshooting and the problem was gone. There wasn't anything wrong, I'd just heard the dramatic effect of my ears being in a different position relative to the speakers and room boundaries. Between room reflections and the directional characteristics of the speaker, the sound obviously changes significantly when you move around. You're right Paul, the brain usually compensates for that. Not always though. I often have to slide around and/or turn a little at the board during the show, and I'm often quite aware of how the sound has changed with the position of my head. In fact, sometimes when I'm bored I slowly turn my head side-to-side and realize how much I miss my old Boss Phaser pedal! g Again, you're right that I *usually* don't notice, but sometimes I do. In the case of standing up, it was startling. Maybe it was because it was a change in the *vertical* plane, something I don't do very often, so it was an unfamiliar difference. Perhaps the more familiar we are with the "correct" position, the more sensitive we become to variations? -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:40:31 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote: Between room reflections and the directional characteristics of the speaker, the sound obviously changes significantly when you move around. You're right Paul, the brain usually compensates for that. Not always though. A lot depends on one's state of attention. For example, going from my dining room into the music/HT/listening room, I am quite aware of the change in acoustic (and gratefully so in view of the efforts expended there) as it affects normal conversation. However, there is no difficulty in identifying voices despite the shift in timbre during the transition. While continuing the discussion, we all become completely unaware of that effect. This adaptation is useful and, in most ways, common to all our senses. It is when we concentrate of particular aspects of a sensory event that we can somewhat deter the adaptation. Kal |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Chevdo wrote:
Personally I'd like a static electricity remover for LPs, but as far as I know only record sleeves and cleaning solutions to reduce static electricity build-up exist. I don't know of anything that will remove static electricty after it's already built up. Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun? |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
On 3 Oct 2006 10:59:07 -0700, "studiorat" wrote:
Excellent article... And I must say that is the biggest cat I've ever seen!!!! Anybody who poses with a cat is solid in my book. And Ethan's stuff is always generous, thoughtful and important. Chris Hornbeck |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
So I guess you're the type of person who we were discussing, who, even after being told that science says nobody can hear the difference between 10 and 18 gauge cable, you still cling to your cherished delusions. Why is that? Why are you so positive that you were hearing what you think you were hearing? Science is the way to go, I agree! Since test equipment doesn't work by the same mechanisms as a human brain/ear though, how does one know what to measure to differentiate between intrinsic or extrinsic effect? Can we measure what people are actually perceiving? What kind of interface does one use to quantify human perception? Sometimes with really subtle things we can approach the threshold of resolution of our mind/ear capabilities, but we can sometimes measure such effects with instrumentation, if one wishes to go beyond real-time AB testing. The hitch is that you have to know what you're trying to measure. Of course there are some imagined or phantom audio perceptions, but I also believe that there are some psychoacoustic effects that are indeed audible, but not necessarily measurable in typical fashion. Some phenomenon involving distortion, for example, are very hard to measure. There are binaural effects in which differences -between- channels can be perceived that can be elusive when it comes to physical measurement. Some people can hear the difference between various op-amps in audio circuits, which is a pretty amazing example of what the human ear can do. And even though there are measurable differences in the devices, more often than not it's really hard to deal with the subjective effect, what's really perceived. One problem with common audio test gear that comes to mind, which makes it difficult to measure tiny effects, and that is that signals are often integrated for too long to reveal what one might be hearing and wishes to measure. Very low level distortions can be very difficult to measure too. Another interesting factor is that there exists considerable variation among people's hearing & psychoacoustic abilities. Here's a fun example of a commonly perceived effect that is not so easy to quantify: Adjust an Aphex Dominator II, which I'm sure many are familiar with, so that you have a very longest decay time (many seconds) and just a subtle amount of limiting being indicated on the meter, like -3 to -6dB on peaks only. Adjust the gain structure so that effect and bypass are at unity gain, say with a scope or phase cancellation technique and a sine wave. Okay, then pipe some program music with rich spectrum content through the Dominator - in stereo- and use the bypass switch to do an AB comparison. Subjectively, what you might hear is something like less mid range mud, lots more prominent high end and perhaps a little more low end, but if you throw typical test great at the set up, you will probably not measure any difference in amplitude between the affected and non-affected signal across the entire spectrum! What if you sum the two stereo channels; how does it sound? What do you see if you sample the test signal and then look at it in a higher resolution in the time domain? What happens if you change the load transducers you're using? (e.g. headphones, speakers, etc.) Does anything happen to your measurements if you remove the load? What does the phase response look like? Non linearity's in phase are often tolerated and not perceived, but what if about stereo program where phase linearity of two channels is not exactly the same? These things are all interesting to me because common test gear with the measurement domains and scales that people usually look at are not going to catch the effect. What's also really interesting is that a great number of people will not be able to -hear- the effect or describe the effect either, not unless there's a lot more limiting going on. So why does the apparent frequency response of a device like that sound so altered, even though your scope or your typical FFT shows a flat response? And why is it that some people can't hear it at all? To me that's a good example of something that's sonically obvious to allot of people but pretty easy to miss with test gear. Schler |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
What's your point? I'm not going to beat the guitarist until he admits his superstition is just that, but I'm not going to hide facts from him to protect his 'feelings' because his 'feelings' are 'harmless', either. So you're saying you're a jerk? ;-) Skler |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"anahata" wrote in message ... Skler wrote: Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP demagnetizer. pantomime chorusOh yes there is!/pc http://www.musicdirect.com/products/...?sku=AFURDEMAG Heehee :-) |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun? Those where a pretty cool. You could really zap stuff with it if you got close too! |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:12:56 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote: Ears and brains, in combination, do some very clever stuff. Much of which we don't understand yet. Perhaps an interesting parallel is our vision, which mapped onto the cortex looks like a fish-eye-lens view of the world. All of the geometric correction and all of the amazing color stuff is done in post. Gotta love it. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
When I was 16 I zapped my GF's "electrode" with my dad's Zerostat...and
she broke up with me that afternoon. It was worth it. Skler wrote: Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun? Those where a pretty cool. You could really zap stuff with it if you got close too! |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Whatever happened to Discwasher's Zero-Stat gun?
They're still available, new, from various audiophile dealers. Except they now cost $80. Nevertheless, they're effective at temporarily removing the charge from an LP. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 02:35:08 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote: Excellent article... And I must say that is the biggest cat I've ever seen!!!! Anybody who poses with a cat is solid in my book. And Ethan's stuff is always generous, thoughtful and important. Quite a fox too :-) |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
David,
My only (qualitative) experience with an RFZ is that as you move your head the soundstage is much more static If you think about it, what makes RFZ listening more static and stable is precisely what we've been discussing. The frequency response does not change nearly as much with head position, and the difference in the spectrum each ear hears doesn't change as much either. Of course, all RFZ treatment is not equal. I've seen inappropriate acoustic products sold as suitable for RFZ use by companies that don't know any better. And even among "good" materials, some work better than others at shallow angles and high frequencies, which is important for RFZ. --Ethan |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Lorin,
Between room reflections and the directional characteristics of the speaker Damn, I KNEW there was one more point I needed to make in my article! :-) Yes, speaker beaming / lobing is absolutely typical, and contributes to the sound changing even when there is treatment at the first reflection points. I'll go add that point now. Thanks for the reminder. --Ethan |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Ethan Winer wrote:
Bob, Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really about multisource/multipath interference. I do understand your distinction. But it seems to me it's still comb filtering, just more than one set of interference responses. I also agree with your basic premise. As I see it, the parent property of all of this stuff is boundary interference. Room modes and comb filtering are SUBSETS of boundary interference. You can have boundary interference off a single wall outdoors, and you can have comb filtering when sound waves are traveling in the same OR in opposing directions. --Ethan Not that I'm an expert on anything, but in support of Bob's position I have always seen comb filtering as being the special case of interferance where the frequency response resembles a comb ...thus the name. I'd be hard pressed to call those lumpy bumpy plots in your paper clear examples of comb filtering. Anyone have any guidelines for when a response curve (that may contain comb filtering components) becomes too complex to be classed as comb filtering? ;-) Later... Ron Capik cynic in training -- |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
-- Actually, comb filtering can be generally called "constructive and
destructive interference" as well. Constructive means that certain wave portions are built-up, destructive means that another wave portions are cancelled. Generally, it is a bad thing. I consider it one of worst problems in recording and I always stress that it is much more important where you put the microphones rather than of what kind of microphones you are using. OK, the second is also very important; but only if you meet both of that your recording will suceed. Elementary, Watson. Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia Hey, Coratia... Cool! When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else where it isn't so darned hot! ;-) Skler |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:11:44 -0500, "Skler"
wrote: -- Actually, comb filtering can be generally called "constructive and destructive interference" as well. Constructive means that certain wave portions are built-up, destructive means that another wave portions are cancelled. Generally, it is a bad thing. I consider it one of worst problems in recording and I always stress that it is much more important where you put the microphones rather than of what kind of microphones you are using. OK, the second is also very important; but only if you meet both of that your recording will suceed. Elementary, Watson. Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia Hey, Coratia... Cool! When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else where it isn't so darned hot! ;-) Skler -- You'd be welcome. Yes, we have a mild climate; if I had to choose to move somewhere, I'd probably choose New Zealand. It's roughly at the same latitude, just antipode to us here Cheers, Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Ron,
I'd be hard pressed to call those lumpy bumpy plots in your paper clear examples of comb filtering. Look again, and you'll see that the blue nulls are more or less evenly spaced, as are the red nulls. Some nulls are much deeper than others, as some "ride on top of" larger changes in level. But the regularly repeating pattern of nulls is pretty clear, with about 11 of them between each vertical major division. --Ethan |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else where it isn't so darned hot! ;-) From Texas to Croatia... you got a fetish for culture shock?? I'm originally from northern Illinois. You think I haven't experienced culture shock already? :-) Schuy |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Skler wrote:
What's your point? I'm not going to beat the guitarist until he admits his superstition is just that, but I'm not going to hide facts from him to protect his 'feelings' because his 'feelings' are 'harmless', either. So you're saying you're a jerk? ;-) Skler Naaaah, that goes without saying. -- ha |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Skler wrote:
When I retire I might get outa Texas and move there, or somewhere else where it isn't so darned hot! ;-) From Texas to Croatia... you got a fetish for culture shock?? I'm originally from northern Illinois. You think I haven't experienced culture shock already? Where? I'm from Oregon, IL, 25 mi. south of Rockford on the Rock River. Great place to grow up and good place to be from. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message and I explain it here in detail: http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html It explains some audiophile beliefs, no doubt. Another explanation is that the audio product comparison methodologies that audio dealers and audiophiles generally use randomize their results on many grounds, including the one suggested by the article. Audiophiles seem to obsess on their perceptions of any differences at all, and tend to perceive any difference as being an improvement. Their abhorance of formal tone controls and their infatuation with implicit tone controls that can only be changed by swapping equipment, seems like a big clue to their true motivations. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Where? I'm from Oregon, IL, 25 mi. south of Rockford on the Rock River. Great place to grow up and good place to be from. Bob Hey Bob, It's pretty where you live, I think anyway. I grew up in Winnetka, next to Evanston. My dad's an electrical engineer and commuted to Chicago. My years there were from about 1957 until 1970. It was a great place to grow up, small town but connected to the big city by a commuter train that cut through the center and an expressway a few miles to the west. Schools and teachers there were amazing. There was interesting, modern architecture throughout the town & it was a very friendly & safe place too. Schuy |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Audiophiles seem to obsess on their perceptions of any differences at all, and tend to perceive any difference as being an improvement. Their abhorance of formal tone controls and their infatuation with implicit tone controls that can only be changed by swapping equipment, seems like a big clue to their true motivations. Hi, Subjective description and metaphor are a big deal now. Even now that FFT measurements are easily obtained and could illustrate some interesting differences in performance, especially with regard to speakers, there's little of that to be found. Instead it's a bunch of poetic description of the sound, which is great, but you'd think that people who may actually be above average in their ability to discern audio quality would want to quantify it some way, as opposed to the typical consumer for which most gear is probably good enough and they don't care about specs anyway, just features. Perhaps the fact that so many audio enthusiasts resort to subjective metaphor instead of physical measurement specs is an indication that our measurements are not so good after all, at least in terms of how they relate and correlate with subjective experience. I think psychoacoustics still has lots of territory to explore. Schuy |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Subjective description and metaphor are a big deal now. Even now that FFT
measurements are easily obtained and could illustrate some interesting differences in performance, especially with regard to speakers, there's little of that to be found. Instead it's a bunch of poetic description of the sound, which is great, but you'd think that people who may actually be above average in their ability to discern audio quality would want to quantify it some way... To do so would destroy the raison d'etre of the magazines. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"It makes perfect sense that the one thing neither camp has ever
considered - acoustic comb filtering - turns out to be the real culprit." I gotta say, I have thought comb-filtering a major consideration ever since I discovered it, and so have quite a few people I've worked with. Pete |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Skler" wrote in message
Audiophiles seem to obsess on their perceptions of any differences at all, and tend to perceive any difference as being an improvement. Their abhorance of formal tone controls and their infatuation with implicit tone controls that can only be changed by swapping equipment, seems like a big clue to their true motivations. Subjective description and metaphor are a big deal now. Been so in consumer audio since at least the early 70s. The rise of similar thinking in pro audio probably came with the "consumerization" of pro audio. Even now that FFT measurements are easily obtained and could illustrate some interesting differences in performance, especially with regard to speakers, there's little of that to be found. Many have been brainwashed to absolutely distrust any measurement. Instead it's a bunch of poetic description of the sound, which is great, but you'd think that people who may actually be above average in their ability to discern audio quality would want to quantify it some way, This sort of information only has global meaning when fixed benchmarks are used. as opposed to the typical consumer for which most gear is probably good enough and they don't care about specs anyway, just features. The significance of quality gear and quality implementations is greater with pro audio because more are affected by its quality. Perhaps the fact that so many audio enthusiasts resort to subjective metaphor instead of physical measurement specs is an indication that our measurements are not so good after all, at least in terms of how they relate and correlate with subjective experience. The relationships are not always simple. I think psychoacoustics still has lots of territory to explore. In some ways. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Arny,
their infatuation with implicit tone controls that can only be changed by swapping equipment That's a great point. There was a discussion of my Believe article recently at the Home Theater Talk forum, and below is a brief excerpt from that thread. It never would have occurred to me that someone would intentionally use a crappy cable (with HF losses) to "tune" a system. --Ethan ==================== A guy posted: "If you have assembled a system and the highs are bugging you a bit and you get some boutique cable and it tames the highs a bit for some perfectly scientifically justifiable reason, then that wire is adequate for that user, no?" I pointed out: "Sure, but you could just as easily use the receiver's built-in tone controls for free. Versus paying big bux for a boutique cable." The guy comes back with: "An EQ maybe but with a tone control you may not get the result you want. It might cut a large swath at 10k while you need a roll-off starting at 12k. But I get your point." I replied: "Well, okay, but for $150 you can get a parametric EQ and have EXACTLY the curve you want. And you can change it as often as you want, even for every CD (or LP). Versus endlessly searching, as many do, for that perfect but elusive synergy by repeatedly buying new combinations to see what "works well" together." |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message Arny, their infatuation with implicit tone controls that can only be changed by swapping equipment That's a great point. There was a discussion of my Believe article recently at the Home Theater Talk forum, and below is a brief excerpt from that thread. It never would have occurred to me that someone would intentionally use a crappy cable (with HF losses) to "tune" a system. snip thread contents which fully substantiate Ethan's claim about audiophiles using a crappy cable to tune a home system How about this: "I couldn't be bothered taking Arny to task about this equalisers business. Of course that's not the answer; if a system is not satisfying you change components; equalisers have nothing to do with it. "In reality I do own a ten band equaliser but use it only to make older recordings more listenable when recording onto minidisc. As far as using it all the time, switching it in and out from CD to CD, that's nonsense and even Arny must know it. "Unfortunately it just confirms what I already knew, that Arny is just a techie with very little real interest in music or its accurate reproduction. Then there are the audiophiles who lust over SET amplifiers with very high output impedances. They change the system's response more-or-less randomly, based on the speaker's impedance curve. Should I mention the classic SP article by Michael Fremer where he claims that volume controls should be avoided and that instead you should swap phono cartridges to change listening levels. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Arny Krueger wrote:
How about this: ......snip... Should I mention the classic SP article by Michael Fremer where he claims that volume controls should be avoided and that instead you should swap phono cartridges to change listening levels. Aren't volume controls just a way to introduce amplitude distortion? And how is swaping out phono cartrages all that different from selecting the perfect microphone for the job? Anyway, there's only one volume at which things should be listened to, the volume they were recorded at. CDs should list the proper listening level so folks don't go introducing amplitude distortion; much like fine beer that lists the proper drinking temperature! Later... Ron Capik cynic in training [ What, me sarcastic? ] -- |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Ron Capik" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: How about this: ......snip... Should I mention the classic SP article by Michael Fremer where he claims that volume controls should be avoided and that instead you should swap phono cartridges to change listening levels. Aren't volume controls just a way to introduce amplitude distortion? Its only distortion if you get it wrong. ;-) And how is swaping out phono cartrages all that different from selecting the perfect microphone for the job? Seems like a hard row to hoe to just change the volume. Anyway, there's only one volume at which things should be listened to, the volume they were recorded at. CDs should list the proper listening level so folks don't go introducing amplitude distortion; much like fine beer that lists the proper drinking temperature! OK. ;-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
Linux is dead...It doesn't even have a pulse. | Pro Audio | |||
HAHA I FIGURED OUT THE holy grail of distorted guitar micing | Pro Audio | |||
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail? | Audio Opinions |