Quantcast
Classical Editing - A few questions - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Classical Editing - A few questions
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Here for the gear
 
Classical Editing - A few questions

Hello. My background is in rock music production but I've recently started doing classical recordings. I'm not very experienced with the genre so I have a couple of questions:

1. Do you mix before editing or vice versa? For example, do you mix all the material to stereo and then do 2-track editing for the best takes together or do you keep all your tracks separate in the multitrack and edit them while mixing?


2. I see that most classical engineers use Sequoia, Sadie or Pyramix. I guess it's because of the extensive crossfade editor found in these applications.

But is it really necessary? Apart from speeding things up, is there any function that cannot possibly be done in other software?

Back when they used analog tape all they had was just a linear crossfade with a few different angles, no? Nothing like the options found in pretty much all editors today. And yet they still managed to edit successfully.


So, what do you think?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvsbd ➡️
2. I see that most classical engineers use Sequoia, Sadie or Pyramix. I guess it's because of the extensive crossfade editor found in these applications.
Just as (or more) important, it's for their ability to do source-destination editing (aka 3- and 4-point editing).
Old 2 weeks ago
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
I have been doing classical recording for over 50 years and I still use, as I have for the past 25 years, Wavelab for most of my editing chores. It works well and one can do most things in either the edit window or the montage. Most of the recordings I do are strait to two track so there is no need for a "mix down". I hope this helps... BEST of LUCK in your new career.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #4
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
1. editing comes first...

...except that many prefer to 'mix while recording' - however, edits of multichannel recordings mostly are too complex that they could get relegated to editing of the 2mix or 6mix without doing damage; genre doesn't matter.

[the days when you had to cut and paste a 1/4 tape are (thankfully) long gone; there are no good reasons for wanting to return to the early days of anthropocene!]



2. there's a clear preference of many folks working in this genre for a specific daw, approach or workflow...

...but nothing stops you from using your editor of choice/genre doesn't matter (or what gear/daw then could fulfill requirements of folks working in different genre?!) - i suggest sticking to the daw with which you have the most experience.

[can't wait for cohler to invade yet another thread!]
Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
My approach is mix to stereo and then do any edits, but I don't have a lot of tracks on a classical location recording - generally less than eight. If you happen to use Reaper as your DAW, it is possible to do 3 and 4 point edits using scripts developed by users or via the Cohler Classical software package. Lots of discussions here at Gearspace about these.
(not sure my mention of 'C' constitutes an invasion deedeeyeah)
Old 2 weeks ago
  #6
Gear Maniac
 
4-point editing will immensely speed up any editing of classical music which wasn't recorded to a click or using comping techniques. It is probably possible to edit it without such tools, but you won't enjoy it.
I have used Wavelab for some time, and it sort of works, but it is not ideal. I am not sure it can be used with multitrack for editing the full mix before mixdown, never tried that. For stereo it is ok if you make your own templates.
I can personally recommend CohlerClassical, I have used it extensively for the last two years and find it very efficient. Be careful to make a separate portable reaper install before you install CC as it will take over the Reaper installation it is being installed on - read the Quickstart guide before you start. It is pretty much the only option on Mac (but works on Win, too, though I haven't tried that). And it is way cheaper than any of the other Win options.
Editing classical is a completely different world from editing rock music in my opinion, and requires different tools.

With the right software it is way better to edit multitrack, I think, leaves you all the flexibility for changing the mix later.
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #7
Here for the gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradh ➡️
Just as (or more) important, it's for their ability to do source-destination editing (aka 3- and 4-point editing).
Yes, I forgot about this feature. I have actually seen this a few times in other studios using Pyramix.

It's nice to have, but I think proper organisation of the material is always the most important factor for eficient editing. It's good practice to mark your material as it's being recorded anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
1. editing comes first...

...except that many prefer to 'mix while recording' - however, edits of multichannel recordings mostly are too complex that they could get relegated to editing of the 2mix or 6mix without doing damage; genre doesn't matter.
It seems that half of the people I've asked prefer to edit before the mix and the other half would prefer to firstly mixdown to stereo and then edit.

The appeal of keeping your tracks separate is obvious. In any case however, wouldn't you need to make your takes sound "cohesive" before merging them anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
[the days when you had to cut and paste a 1/4 tape are (thankfully) long gone; there are no good reasons for wanting to return to the early days of anthropocene!]
Well, that was only a comment on the wealth of tools available today. There is so much talk on specific crossfades curves, editing workflows etc. that it gets really confusing to separate the nonsense from the useful stuff.

I have been editing in Cubase or Pro Tools with no problem but I've been wondering if I'm really missing out for not using a "classical DAW".
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvsbd ➡️
It's nice to have, but I think proper organisation of the material is always the most important factor for eficient editing. It's good practice to mark your material as it's being recorded anyway.
I'm not sure you quite understand the rationale for source-destination editing of classical music; see this useful explanation posted by David Rick in another forum at this link: https://community.samplitude.com/top...comment-110670
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #9
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvsbd ➡️
It seems that half of the people I've asked prefer to edit before the mix and the other half would prefer to firstly mixdown to stereo and then edit.
perferences/requirement can vary...

Quote:
The appeal of keeping your tracks separate is obvious. In any case however, wouldn't you need to make your takes sound "cohesive" before merging them anyway?
that is what i was trying to express by mentioning 'mixing while recording': there's no point in tracking if things don't come together/form mix which you keep monitoring while tracking...

...but as with any other genre, specific sections (say ambis) may require specific editing which you cannot accomplish by editing a full mix.

Quote:
Well, that was only a comment on the wealth of tools available today. There is so much talk on specific crossfades curves, editing workflows etc. that it gets really confusing to separate the nonsense from the useful stuff.
in 2022, i would never buy a specific software just for its crossfade features...

Quote:
I have been editing in Cubase or Pro Tools with no problem but I've been wondering if I'm really missing out for not using a "classical DAW".
it's the source/destination feature that some folks find very appealing - i find switching platforms very appalling though so i'm sticking to nuendo for all of my work.
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
...it's the source/destination feature that some folks find very appealing - i find switching platforms very appalling though so i'm sticking to nuendo for all of my work.
Nice play on words
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #11
Here for the gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradh ➡️
I'm not sure you quite understand the rationale for source-destination editing of classical music; see this useful explanation posted by David Rick in another forum at this link: https://community.samplitude.com/top...comment-110670
Thanks for the link. Well, I think I can understand how Source/Destination editing works, although so far I have never found a situation where things are getting dramatically slowed down even with the manual dragging and rejoining of the edits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
that is what i was trying to express by mentioning 'mixing while recording': there's no point in tracking if things don't come together/form mix which you keep monitoring while tracking...

...but as with any other genre, specific sections (say ambis) may require specific editing which you cannot accomplish by editing a full mix.
Could you elaborate on this? Wouldn't this specific editing mess with the phase of the other tracks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
in 2022, i would never buy a specific software just for its crossfade features...
I agree.

And to be a bit more specific about crossfades, percussive music would be somewhat easier to edit since it provides plenty of transients that could mask a potential splice point.

But how would you handle editing in classical pieces where there are generally less sections that feature clear transients?

On bowing movements of string instruments perhaps?
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #12
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
that is what i was trying to express by mentioning 'mixing while recording': there's no point in tracking if things don't come together/form mix which you keep monitoring while tracking...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvsbd ➡️
Could you elaborate on this? Wouldn't this specific editing mess with the phase of the other tracks?
i'm a bit puzzled as you mentioned that you have some experience/a background in producing rock music?! well, physics are the same for any genre but to relate to an instrument with which you are more familiar, let's compare the mic setup of a drum kit to that of an orchestra:

one could think of the kick, snare, hat and tom mics as of the spot mic, the overheads as of the main mics and of course the drum room ambis refer to the ambis in the concert hall.

now of course you can pfl each mic and hit record if every signal is clean; however, if you bring up all faders and the result is a mess, you have a pretty good indicator that something's wrong and - if time allows - you need to ask yourself what you can do improve things/what causes the mess.

let's assume that you found out that the ambis are that far away from the mains and spot mics that you can hear an echo that is not caused by reflections but by distance: you now need to decide whether you physically move the ambis closer, delay the mains and spots to the ambis and if so, whether you do it on the way in, or while mixing, by adjusting the indivdual timeline/adding of the tracks, by moving other tracks forward, whether to route specific track to subgroups and delay some of them of by just keep ambis low in the mix, hoping that nobody will notice.

short: my suggestion would be that you do not record until you know that you can fix the problem in principle and how you can fix the problem in particular - from my point of view, this is true regardless of genre!

Quote:
...but as with any other genre, specific sections (say ambis) may require specific editing which you cannot accomplish by editing a full mix.

Quote:
Wouldn't this specific editing mess with the phase of the other tracks?
see above: you align things and then maybe lock/group tracks/channels - but not all crossfades need to be the same: in fact, you better adjust them depending on the instrument, their position in the mix, their waveforms, your ears... - same in rock as in classical.

Quote:
But how would you handle editing in classical pieces where there are generally less sections that feature clear transients? On bowing movements of string instruments perhaps?
you can zoom in and stretch things in the waveform editor in various ways in pretty much any daw and waveforms do not look radically different say between a synth or leslie and a string or wind instrument - don't do silly things/what sounds good is good: same for all genre!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
The benefit of 4 point SD true multi-track editing from the big boys (Pyramix, Sequoia), is that editing (a completely separate operation to remixing and mastering) can be done first, without having to bake in mastering settings into a stereo mix, that will undoubtedly need to change.

Then the clip FX, mixing, automation and mastering can occur and reoccur without having to re-edit. This alone is worth the money for the big boys.

SD editing of 32 tracks or more in Pyramix (collapsed to two for visual expediency) is a wonder to behold.

Last edited by David Spearritt; 2 weeks ago at 12:18 AM..
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #14
Gear Head
 
Wavefront's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvsbd ➡️
Thanks for the link. Well, I think I can understand how Source/Destination editing works, although so far I have never found a situation where things are getting dramatically slowed down even with the manual dragging and rejoining of the edits.
I recently completed editing a recording of Bach by an accomplished pianist for a forthcoming CD release. There are well over 500 edits. There is no way I would be masochistic enough to even attempt this by dragging and dropping regions -- not to mention when the artist or producer decides "on second thought, let's try take X instead for mm. 47-51" and you need a quick and accurate way to make a "ripple" substitution of that material within your already tentatively-finished edit etc. etc. Doing work like this "manually" without a DAW such as those mentioned is slower and more prone to error. That's why tools like these were developed in the first place for those who need them.

Last edited by Wavefront; 2 weeks ago at 11:50 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 2 weeks ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
David Rick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Modern tools for old music

I see that @ bradh linked above to a short explanation of source/destination editing that I wrote 14 years ago.

It may be helpful to put this capability in the context of a complete classical editing workflow. For an example, see this more recent post of mine.

An important thing to understand is that classical projects often go through multiple iterations of editing, just as pop songs go through multiple mixes before a final version is approved for release. The process of making revised pop mixes was dramatically streamlined with the adoption of automated consoles (and subsequent ITB automation). Non-destructive editing tools like Sequoia and Sadie are no less important in the classical recording world.

It's still possible to do either kind of production the "old school" way, but it's rarely possible to make money doing so.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #16
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt ➡️
The benefit of 4 point SD true multi-track editing from the big boys (Pyramix, Sequoia), is that editing (a completely separate operation to remixing and mastering) can be done first, without having to bake in mastering settings into a stereo mix, that will undoubtedly need to change.

Then the clip FX, mixing, automation and mastering can occur and reoccur without having to re-edit. This alone is worth the money for the big boys.

SD editing of 32 tracks or more in Pyramix (collapsed to two for visual expediency) is a wonder to behold.
No doubt SD editing is a big time/workflow benefit for off click & classical recording, but the ability to edit a multitrack prior to mixdown isn't a unique feature of SD editing, unless I'm misunderstanding your post?
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam miller ➡️
No doubt SD editing is a big time/workflow benefit for off click & classical recording, but the ability to edit a multitrack prior to mixdown isn't a unique feature of SD editing, unless I'm misunderstanding your post?
My point was that editing has to be done on the multi-track before mixing, mastering and automation and not on a stereo mix down.

But yes you are correct, this is not confined to SD editing, its just easier for complex edits.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #18
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Skimming this thread is kinda mindblowing. Is classical music now held to the same standard of perfection as pop? (Frankly, I'm rather surprised by the obvious edits nowadays in pop music. It's like they don't even bother sometimes to fade in/out or crossfade.) Were classical recordings from before the digital age sliced and diced as much?
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick ➡️
I see that @ bradh linked above to a short explanation of source/destination editing that I wrote 14 years ago.

It may be helpful to put this capability in the context of a complete classical editing workflow. For an example, see this more recent post of mine.

An important thing to understand is that classical projects often go through multiple iterations of editing, just as pop songs go through multiple mixes before a final version is approved for release. The process of making revised pop mixes was dramatically streamlined with the adoption of automated consoles (and subsequent ITB automation). Non-destructive editing tools like Sequoia and Sadie are no less important in the classical recording world.

It's still possible to do either kind of production the "old school" way, but it's rarely possible to make money doing so.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
It's just bit annoying (discounting Cohler Classical) that all the tools are Windows based. I can swallow ~500 for Pyramix Pro but I can't stomach an extra computer to run it on.
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #20
Gear Maniac
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelgrian ➡️
It's just bit annoying (discounting Cohler Classical) that all the tools are Windows based. I can swallow ~500 for Pyramix Pro but I can't stomach an extra computer to run it on.
Why don't you try Cohler Classical then? It has a free demo. Just make a portable Reaper install, install Cohler Classical over it, watch some of the videos on his site and see for yourself.

Personally I like the way it works _much_ better than any other software I have used, including SonicStudio, which, quite frankly, I hated.

I have seen Sequoia and Sadie in action, and some video demos of Pyramix, and I have to say that I prefer the way CC is set up by far.

And if you do like it: cost is much less than 500, even if you count in a Reaper license.
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #21
Gear Maniac
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moshuajusic ➡️
Skimming this thread is kinda mindblowing. Is classical music now held to the same standard of perfection as pop? (Frankly, I'm rather surprised by the obvious edits nowadays in pop music. It's like they don't even bother sometimes to fade in/out or crossfade.) Were classical recordings from before the digital age sliced and diced as much?
Did you really think there was no editing in classical? In my experience even CDs which say "live recording" are usually quite heavily edited.

There are exceptions, I know.

I am surprised you speak of edits in POP. I am not sure I would call that editing, isn't that more "construction"? (I am not trying to devalue it - just a completely different genre.)
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
David Rick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by moshuajusic ➡️
Skimming this thread is kinda mindblowing. Is classical music now held to the same standard of perfection as pop? (Frankly, I'm rather surprised by the obvious edits nowadays in pop music. It's like they don't even bother sometimes to fade in/out or crossfade.) Were classical recordings from before the digital age sliced and diced as much?
Absolutely. For better or worse, note-for-note perfection has been the expected standard in classical recordings ever since Wilhelm Kempff made his Decca piano recordings in the early 1950's. The fact that this standard of perfection was unattainable in actual performance became completely irrelevant. Even single-note replacement was not out of the question for an editor with a marked-up score and a razer blade. Artists soon went beyond mere fidelity to the score to imagine their "best" interpretation of a work and to create it by editing between as many takes as required. It's easy to hear classical orchestra edits on headphones as a quick stereo image disrumption due to the diagonal cut. But the poster child for "creative" tape editing is undoubtedly Glenn Gould, who created pistasches of not only different takes but different microphone perspectives in pursuit of his musical vision. Tape editing became such an expected part of classical production practice that Julliard actually offered conservatory students a class in it!

With the advent of digital recording, it's become much easier to make edits that are nearly undetectable. The clumsy edits and punches that one hears in pop production are completely unacceptable. I've sometimes spent 20 minutes tweaking the crossfade on a single difficult edit in a project that had hundreds.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

Last edited by David Rick; 2 weeks ago at 12:57 AM.. Reason: spelling
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGebauer ➡️
Did you really think there was no editing in classical? In my experience even CDs which say "live recording" are usually quite heavily edited.

There are exceptions, I know.

I am surprised you speak of edits in POP. I am not sure I would call that editing, isn't that more "construction"? (I am not trying to devalue it - just a completely different genre.)
lol yeah I guess I was just naive. I idolized Earl Wild and a few others when I was learning piano and just assumed it was always a whole take. Funny, I just remembered there's video of Krystian Zimerman, another of my faves, playing Chopin and at some point you see his bench is different. heh!



One more: is the audio in live performance videos edited too? Like Martha Argerich playing a concerto?
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
David Rick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by moshuajusic ➡️
One more: is the audio in live performance videos edited too? Like Martha Argerich playing a concerto?
I decline to comment on individual performers, but it's pretty routine for "live" performance recordings to include patches from two performances and/or the dress rehearsal. High profile projects will actually schedule a "patch-up" session on the day after the advertised performance.

One famous case I can mention is the final NY concert by Vladimer Horowitz, in which he dropped an obvious clam while playing a well-known work by Chopin. This fact was noted by a reviewer, but disappeared in the released recording. The clear chicanery caused further press outcry, to the point that the famous mistake was restored in a later compilation release.

David
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #25
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
imo the tide has turned in terms of technical perfection: around here, not everything that could be done still gets done and (at least parts of) the audience seems to enjoy results more/again if things don't get edited to death (which can damage the artists' credibility btw)...

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 2 weeks ago at 10:55 PM.. Reason: wording
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #26
Gear Maniac
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
imo the tide has turned in terms of technical perfection: around here, not everything that could be done still gets done and (at least parts of) the audience seems to enjoy results more/again if things don't get edited to death (which can damage the artists' credibility btw)...
Some of my favourite recordings have birds singing outside the recording venue in the quiet parts. It adds character to the music
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #27
Here for the gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️

i'm a bit puzzled as you mentioned that you have some experience/a background in producing rock music?! well, physics are the same for any genre but to relate to an instrument with which you are more familiar, let's compare the mic setup of a drum kit to that of an orchestra:

one could think of the kick, snare, hat and tom mics as of the spot mic, the overheads as of the main mics and of course the drum room ambis refer to the ambis in the concert hall.

now of course you can pfl each mic and hit record if every signal is clean; however, if you bring up all faders and the result is a mess, you have a pretty good indicator that something's wrong and - if time allows - you need to ask yourself what you can do improve things/what causes the mess.

let's assume that you found out that the ambis are that far away from the mains and spot mics that you can hear an echo that is not caused by reflections but by distance: you now need to decide whether you physically move the ambis closer, delay the mains and spots to the ambis and if so, whether you do it on the way in, or while mixing, by adjusting the indivdual timeline/adding of the tracks, by moving other tracks forward, whether to route specific track to subgroups and delay some of them of by just keep ambis low in the mix, hoping that nobody will notice.

short: my suggestion would be that you do not record until you know that you can fix the problem in principle and how you can fix the problem in particular - from my point of view, this is true regardless of genre!

Admittedly, I haven't come across such a case. I usually try to get everything sounding good before I start recording. Thanks for the example. I agree, it's better to adjust your tracks on the way in rather than trying to fix them later.

And thanks to David Rick for the very detailed explanation.

I also see from other replies that there's a preference for perfection in classical recordings. But doesn't all this excessive editing mean that a performance gets needlessly artificial?
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
David Rick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvsbd ➡️
I also see from other replies that there's a preference for perfection in classical recordings. But doesn't all this excessive editing mean that a performance gets needlessly artificial?
Yes, that's very often the case. More takes mean less spontaneity. More edits mean poorer flow. But some amount of editing is necessary because classical players will never agree to release a recording with an obvious error in it out of fear that it will ruin their reputation. That part is non-negotiable. One can have a discussion about the artistic tradeoff between assembling a representation of their best-imagined musical intent versus preserving the broader gestures and flow of an inspired reading. Mature artists with several recording projects in their past experience will understand this; artists making their recording debut almost never do.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvsbd ➡️
I also see from other replies that there's a preference for perfection in classical recordings.
Its not "perfection" being sort. Its a situation of diminishing returns on patching small things that would otherwise distract the listener.
Old 1 week ago
  #30
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I can see the day a-comin' soon when AI assists ( but doesn't take over nor replace) the human editing process. Maybe it would go something like this.....

DAW/editing platform ingests music score, and perhaps a few stellar recordings of the work as co-references...plus typical cross fade data.....and maybe also the actual session score, with markings and notes by engineer/producer for 'consideration' and correlation against original score.

Human enters the takes, with or without ratings of accuracy/desirability. Machine sorts takes, lines up several potential edits based on 'best exemplar recordings' vs human's ratings....and session score markings.

Machine retires at this point, as human takes over to approve/compare potential edits....but is quietly "observing" (ie your machine is learning your moves), so as to refine its predictive capabilities in future editing jobs.

In effect the machine is doing the hack-work drudgery pre-assembly, leaving the human to make the aesthetic decisions at a faster overall project pace than previously.

Feasible ? Desirable ?

* additional inflammatory note to Plush: the machine is entirely populated with Chinese microprocessors, chips etc
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 59 views: 6187
Avatar for SurveillanceP
SurveillanceP 24th March 2010
replies: 114 views: 20642
Avatar for blueNan
blueNan 22nd September 2021
replies: 2017 views: 218269
Avatar for analogholic
analogholic 20 hours ago
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