Quantcast
Create your own sound and forget about reference records? - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Create your own sound and forget about reference records?
Old 9th September 2012
  #1
Deleted fe72b38
Guest
Create your own sound and forget about reference records?

I've just finished mixing a new album and it's come out really great. I'm thrilled.

So I come to do the mastering (I'm only a little cottage industry artist) and I do my usual stuff a little bit of extra excitement using the Sonoris Mastering Compressor in parrallel upward compression (sounds great) a little bit of matching EQ between the track OK, then a touch 1-2 dB of TC Brickwall Limiter.

Sounds really great to me on my K&H 0300 (Avocet controller), about -12dB RMS nice and dynamic.

So then I think, well whats the nearest record to mine, Oh I know Sting's "Brand New Day" - so I stick the album on and I think right that's about 3dB louder and quite a bit brighter.

So then I make a new copy of my montage in Wavelab to experiment making my album up to this reference level of loundness and brightness. Easy to do really. Done.

Then I was looking on Bob Katz Hall of Fame and he talks about Sting's "Brand New Day" and says basically "great album, well recorded BUT about 3dB too loud and too bright!"

Arrrggghh.

So my original mastering session would seem to get Bob Katz seal of approval (which was satisfying) however my second session would appear to compete with a commercial album.

This is not about loudness wars really as BND is not really that loud compared to today, but do I go with my more purist mastering or face the reality of modern records and go louder and brighter.

Is it best to do your own thing or check against commercial competition.

Any thoughts?

tht
Old 9th September 2012
  #2
Gear Addict
 
jkchuma's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
It depends on what your trying to achieve. If you want to compete with commercial records it may be more marketable to mix/master to make the tracks sound similar in tonal balance and volume to a similar popular record. That's also not to say being different isn't marketable but if you want to make money sometimes you have to go where the money is.

From an artistic standpoint if you and the artist are happy that's what matters artistically. Like many other things, it all hinges on that stuff that makes the world go round.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC
Old 9th September 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor ➡️
So my original mastering session would seem to get Bob Katz seal of approval (which was satisfying) however my second session would appear to compete with a commercial album.


Any thoughts?
Who comes in first place in Bob's Honor Roll?

Did Neil Dorfsman or Bob Ludwig care what Bob Katz thinks about their record?

Why should you?

Just make the record you want and forget about pundits.


DC
Old 9th September 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Yep, do your own thang.

Way too much copy-catting going on.

JT
Old 9th September 2012
  #5
Deleted fe72b38
Guest
Ok so forget about Bob Katz fair enough I get that.

But in making the record I want it will definitely be less bright and less "loud" than many current modern records.

I suppose that's not a bad thing, I just need to be confident it's the right decision to ignore so called "professional standards" if such a term can be used in reference to mastering.

Tht
Old 10th September 2012
  #6
Lives for gear
 
polybonk's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I recommend stopping the comparisons.

Make your album sound as enjoyable to listen too as possible and go with that.

That is the best thing about being independent. You don't have to compromise on anything for anyone.
Old 10th September 2012
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
Owen Gillett's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
He best thing a mastering engineer can do is to do what's right for the music vibe wise. (Dynamics-wise and frequency-wise)

If you can trust what you're hearing (in your environment and know how it translates) and that it is right for the musical experience then go with it.

It is irrelevant if it's duller or brighter than XYZ album. If you've made the perfect mix/master to your ears then go with it and have the confidence that it is just so. There are no rules so you cannot be wrong.

People will ultimately respond to the musical experience on it's own merits. And who knows, if that works well, you might start a new trend.

Best,

Owen Gillett
Old 10th September 2012
  #8
Gear Maniac
 
White Elephant's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I never use reference songs unless I'm trying to make someone else's music, which I've never done. Don't worry about references, genre, or commercial whatever. Keep.......it.........real!!!!!!
Old 10th September 2012
  #9
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
If you really think about it, the only reason to reference other records is if you want to sound like them. Think about how silly that sounds unless you're going for Pop and radio play.

Should all music be the same brightness? Have the same low end?
Old 10th September 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
dandeurloo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Like Kenny said, I think it really is style dependent.

If you do want it to sound like something specific, then it probably makes sense that you tell the mastering engineer what references you want to use. I wonder how many people actually suggest references that match the original vision. I bet ME's get some of the most delusional suggestions.

If you don't want to use references then I would guess you would need to really trust your ME's judgements even more and have a good conversation about what you are looking for.

Interesting topic.
Old 10th September 2012
  #11
Deleted fe72b38
Guest
Thanks for everyone's replies, I found them both positive and encouraging.
I'm going to do my own thing, the way I want to hear it and be done with it.

Maybe for a bit of fun, I'll post a track when it's done - hopefully nobody will say "not bad - but it needed to be 3dB louder a bit brighter"

best
tht
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor ➡️
Thanks for everyone's replies, I found them both positive and encouraging.
I'm going to do my own thing, the way I want to hear it and be done with it.
Awesome. Remember. Someone has to start a trend. And I doubt it was the guy referencing other records. But who knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor ➡️

Maybe for a bit of fun, I'll post a track when it's done - hopefully nobody will say "not bad - but it needed to be 3dB louder a bit brighter"
heh There will always be people who still think it's too bright.

There's no pleasing everyone, so you might as well please yourself.
Old 10th September 2012
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Bonnie 'Prince' Billie's CD "I see a Darkness" is both low in volume and definitely not bright, but it fits the album perfectly.

Maybe that would be a better reference for you?

That said (#rant on), why would it matter? If you're creating a product for a market, I can definitely relate to wanting to know what consumers want, and how things should sound, and how to compete with other, similar offerings in order to maximize sales.

If you're creating art on the other hand (for public consumption or not), wouldn't you want to stay as true to your vision as possible, and in fact avoid being too similar to everybody else? Do you think Picasso or Dalí went around to galleries and obsessed with how other artists had bigger canvases or used brighter colors? The sound should serve your musical vision and help convey what it is you're trying to communicate. Thats all.



#rant off


Thor
Old 10th September 2012
  #14
Gear Maniac
 
OberHeim-Kenobi's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The depth and vibe in this Sting album is absolutely great for my taste but sadly is out of 2012 loudness level. A Thousand Years song is in on my itunes list for reference always but take the loudness of this album for a soft reference for jazz and no commercial purpose.

I think Bob Katz said it was a little sibilant (no bright)

Peace.





.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor ➡️
I've just finished mixing a new album and it's come out really great. I'm thrilled.

So I come to do the mastering (I'm only a little cottage industry artist) and I do my usual stuff a little bit of extra excitement using the Sonoris Mastering Compressor in parrallel upward compression (sounds great) a little bit of matching EQ between the track OK, then a touch 1-2 dB of TC Brickwall Limiter.

Sounds really great to me on my K&H 0300 (Avocet controller), about -12dB RMS nice and dynamic.

So then I think, well whats the nearest record to mine, Oh I know Sting's "Brand New Day" - so I stick the album on and I think right that's about 3dB louder and quite a bit brighter.

So then I make a new copy of my montage in Wavelab to experiment making my album up to this reference level of loundness and brightness. Easy to do really. Done.

Then I was looking on Bob Katz Hall of Fame and he talks about Sting's "Brand New Day" and says basically "great album, well recorded BUT about 3dB too loud and too bright!"

Arrrggghh.

So my original mastering session would seem to get Bob Katz seal of approval (which was satisfying) however my second session would appear to compete with a commercial album.

This is not about loudness wars really as BND is not really that loud compared to today, but do I go with my more purist mastering or face the reality of modern records and go louder and brighter.

Is it best to do your own thing or check against commercial competition.

Any thoughts?

tht
Old 10th September 2012
  #15
Mastering Moderator
 
Riccardo's Avatar
 
Verified Member
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
References are useful to hear what other people are doing. It is always good to be "aware" of what's out there wether you like it or not.
Having said that it is your record, you are the first one that should be happy and satisfied/proud. If it sounds good to you ....... that all that matters.
Old 10th September 2012
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
References can also be used as a contrast to your own work. You have to have an idea of what your audience is listening to so a good reference library is essential, but how many musical legends worried about following the rules?
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor ➡️

If you're creating a product for a market, I can definitely relate to wanting to know what consumers want, and how things should sound, and how to compete with other, similar offerings in order to maximize sales.
I don't disagree but I do find it interesting what we decide makes a record more competitive. We all do it so I'm not singling you out here. But why do we always assume it's the production?

If we did a poll I would bet that less than 10% of people would buy a record because they liked the production or the "sound" of the record. Yet, that seems to be the thing that we always chase.

Why not the lyrics or the tempo or the key?

And if being as bright as a hit record makes it "competitive" why not make it "super" bright?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor ➡️
If you're creating art on the other hand (for public consumption or not), wouldn't you want to stay as true to your vision as possible, and in fact avoid being too similar to everybody else? Do you think Picasso or Dalí went around to galleries and obsessed with how other artists had bigger canvases or used brighter colors? The sound should serve your musical vision and help convey what it is you're trying to communicate. Thats all.
Agree 1000%

But to be fair, most artists (picasso, dali) have their work viewed as a tactile visibly static thing. So when I go to MOMA, I see the same thing that you do.

With music, it's coming out of the consumer's speakers. So it is important that the OP's vision is correct for most systems.

IOW - What he made may sound exactly as bright as he wants on his system, but not on yours.
Old 10th September 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Slug1's Avatar
 
6 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Great thread. I struggle with this too. I try not to reference as a comparison. My new strategy is to just listen to commercial music from CD not MP3, in my room to really learn how that stuff sounds in my room. I'm thinking this will help me when doing my own work. For now, I tend to try to please the artist/producer/A&R, rather than myself. What I think is neutral, they hate. They want it bright and loud for some reason. Its been hit and miss for me so far. Sometimes what I like, they like. Other times what I like they don't like.

I just think the ME's out there that are mastering Sting for instance, must have their ears trained to know what's sonically appropriate both scientifically and artistically, and know what the 'people want to hear'. I think about my heros like Brian Gardner at Grundman, or Chris Gehringer and Chris Athens at Sterling, and they must have trained their ears such that they know what the public wants to hear, but at the same time know how to do things that are correct from a scientific point of view. Although I'm sure Chris Gehringer hates the loudness wars, he knows how to make records that are loud but meet the criteria of all of the science that I see on the mastering threads here or perhaps in a Katz book. I know most guys on here tend to be rock and pop guys, but take a listen to Nas' track Stillmatic (mastered by Gehringer). Its loud and bright. I could only assume and could be wrong, but I would guess that Bob Katz would absolutely hate this, but it is among the hiphop classics and to me beautifully mastered. I can name numerous Dr. Dre songs mastered by Gardner at Grundman that most people on here would hate because it doesn't fit into all of the science. But the people love it. Should Gardner change his ways?

To me, that's the most important aspect of what I'm trying to learn as a fledgling ME. I know that rooms, and monitoring equipment, and gear are all critical to this, but boy its got to also be a lot about training the ear to know what's right sonically from both an artistic and scientific point of view.
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor ➡️
Thanks for everyone's replies, I found them both positive and encouraging.
I'm going to do my own thing, the way I want to hear it and be done with it.

Maybe for a bit of fun, I'll post a track when it's done - hopefully nobody will say "not bad - but it needed to be 3dB louder a bit brighter"

best
tht
Every source track needs to be louder and brighter.
That's mastering dammit!

Fab
Old 10th September 2012
  #20
Gear Head
 
isaac663's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Wow, i'm really amazed by these replies. One of the main things i took from BK's book was that good quality reference tracks are essential. Just make sure they have lots of dynamics, a real sense of depth and dimension and also a good freq balance. Picking out records i really admire and "copying" them has been massivly beificial to my mixing. Ultimately they never sound the same, that would be impossible without the same players, inst, mics etc. Whilst i totally agree with the sentiment of the tread (do your own thing) i think reference CD's (good ones) are so important to getting your mix to translate well and working out your errors in the mixing and masting stage. For ages i wondered why the reference tracks sounded good loud, quite, in the other room, in the car, on headphones etc. And analysing the sound of these record, then experimenting with techniques i though might be used helped so much. It made me consider the power of delay (rather than reverb), mixing in mono, and listening to my mixes at different volumes. All things that i swear by.
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
I think one of the dilemmas is that music has to cater to both sides of the equation - it *is* a product, ideally one that the people behind would like to sell millions of copies of. At the same time, it's art, expression, something that appeals to us on a different level and moves us, and is unique.

A painting has only one original, and while there may be posters or lithographs made, it's the original that has value.

Perhaps a better analogy for music as art would be literature rather than painting, in that a book may sell millions of copies, each an identical copy of the original (like music).

Still, do writers (good writers, leading literary figures) read each others works and try and copy "what works" in order to maximize their own sales? Is that what makes a book successful, following a known formula? Or blazing your own path and finding your own, unique voice?

An interesting discussion...

Thor


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia ➡️
I don't disagree but I do find it interesting what we decide makes a record more competitive. We all do it so I'm not singling you out here. But why do we always assume it's the production?

If we did a poll I would bet that less than 10% of people would buy a record because they liked the production or the "sound" of the record. Yet, that seems to be the thing that we always chase.

Why not the lyrics or the tempo or the key?

And if being as bright as a hit record makes it "competitive" why not make it "super" bright?



Agree 1000%

But to be fair, most artists (picasso, dali) have their work viewed as a tactile visibly static thing. So when I go to MOMA, I see the same thing that you do.

With music, it's coming out of the consumer's speakers. So it is important that the OP's vision is correct for most systems.

IOW - What he made may sound exactly as bright as he wants on his system, but not on yours.
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #22
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaac663 ➡️
Wow, i'm really amazed by these replies. One of the main things i took from BK's book was that good quality reference tracks are essential. Just make sure they have lots of dynamics, a real sense of depth and dimension and also a good freq balance. Picking out records i really admire and "copying" them has been massivly beificial to my mixing. Ultimately they never sound the same, that would be impossible without the same players, inst, mics etc. Whilst i totally agree with the sentiment of the tread (do your own thing) i think reference CD's (good ones) are so important to getting your mix to translate well and working out your errors in the mixing and masting stage. For ages i wondered why the reference tracks sounded good loud, quite, in the other room, in the car, on headphones etc. And analysing the sound of these record, then experimenting with techniques i though might be used helped so much. It made me consider the power of delay (rather than reverb), mixing in mono, and listening to my mixes at different volumes. All things that i swear by.
I think what you're talking about is more useful in the learning process. Learning to mix is usually best done by listening and copying or re-creating. And it's also useful for learning your room.

What I'm talking about is once you know your room, know your speakers and know how to make records, you shouldn't NEED to reference others work to create something great. Otherwise, you're getting dangerously close to trying to replicate the "success" of the original track.

You also make the mistake of copying certain aspects of a track that don't make as much sense for the track that you're working on. There is no perfect snare drum but there is a perfect snare for the production that you're doing.

Many years ago, a very famous artist put out a box set of his recordings and one of the songs on there appeared twice. Once by a very famous mixer and one was mixed by the producer.

The famous mixer's mixed sounded perfect. Everything was clear, bright, tight, with plenty of space to pick out every instrument. It was flawless. The producer's mix was mushy, a bit dark and everything blended into one big instrument. But it sounded great. It just worked amazingly for this song. Which is probably why it was put on the record this way.
Old 10th September 2012 | Show parent
  #23
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor ➡️
I think one of the dilemmas is that music has to cater to both sides of the equation - it *is* a product, ideally one that the people behind would like to sell millions of copies of. At the same time, it's art, expression, something that appeals to us on a different level and moves us, and is unique.

A painting has only one original, and while there may be posters or lithographs made, it's the original that has value.

Perhaps a better analogy for music as art would be literature rather than painting, in that a book may sell millions of copies, each an identical copy of the original (like music).

Still, do writers (good writers, leading literary figures) read each others works and try and copy "what works" in order to maximize their own sales? Is that what makes a book successful, following a known formula? Or blazing your own path and finding your own, unique voice?

An interesting discussion...

Thor
Amen.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #24
Gear Head
 
isaac663's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia ➡️
I think what you're talking about is more useful in the learning process. Learning to mix is usually best done by listening and copying or re-creating. And it's also useful for learning your room.

What I'm talking about is once you know your room, know your speakers and know how to make records, you shouldn't NEED to reference others work to create something great. Otherwise, you're getting dangerously close to trying to replicate the "success" of the original track.

You also make the mistake of copying certain aspects of a track that don't make as much sense for the track that you're working on. There is no perfect snare drum but there is a perfect snare for the production that you're doing.

Many years ago, a very famous artist put out a box set of his recordings and one of the songs on there appeared twice. Once by a very famous mixer and one was mixed by the producer.

The famous mixer's mixed sounded perfect. Everything was clear, bright, tight, with plenty of space to pick out every instrument. It was flawless. The producer's mix was mushy, a bit dark and everything blended into one big instrument. But it sounded great. It just worked amazingly for this song. Which is probably why it was put on the record this way.
Well yes, i agree with most of that to be fair. Just thought that there was too much emphasis on 'do your own thing'. Until you really know how to mix, your room, and appropriate listening levels, then reference tracks are a must imo. Plus a good set of reference tracks HELPS you realize that every piece of music IS different and, as such, each song requires different treatment. Just make sure there are varied, high quality, and that your using more than a couple. I have 10 or 12 tracks i go back to regularly, and although they are all very very different (some 'warm' and 'fat', some more 'digital' sounding and hyped) that all have in common that they feel balanced in there own right. Also they do not have over extended bass/ highs, which is something that can help you from over cooking things in the mastering. Anyways, that my feeling. I totally get that you should do what appropriate for the music and certainly not try and copy specifics, like the snare drum or whatever.
Old 12th September 2012
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Franco's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
I hate to be Debby Downer here, but I learned a long time ago that having great sonic quality doesn't equal success, and I bring this up because a lot of the "successful" material that people reference isn't successful because it sounds good. Seriously, I'm sure a lot of engineers here that get a lot of work in for mastering constantly get clients asking them if they can match (insert popular artist here)'s sound and when you hear the reference, it's not exactly great in quality, and often times you find yourself making things sound like the flat, squashed mess the client wants simply because they feel that's "the sound."

I have worked on albums that are sonically eons better than most commercial releases. I'm grateful in a way though, most importantly because over the years, I've learned to make things sound great without the need to reference the crap that gets released, but the idea of referencing something that's on the radio, or something that is popular (mostly because of who the artist is) for me, is pointless.

Artists that don't ask for this, who want an optimal (and unique) sound, who record optimally, who work with mix engineers without egos and who are able to work with you on making mixes optimal for mastering, are worth their weight in gold (and I say this because at the end of the day, they're the ones that make it possible for the project to sound as good as it can, Mastering only makes great recordings/mixes sound better; most of the credit goes to the recordings and mixes).
Old 12th September 2012
  #26
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
In this case Bob Katz was wrong, judging by how two people in this thread plus myself like to use Brand New Day as a mastering reference because it sounds particularly great.

+1 on Isaac's point. "Get a perfect room" is the ideal solution, but many of us can't do that. Listen to a bunch of recordings that all sound different, so you have an idea of what professionally mastered music sounds like in your room on your speakers, and then make your music communicate what you want within that context (or the artist's preference). If you're going to be innovative, change the wine, not the bottle. (I have no idea who said that or even if that's exactly what they said)
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaac663 ➡️
Well yes, i agree with most of that to be fair. Just thought that there was too much emphasis on 'do your own thing'. Until you really know how to mix, your room, and appropriate listening levels, then reference tracks are a must imo. Plus a good set of reference tracks HELPS you realize that every piece of music IS different and, as such, each song requires different treatment. Just make sure there are varied, high quality, and that your using more than a couple. I have 10 or 12 tracks i go back to regularly, and although they are all very very different (some 'warm' and 'fat', some more 'digital' sounding and hyped) that all have in common that they feel balanced in there own right. Also they do not have over extended bass/ highs, which is something that can help you from over cooking things in the mastering. Anyways, that my feeling. I totally get that you should do what appropriate for the music and certainly not try and copy specifics, like the snare drum or whatever.
I agree. And you raise a great point. Every once in a while I'll reference something to see if my mix is too bright or too dark but I usually wind up realizing that many records differ enough that there is no right. Just a general good feeling of a mix.
Old 12th September 2012
  #28
Deleted fe72b38
Guest
So if I post a track the question goes two ways.

1. Do you like it sonically/artistically?

but

2. Do you think it will be compete successfully in the current market place? (Epic fail I can tell you that straight away)

Based on the fact that I'm essentially a cottage industry artist, ultimately I may as well just do my own thing and make my vision and best effort towards a beautiful record/master (within whats possible with my situation of course)

tht
Old 12th September 2012
  #29
Deleted fe72b38
Guest
.... and talking of Sting

I bought his last offering "Sacred Love"

and only played it once because it's the first album by him that I find TOO LOUD to listen to.

In fact the vocal in the first track is so loud and sticks out so far from the backing track, it's almost as is someone knocked the lead vocal fader up 5dB but didn't notice because the monitors where off during mixdown.

Which picks up from what Franco said about "great sonic quality doesn't equal success" as here this album sold millions whilst lacking IMHO great sonic quality.

tht
Old 12th September 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor ➡️
So if I post a track the question goes two ways.

1. Do you like it sonically/artistically?

but

2. Do you think it will be compete successfully in the current market place? (Epic fail I can tell you that straight away)

Based on the fact that I'm essentially a cottage industry artist, ultimately I may as well just do my own thing and make my vision and best effort towards a beautiful record/master (within whats possible with my situation of course)

tht
Mastering your own mixes is a bit of a challenge anyway, but I would do whatever puts a smile on your face when you listen to the track. If you are going to make a huge sonic sacrifice for the sake of level and not like the outcome chances are other people will feel the same.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 3991 views: 1140567
Avatar for qslprod
qslprod 16 hours ago
replies: 59 views: 12250
Avatar for Dikkie
Dikkie 13th February 2021
replies: 66 views: 11708
Avatar for 0000000nowhere
0000000nowhere 15th March 2016
replies: 228 views: 8777
Avatar for Pali
Pali 9th September 2018
Topic:
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