Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant.

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Chris Bannister <cbannister@...>
Cc: LAU <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, December 24, 2012 - 7:17 am

--e89a8ff2459b93b5fa04d193fe80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:39:17PM -0500, Thomas Vecchione wrote:

No for many reasons.

1. Harmonics, while they do extend above our range of hearing, and then
above the limits of a 44.1k recording, in that order, the amount of energy
in that high of a frequency generally is so low that even if we could hear
that high it would be questionable whether we would hear it.

Your McDonalds analogy would be a better analogy if applied to lossy
compression, and MP3 in particular, rather than Digital vs Analog. A more
suitable analogy for digital vs analog is going to the fine restaurant,
having an amazing meal, and then being able to reproduce the exact same
meal every time(Digital), whereas a chef might make small changes to the
recipe(Analog).

>

The Shannon-Nyquist theorem was absolutely the primary inspiration behind
the choice of sample rates of CD. The theorem states that you can
reproduce exactly any frequency that you sample at over twice the
frequency. So when 44.1 was chosen, it allows for any frequency up to just
above 22kHz to be reproduced exactly. The limits of the average undamaged
human hearing is 20kHz, and the average limit for typical adult hearing is
probably closer to the 18k range if the ears were well taken care of. For
most people that listened to loud music, etc. that limit is probably much
lower.

>

The harmonics in question for a violin are all within the range of human
hearing. Harmonics occur at a regular mathematical interval above the
fundamental frequency, and the fundamental frequency is generally very low
in the range of our human hearing, for instance, since we are using a
violin as an example, concert tuning a is only 440Hz, meaning your second
harmonic occurs at 880, etc. very low in the overall range of human
hearing.

The only exception to this I know of is when you have an interaction of two
different frequencies that create a third 'phantom' frequency that can be
lower than the fundamental of either of the other two (I know there is a
better term for this, but the term I use to describe this in RF/wireless
mics is harmonic intermodulation).

> I also understand that vinyl is now increasingly (very slowly though)

Not according to any resource I can think of. Apple certainly isn't
selling portable vinyl players. 100% of the systems I design and install
for commercial, house of worship, etc. applications have not used vinyl. I
can't think of the last time I pulled out a vinyl record player. Not going
to say that some people don't prefer it, and I encourage them to if that is
what floats their boat, but the VAST majority of people are using digital
for many reasons that were listed by Monty Montgomery.

> Remember: If you sample at an infinite frequency you have analog, and

Actually no you don't really.

The universe is actually closer to digital to analog, as you either have
matter or not. To have high pressure compressions and low pressure
rarefactions that make up sound waves, you are still moving individual
molecules and the components that make them up. In the end you end up with
spaces that contain matter and spaces that don't. So if you were talk
above an infinite sampling rate, you would still end up with a digital
representation really. And of course at that level you are really only
doing 1 bit sampling, closer to DSD than PCM, and honestly it would be
fairly useless.

Seablade

--e89a8ff2459b93b5fa04d193fe80
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Chris Bannister =
<cbannis=
ter@slingshot.co.nz
> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12=
:39:17PM -0500, Thomas Vecchione wrote:

has
e
ll

Yeah, but what about harmonics? For truly PRO work, analog should be<=
br>
used. CD's came out as the poor mans quality stereo, it was a compromis=
e
for high quality vinyl. Just as McDonalds is a poor compromise for a
quality restaurant. But with the proliferation of advertising, huge
product selection, the rising cost of the real quality goods; digital
and McDonalds soon became the norm.No =
for many reasons.1. Harmonics, while they do extend abov=
e our range of hearing, and then above the limits of a 44.1k recording, in =
that order, the amount of energy in that high of a frequency generally is s=
o low that even if we could hear that high it would be questionable whether=
we would hear it.
Your McDonalds analogy would be a better analogy if applied =
to lossy compression, and MP3 in particular, rather than Digital vs Analog.=
=A0 A more suitable analogy for digital vs analog is going to the fine rest=
aurant, having an amazing meal, and then being able to reproduce the exact =
same meal every time(Digital), whereas a chef might make small changes to t=
he recipe(Analog).
=A0

I believe it was Shannon's law which basically stated that the sampling=

frequency should be twice as high as the highest frequency (or
bandwidth, if the lowest is zero). This was used in telecomunications
where a 4kHz (actually 3.4kHz but usually rounded off to 4kHz) bandwidth wa=
s
considered to be ample to convey human speech at a quality which was
considered acceptable. Therefore, an 8kHz sample rate was used.

I believe the same reasoning was used when they started fabricating CDs.
The Shannon-Nyquist theorem was absolu=
tely the primary inspiration behind the choice of sample rates of CD.=A0 Th=
e theorem states that you can reproduce exactly any frequency that you samp=
le at over twice the frequency.=A0 So when 44.1 was chosen, it allows for a=
ny frequency up to just above 22kHz to be reproduced exactly.=A0 The limits=
of the average undamaged human hearing is 20kHz, and the average limit for=
typical adult hearing is probably closer to the 18k range if the ears were=
well taken care of.=A0 For most people that listened to loud music, etc. t=
hat limit is probably much lower.
=A0
So, consider a musician playing a Stradivarius violin. You'd want to be=

able to reproduce all the tonal richness, and harmonics during the
recording phase. Some people say the ear can't hear above a certain
frequency anyway, so it doesn't matter whereas there are others who can=

pick the difference between a Stradivarius violin and an "ordinary&quo=
t;
violin.
The harmonics in question for a violin=
are all within the range of human hearing.=A0 Harmonics occur at a regular=
mathematical interval above the fundamental frequency, and the fundamental=
frequency is generally very low in the range of our human hearing, for ins=
tance, since we are using a violin as an example, concert tuning a is only =
440Hz, meaning your second harmonic occurs at 880, etc.=A0 very low in the =
overall range of human hearing.
The only exception to this I know of is when you have an int=
eraction of two different frequencies that create a third 'phantom'=
frequency that can be lower than the fundamental of either of the other tw=
o (I know there is a better term for this, but the term I use to describe t=
his in RF/wireless mics is harmonic intermodulation).
=A0
I also understand that vinyl is now increasingly (very slowly though)
becoming the preferred medium for listening to music.
Not according to any resource I can th=
ink of.=A0 Apple certainly isn't selling portable vinyl players.=A0 100=
% of the systems I design and install for commercial, house of worship, etc=
. applications have not used vinyl.=A0 I can't think of the last time I=
pulled out a vinyl record player.=A0 Not going to say that some people don=
't prefer it, and I encourage them to if that is what floats their boat=
, but the VAST majority of people are using digital for many reasons that w=
ere listed by Monty Montgomery.
=A0
Remember: If you sample at an infinite frequency you have analog, and
isn't the idea of quality digital to have a high sample rate.
Actually no you don't really.=
The universe is actually closer to digital to analog, as you either have ma=
tter or not.=A0 To have high pressure compressions and low pressure rarefac=
tions that make up sound waves, you are still moving individual molecules a=
nd the components that make them up.=A0 In the end you end up with spaces t=
hat contain matter and spaces that don't.=A0 So if you were talk above =
an infinite sampling rate, you would still end up with a digital representa=
tion really.=A0 And of course at that level you are really only doing 1 bit=
sampling, closer to DSD than PCM, and honestly it would be fairly useless.=

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Seablade

--e89a8ff2459b93b5fa04d193fe80--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., John Murphy, (Sat Dec 22, 2:58 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 23, 1:57 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., John Murphy, (Sun Dec 23, 2:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 23, 5:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Dec 22, 3:43 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Sat Dec 22, 5:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Dec 22, 5:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., John Murphy, (Sat Dec 22, 8:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Sat Dec 22, 9:00 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Dec 22, 9:16 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Sun Dec 23, 3:21 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Dec 22, 5:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Paul Davis, (Sat Dec 22, 5:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Dec 22, 6:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 23, 1:53 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sun Dec 23, 11:33 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 23, 5:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Bannister, (Mon Dec 24, 2:43 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Dec 24, 8:59 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ricardus Vincente, (Mon Dec 24, 3:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Mon Dec 24, 10:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Neil, (Mon Dec 24, 11:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ricardus Vincente, (Mon Dec 24, 11:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Neil, (Tue Dec 25, 1:34 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Tue Dec 25, 11:47 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Dec 24, 3:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Brent Busby, (Mon Dec 24, 4:46 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Dec 24, 9:12 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Florian Paul Schmidt, (Mon Dec 24, 9:45 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 12:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Jeremy Jongepier, (Tue Dec 25, 1:24 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Florian Paul Schmidt, (Tue Dec 25, 1:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Bannister, (Fri Dec 28, 2:35 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Florian Paul Schmidt, (Fri Dec 28, 10:31 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Bannister, (Fri Dec 28, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Sat Dec 29, 6:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Arnold Krille, (Sat Dec 29, 9:18 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Florian Paul Schmidt, (Sat Dec 29, 8:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Sat Dec 29, 11:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Bannister, (Sun Dec 30, 12:08 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Dec 30, 2:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Sat Dec 29, 6:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Cannam, (Fri Dec 28, 4:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Folderol, (Fri Dec 28, 5:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Cannam, (Fri Dec 28, 11:06 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Dec 28, 10:51 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Al Thompson, (Sat Dec 29, 2:03 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Dec 29, 11:27 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Al Thompson, (Sat Dec 29, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Raffaele Morelli, (Fri Dec 28, 11:12 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 2:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Bannister, (Fri Dec 28, 3:10 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Dec 28, 6:25 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Jeremy Jongepier, (Fri Dec 28, 1:29 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Dec 28, 2:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Gene Heskett, (Fri Dec 28, 7:13 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Thu Dec 27, 3:10 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Dec 27, 5:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Thu Dec 27, 11:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 5:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Neil, (Thu Dec 27, 10:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fernando Lopez-Lezcano, (Mon Dec 31, 2:28 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Neil, (Mon Dec 31, 8:15 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Charles Henry, (Mon Dec 31, 8:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Wed Jan 2, 8:35 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Neil, (Mon Dec 31, 9:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Charles Henry, (Mon Dec 31, 9:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Tim E. Real, (Mon Dec 31, 10:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Tue Jan 1, 5:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Al Thompson, (Tue Jan 1, 6:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Gene Heskett, (Tue Jan 1, 7:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Al Thompson, (Wed Jan 2, 12:26 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Tim E. Real, (Wed Jan 2, 8:14 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Al Thompson, (Wed Jan 2, 8:23 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Jan 8, 2:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Folderol, (Mon Dec 31, 10:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Wed Jan 2, 8:43 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Fri Dec 28, 2:38 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Thu Dec 27, 11:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Neil, (Fri Dec 28, 4:41 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Thu Dec 27, 11:24 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Thu Dec 27, 11:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Neil, (Thu Dec 27, 11:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Thu Dec 27, 11:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Gene Heskett, (Fri Dec 28, 12:22 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Dec 28, 5:30 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Dec 28, 12:18 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Sat Dec 29, 2:38 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Dec 29, 11:13 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Dec 29, 2:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Dec 29, 7:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Al Thompson, (Sun Dec 30, 4:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Dec 30, 4:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Len Ovens, (Sun Dec 30, 4:57 pm)
[LAU] Live mic and monitoring (was rant.), Len Ovens, (Sat Dec 29, 8:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] Live mic and monitoring (was rant.), Marius Janßen, (Sat Dec 29, 11:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] Live mic and monitoring (was rant.), Roger, (Sun Dec 30, 9:35 am)
Re: [LAU] Live mic and monitoring (was rant.), Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 30, 10:48 am)
Re: [LAU] Live mic and monitoring (was rant.), Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Sat Dec 29, 11:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] Live mic and monitoring (was rant.), Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 30, 10:43 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sat Dec 29, 2:55 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Bob van der Poel, (Sat Dec 29, 3:07 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Brett McCoy, (Thu Dec 27, 11:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Thu Dec 27, 11:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Al Thompson, (Wed Dec 26, 5:51 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Mon Dec 24, 7:17 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Brent Busby, (Mon Dec 24, 4:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 1:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Jeremy Jongepier, (Tue Dec 25, 1:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 2:27 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Tue Dec 25, 2:11 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Mon Dec 24, 5:08 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Dec 24, 2:27 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., SxDx, (Mon Dec 24, 3:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 1:27 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Dec 24, 3:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ricardus Vincente, (Mon Dec 24, 4:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Paul Davis, (Mon Dec 24, 3:46 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Dec 24, 4:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Mon Dec 24, 5:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Dec 24, 4:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Mon Dec 24, 3:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Paul Davis, (Mon Dec 24, 2:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 1:10 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Mon Dec 24, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., SxDx, (Mon Dec 24, 8:58 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Mon Dec 24, 3:14 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ricardus Vincente, (Mon Dec 24, 3:23 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Dec 23, 10:45 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 23, 5:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Dec 23, 9:35 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Thomas Vecchione, (Sun Dec 23, 10:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Dec 23, 10:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Sun Dec 23, 10:32 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Sun Dec 23, 10:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Joe Hartley, (Sun Dec 23, 6:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Dec 23, 9:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Gene Heskett, (Sun Dec 23, 7:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Dec 23, 10:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Chris Bannister, (Mon Dec 24, 3:20 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Dec 24, 1:55 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 12:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Gene Heskett, (Thu Dec 27, 1:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Thu Dec 27, 3:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Gene Heskett, (Mon Dec 24, 4:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Mon Dec 24, 3:47 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Mon Dec 24, 3:49 am)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Monty Montgomery, (Sun Dec 23, 10:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Paul Davis, (Sat Dec 22, 9:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Dec 22, 10:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant., Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Dec 22, 7:10 pm)