The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Forssell SMP-2 vs Gordon Model 5
Old 10th February 2013 | Show parent
  #241
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
I listened to the mono vocal/guitar into the Horch tube mike first, because with the Schoeps, phantom power is needed and the Gordon can't play the extra high impedance card. From the back of my head it's around 13k then, just like the Forssell.

Anyway, after preliminary listening, here's what I can say for now. The Earlybird (1) certainly works for this setup. Some may prefer it, others may experience a little too much tube goodness in this combo. Personally, for some reason or other, I found this combo the least interesting of the three. A little sibilant, too.

The Gordon (3) to me sounded the most "real" by a good margin, but also a bit dry maybe for this kind of thing. It hides nothing, including the sibilance.

Then to the Forssell (2). This one really surprised me as it sounds so "different". Processed almost, like a record. With a thick, sort of ambient tail. It also tamed the sibilance. For that reason alone I would prefer it in this case. But transparent? Less than I expected, to be honest. More like a "created naturalness" for lack of better words. Which is tricky to begin with, since I wasn't in the room (see (3), too.)

Really interesting! And we've just started.
Old 11th February 2013 | Show parent
  #242
Lives for gear
 
sunflute's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundKlang ➡️
The Smp-2 seemed to embed every signal in kind of a stage-like sound image. In most of the samples my choice for ac guitar and for some vocal takes. In some other takes of vocals and in the solo guitar of the guitar duo, the Smp-2 was a little too realistic for a steadied, balanced sound image. On the other hand it was outstandingly capturing and reproducing an image of the viola performance (or maybe it was one of those golden moment performances - quite a difference in detail and expressiveness compared to the other viola recordings, though). Also in these samples the emphasized ambience in the Smp-2 recordings blends with the artificial reverb (Song 1, mono recordings) in a very pleasant, realistic way.
I agree with these opinions of the SMP-2
Old 12th February 2013
  #243
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Ivo, thank you for posting such a wonderful set of clips!

I've heard most of them and I'm still downloading and listening, which is delightful because the music is good and the sonic qualities of these fine amps comes through clearly. Nice work!
Old 12th February 2013 | Show parent
  #244
Lives for gear
 
Mike Jasper's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Ivo, after the Forssell converters, where does it go? Digi 002? Apogee rig? Logic? Pro Tools?

Nothing to do with the test of course, just curious what you use as a DAW.

Jasper
Old 12th February 2013 | Show parent
  #245
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
It goes to RME AES-32 HDSPe and Samplitude
Old 12th February 2013 | Show parent
  #246
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
thanks ivo for the great files.
downloaded song2 full
they all sound great but the earlybird is doing it for me.fatter,more harmonics,vibe etc.
Old 12th February 2013 | Show parent
  #247
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Ivo, huge thankyou for these very high quality samples again. So useful.

To my ear, particularly in the Viola solo and Guitar Duet, and in the wonderful gliss in the Monochord, the Forssell has more air and therefore wins. The Gordon is wonderful but drier, the Earlybird quite viscous.

I love the SMP-2, a cracker of a preamp.
Old 12th February 2013 | Show parent
  #248
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
16 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundKlang ➡️
...Interestingly, I found none of these preamps to be truely transparent. In comparison with each other each device seems to imprint it's own character onto the signal. It probably is depending on personal listening habits, whether one hears this character as being transparent or not...
I don't know how anyone, but the players on the recording, and the people in the actual tracking space, could know (or, perhaps at best, reasonably guess) how imperceptible any equipment really is. I've used the Gordon, for example, and the players that I've tracked with it tend to say they feel like the recordings sound like their instruments in real life, for a change. But even that comment is fraught with holes. Every time I've used an uber clean preamp, for the purpose of tracking something as authentically as I can reasonably attempt, I've used a very high resolution, non-"tailored" sounding, usually omni directional, condenser mic, with measurably "flat" frequency response and excellent impulse response. But people evaluate the "sound" of clean preamps with all kinds of mics, many that aren't in the least designed to sound like things actually sound.

And that all leads me back to the point; It's a real challenge to know why something sounds like it sounds, and to furthermore know if what you hear is what things sounded like in the room, which is kind of what these types of pieces of equipment are aimed at. I think the most reasonable approach to high fidelity I've stumbled across has been to reduce variables as much as possible. And I don't intend that as a "scientific" appeal. I mean that I suspect that high fidelity recording can only be done "right" when there are as few extra sonic attractions as reasonably possible, besides the players and the room they're in. The other ways of doing things like this are fine, but they always leave gaping holes in reasoning, when I find folks coming to conclusions about the gear in the situation.
Old 12th February 2013 | Show parent
  #249
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
IMO, Transparency is a myth.

I don't want to say that I don't care what it sounds like in the room and what is "real." But I kind of don't. At the end of the day, the listener doesn't know and doesn't really care. They are listening to a recording that they want to sound good. That taste is subjective and there are no right or wrong answers.

I tend to use a lot of "colored" gear in my recordings and my clients love it. I also use "transparent" gear and it serves its purpose. Even the people at the show/session will have their own impression of what it sounded like and the recording will remind them of the impression they already had. The ones that weren't there just enjoy it.

I recently did an internal shoot out (can't and won't post it here on GS) between two very highly respected "transparent" preamps. I shared the results with a number of colleagues and they were universally in agreement as to which they liked and they were all surprised at how big the differences were between two such high-end pres. This shootout goes to show the same effect. There are very high-end pres being represented here and they all have very different sounds. Take that for what you want, but the ability to hear and use those sounds are what makes engineers the artists that they can be.

I'll thank Ivo for posting his comparisons. They are always done in a consciencious manner. They are one way of looking at recording, but in the context of a larger recording, the results may or may not be the same. They're great for informing as to one possible use of these pres, but at the end of the day, circumstance rules. (at least here it does)

--Ben
Old 12th February 2013 | Show parent
  #250
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Well, I still might use the term transparency if you don't mind.

OK, I already listened to song 1, so now I did song 2 plus the monochord.

In the song 2 files I heard similar things. Although I do like tubes and trannies, to me the Earlybird and the BAE didn't bring much extra to the table. But of course the Horch microphone already has plenty of tube and tranny goodness.
Again it was between the Forssell and Gordon for me and again the Forssell took the cake for most finished and musical tone, with the most pleasant esses. But again the Gordon sounded more trans........ um open to my ears (except for the esses). True, like I was there.

Then the monochord. Again the Forssell showed a subtle thickness or creaminess (that I also hear in DAV BG pres BTW), even somewhat in the direction of the Earlybird, actually. But for this instrument/microphone combo I felt it was at the cost of dimensionality/depth, openness and detail. Interestingly, David heard more air in the Forssell, whereas I heard more in the Gordon. Goes to show we all hear things differently.

I am a Gordon owner so some may think I'm biased. But I don't think I am and in fact I favored the Forssell two out of three times here. I am a singer/guitarist and I find the musicality of the Forssell (in these samples) addicting. But I don't think it would be my pick for classical music (although these few samples aren't really enough to base such an opinion on, of course).

I must add that so far the Gordon files seem less loud which would make them sound thinner, if not adjusted. (Although I have very detailed speakers where I am at this moment, I'm not fully equipped here.)
And OK, since as an owner I know a thing or two about the Gordon, let me add a couple more things.

I already mentioned input impedance. That's a differential 2 M ohm (!) in the Gordon. But when phantom is activated, it's a set 13.6 K ohm, just like the Forssell if I'm not mistaken. However, the Gordon also has a "low" Z input. This is 1 K Ohm and only a little lower than the Earlybird's highest (!) setting. It would have been nice if this setting had also been tested in some of the recordings (or was it?). But I know time was limited and you can't do it all. Still, this can make quite a difference.

Also, the Gordon is divided into two physical pieces, so you can use extremely short microphone cables. But when both pieces are in the rack, this advantage is gone, of course.

As a preliminary conclusion it seems Grant's starting point was to get an ultra true signal path under all circumstances (I didn't even mention true variable gain), while Fred designed a circuit and picked components that are modern and high-tech but also would create optimum beauty (albeit subjective as always) in sound.
Even the look of both pres seem to reflect the differences in priorities to some extent.

Of course, with such shootouts we're putting a magnifying glass on minor details. The differences are subtle, especially in the grand scheme of things. That said, considering both are tube- and trannyless high end units, the differences are "bigger" than I had anticipated.
Old 13th February 2013
  #251
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
I don't have it here any more ... I supposed tube microphone (Horch) is considered passive ?
Old 13th February 2013 | Show parent
  #252
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➡️
I don't have it here any more ... I supposed tube microphone (Horch) is considered passive ?
As a rule dynamic mikes are passive and condensers active, I'd say. That said, the advantage of tube condensers as compared to most solid state ones is that they don't need phantom power, so the differential 2 K ohm impedance of the Gordon can be taken advantage of.


SoundKlang wrote:
Quote:
Is a part of what makes the Model 5 a reference preamp in the eyes of many people it's ability to handle passive microphones?
I'd say yes, but for a full and completely correct explanation of all the tricks up the Gordon's sleeve we'd need Grant here.
Here's a start:
Gordon Microphone Preamplifier System
Specs

As you know, both Fred and Grant did chime in at an earlier stage in this thread. But I think I recall a more in depth elaboration by Grant in an older thread.

Quote:
I am truely appreciating the work Ivo presented here
+ 100.
And not only here (in this thread).
Old 14th February 2013 | Show parent
  #253
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I finally listened to the clips and have some observations.

With several years experience using Forssell SMP-2 and Gordon Model 5, often side-by-side, I can say without hesitation that Ivo's clips do a good job of revealing main tendencies. As artistic tools these are all outstanding amps and there's something to like about each.

Although I listened carefully to all the clips, I'll comment only on those that readily revealed something to me that's uniquely characteristic about the preamps, and I will discuss primarily Forssell and Gordon because they are contemporary, solid-state units designed for "transparency". I hope other readers will also listen carefully. We can disagree about why an amp does something, but if we don't both hear it, there's nothing to discuss.

SONG1 voice - Horch and simultaneous Schoeps take
These clips show some qualities in a very positive light. The Earlybird inflates the low mids. The Forssell presents mids with more clarity, fast transients and deeper dynamics. The Gordon sounds less full by comparison, the instrument tones are simple but pure.

SONG2 FULL
Earlybird is full and somewhat in your face. There's less ambient detail and tail. Forssell is full and dynamics have more contrast. Gordon presents a sound stage that's deeper. The voice and the guitar are three dimensional individually and in relation to eachother.

MONOCHORD - Monochord recorded on Schoeps MK-2 stereo pair
Turned up louder, I immediately hear with Gordon the center isn't filled up - the instrument is quite left and right. The instrument stays physically grounded in place on the soundstage and retains one size from beginning to end. With Forssell the instrument grows, eventually flooding the whole soundstage with information. At times it almost seems to float.

GUITAR DUO - Two guitars recorded on Schoeps MK22 ORTF pair
In all these clips the guitars stay grounded and localized left and right. The Forssell and Earlybird warm and swell the guitars. The Forssell forms a phantom ambience in the center. The Earlybird softens transients and compresses dynamics, almost changing the feel at times from picked to strummed. With Gordon the soft-picked notes stand up well in contrast to the bright notes. I believe this is tonally more accurate.

Summary
Gordon has no apparent tendency to swell instruments or enhance their sound. If I think about reaching into the soundstage to grab an instrument, it is easy to locate and its sonic image matches its physical proportions. The tones are simpler and true to the instruments. The sound has a relaxed feel. The silence is silent. Brief musical rests, acoustic decays and empty physical space between instruments are more obvious. All details are better defined.

Forssell presents instruments bigger and with extra near ambience (I call "aura" or radiant ambience). It is usually pleasing and musically flattering. It could result from harmonic enhancement or some other kind of distortion; I'm not certain. The effect is quite evident in the monochord clip where the gliss has extra sparkle and air, and in other clips where the instruments swell with overtones.

Earlybird is a world-class amplifier - transparent with valve warmth, compression and sweetness. Equal to the Forssell and Gordon in beauty, just different.
Old 14th February 2013 | Show parent
  #254
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
I was going to dive into the guitar duo today, but I haven't come to it, yet (and in Europe the day is drawing to an end).

Anyway, MichaelPatrick's review is quite something. It also helps that he knows both intimately. Not many can say that.

I guess we just need both, um... all three preamps.

MP, anything on the BAE?
Oh wait, you did song 2 full.



Henk
Old 15th February 2013 | Show parent
  #255
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by legato ➡️
MP, anything on the BAE?
Oh wait, you did song 2 full.
Henk
I won't comment on the BAE because my interest is sonic accuracy, high resolution, transparency or whatever else people may call it. The BAE has other qualities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundKlang ➡️
@Michael and @fifthcircle:
Do you have a short example which you could post here of both preamps used together in a mix (pop, acoustic, jazz or so)? Or a commercial production one could listen to somewhere or buy?
I don't. But this is a good question because there can be a cumulative effect if one preamp is used and many tracks are stacked. The whole mix can sound like a preamp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rnappi ➡️
... I humbly suggest you try tracking multi player sources. And stack tracks. This is where this box really excels.
rich
- what he said. Since the Gordon doesn't have any apparent sound of its own, stacking is never a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundKlang ➡️
I wonder how the difference between the SMP-2 and the Model 5 would give instruments different places on the "stage" in a way unachievable by placement of the source and/or the mike in the room.
That's just it. As a tool, the Gordon can make us better engineers simply by letting us hear what the mics do. Any distortion of the spacial relation between mics and instruments makes it harder for engineers to get placement right - especially engineers using minimal techniques for acoustic music. Consider the guitar duo where ORTF was used: Both mics picked up both guitars. Only the Forssell presents a palpable phantom ambience in the center. I can imagine that it is caused by enhancement of midrange frequencies that both mics picked up off-axis, but I don't know. All I know for certain is that it is not real, it is somehow added.
Old 15th February 2013 | Show parent
  #256
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
@SoundKlang,

You observed that "The Model 5 seems to have less details." You are right. At times the Gordon tracks are less interesting, but the reason why is easily missed. What seems like detail may only be more information of a certain kind heard in playback. If it's not a sound that an instrument made it is not more detail, it's a distortion artifact.

When I say an amp is more detailed, I mean it is more faithful to the original in every way, in macro- and micro-dynamics, in the instrument's harmonic balance, in phase preservation and presentation of spacial proportions on the soundstage. Detail should first refer to the instruments, mics and rooms, not to apparently clearer, brighter or more articulate sounds, or anything a recording device might impart.

Any distortion can mask real details and subtler ones will suffer the most.
Old 15th February 2013 | Show parent
  #257
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
I am very happy to see these very interesting and deep going insights, reflections and discussions initiated by those samples. I will share my own impressions very soon (being the one who heard all those instruments in reality and in that room).

These comments and samples let me ponder about all these aspects again and I somehow feel that in general I tend to prefer not something that sounds more "accurate" but that sounds "nicer", more euphonic, pleasant and emotional ... (that not always necessarily the "accurate" does - but sometimes yes ...)
Old 15th February 2013 | Show parent
  #258
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundKlang ➡️
he Smp-2 gives a more real reproduction of the guitar players perspective. It seems to not so much zoom into the room but zoom into the instruments themselves. The Model 5 seems to have less details.
I agree. It is why I said that the Smp-2 sounds more transparent on this guitar duo test. I got the impression that the instruments where closer. I have to listen again for checking whether this feeling would be due to the Gordon picking more background details as suggested by some other comments.
Old 16th February 2013
  #259
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
QUOTE=SoundKlang;8751801]...... or to electric bass > DI > MicPre. ......
[ /QUOTE]
The Gordon 5 has a 2 mega ohm impedance on the input so no DI needed-just plug the bass straight in.

Willie Weeks, the bass player, uses an earlier version of the Gordon this way.
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #260
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Yup, no separate instrument input needed (although you may want to use jack over XLR). Through the "microphone" input it can even act as a phono preamp for hi-fi audiophiles.
Old 16th February 2013
  #261
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
Greetings to all,
I was at the session at Ivo’s and brought the Gordon. I must say it was a whole lot of fun and a great opportunity to hear these other great pre’s. I’ve had the Gordon for a year now and worked many hours with it recording a production for a woman guitarist/ singer-songwriter, as well as for my next release. Everything I recorded with the Gordon sounded natural: contra bass, acoustic guitar, bass drum and snare, and most importantly, vocals. I took a rather big risk buying the Gordon, having not heard how it sounds, and living in Europe with the import costs tacked on top.(I read all info and comments from users I could find and called Grant Carpenter and had a long talk) Needless to say I’m very happy with it!I liked the Forssell mic pre very much as well and will add 2 channels.
To the comparison: Where I thought the Gordon shined and where I could perceive a real noticeable difference was on the viola and flute samples and the monochord. That which was in the room, was reproduced, wood and all.The room,as I have read often about the Gordon,is very apparent in the recording too.
I was surprised by how my voice sounded through the Gordon with the Horch tube mic. I have never recorded with the Gordon using a tube mic.I don't have a large selection of mics,and use my best for vocals which is a Brauner Phantom. On my vocals and on female vocals it sounds very rich in detail and large. With the Horch,I felt my vocal track was lacking in that clarity or sharpness I have been used to at home. Maybe because the Horch doesn't need the Gordon phantom power. I actually favored the Forrsell on my voice at this session. I wish I would have brought my mic with to the session,just to hear how it responds to all three amps...a mic that I know better.
Thanks Ivo for a great weekend of playing and recording.
I have to say it here,even if it's against the rules....Ivo did a fantastic job mastering my latest projectCustom work.Thanks.
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #262
Gear Maniac
 
rnappi's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➡️
These comments and samples let me ponder about all these aspects again and I somehow feel that in general I tend to prefer not something that sounds more "accurate" but that sounds "nicer", more euphonic, pleasant and emotional ... (that not always necessarily the "accurate" does - but sometimes yes ...)
I think everyone would agree with this sentiment. After all, we're making music, not conducting science experiments. However, I think it's all very situational as to how we arrive at nice, pleasant, and emotional. What's desirable in one application can rapidly become undesirable in another.

After listening to the samples I was quite surprised with the difference in sound stage between the Gordon and the Forssell, I thought it would be more subtle. IMO, the Gordon clearly demonstrates superior definition and localization. For me this important, especially when dealing with larger ensembles & complex passages. The "phantom ambience" in the SMP that Michael Patrick refers to would be lovely for certain applications, but it also makes me wonder if I'll be laboring harder to obtain the imagery that I get with the Gordon on more congested mixes.

Thanks to Isedlacek for his time and effort in providing these samples for comparison.


rich
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #263
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by treetop8888 ➡️
I was surprised by how my voice sounded through the Gordon with the Horch tube mic. I have never recorded with the Gordon using a tube mic.I don't have a large selection of mics,and use my best for vocals which is a Brauner Phantom. On my vocals and on female vocals it sounds very rich in detail and large. With the Horch,I felt my vocal track was lacking in that clarity or sharpness I have been used to at home. Maybe because the Horch doesn't need the Gordon phantom power. I actually favored the Forrsell on my voice at this session. I wish I would have brought my mic with to the session,just to hear how it responds to all three amps...a mic that I know better.
I have been listening to these samples with the greatest interest. In the vein of your experience I would like to share something that I found regarding the use of Brauner mics and the Forssell SMP2. I have Brauner Valvet X and Phanthera V. They share the typical Brauner signature sound: rich, detailed and large. In addition they have some glow built in, in comparison with the Phantom and Valvet. I like to use them with rather neutral preamps that allow them to shine with their own character. My version of the Gordon (by the lack of it) is Lake People F355, for its very neutral and natural sound. When I use my Brauners with the Forssell the result is over the top. Too much color, too much gold powder on the highs. However, if I need to match boring neutral mics (Sennheiser MKH series for example) with the Brauners, I can put those through the Forssell and there is suddenly quite a good blend.

Now I would love to know how the Gordon compares to the F355. Did anyone compare the two ever?
Old 16th February 2013
  #264
Lives for gear
 
zvenx's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I am very grateful for this comparisons... and I too was suprised for whatever reason the difference between the Forssell and Gordon..... I mostly use 500 series pre-amps now and the SMP-2 was suppose to be my next and last pre-amp (last, sure :|, we are gearslutz after all :-)).....but the one that most impressed me, and bear in mind I don't do classical music or any genre where true representation of the source is critical. I just like to use what sounds good, and for me in almost every example the Thermionic earlybird sounded the best....more polished, more glue, more complete, more of a finished ensemble.....
and it is that I hope one day will have a 500 series cut down version.

thanks again.

rsp
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #265
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher ➡️
Now I would love to know how the Gordon compares to the F355. Did anyone compare the two ever?
Another preamp I'd like to compare is Pueblo Audio JR series. A wonderful clip is on this page along with some comments from RE Benjamin Maas and amp designer Scott Sedillo.

BTW, your comments about micpreamp hookups based on personal experience are instructive!
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #266
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Now I would love to know how the Gordon compares to the F355. Did anyone compare the two ever?
Not me, but I do have the Gordon and the Valvet X. Great combo IMO.
And I'm in Europe, too.
Old 16th February 2013
  #267
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➡️
...I will share my own impressions very soon (being the one who heard all those instruments in reality and in that room).
Ivo, is this an SMP-2 or SMP-2a? I ask because "a" has a different output stage that's balanced. I bought mine before Fred made the change.
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #268
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
It is SMP-2a that has slightly improved design and sound
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #269
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➡️
Another preamp I'd like to compare is Pueblo Audio JR series. A wonderful clip is on this page along with some comments from RE Benjamin Maas and amp designer Scott Sedillo.
Yes, that's another preamp that has my particular interest. The problem with both Gordon and Pueblo is that they are American boutique products, so getting your hands on them for testing in Europe is very difficult. Forssell, Millennia, True, AEA and Grace are a lot easier to find of the US made products in the clean camp. Others that I dearly miss overhere are Hardy and NPNG.
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #270
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by legato ➡️
Not me, but I do have the Gordon and the Valvet X. Great combo IMO.
And I'm in Europe, too.
Maybe we should set up a comparison of the Lake People and the Gordon as we are close enough to bring them together. (And we could include the True and Forssell as well.)
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 65 views: 32787
Avatar for terrible.dee
terrible.dee 2nd May 2019
replies: 52 views: 16680
Avatar for Deleted 4373f97
Deleted 4373f97 23rd April 2019
replies: 363 views: 93855
Avatar for Paul Wolff Designs
Paul Wolff Designs 28th February 2021
replies: 410 views: 83779
Avatar for legato
legato 24th February 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump