Michael Green Audio Forum

Our Website  HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 

 Tuning and Musical Adventures

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Michael Green

Posts : 3495
Join date : 2009-09-12
Location : Vegas/Ohio/The Beach

PostSubject: Re: Tuning and Musical Adventures   Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:26 am

Just a quicky post.

I don't see in-room systems and headphone systems as being the same hobby. Car audio, headphones, home theatre and home audio and live listening are in reality 5 different hobbies. Home theatre and home audio many times intermingle, but I don't see headphones as a replacement for the other modes. Headphones and ear plugs are very cool, but they're not an in-room system by any means.

The in-room audio listener is into a full body experience, a completely different sensation from headphone listening. Not sure you can replace one for the other. And remember this, just because HEA fails, it doesn't mean in-room systems fail. For example, look at how many listeners use products like Sonos.

I don't think being an audiophile means you have to choose between options. HEA going the wrong direction for a while doesn't mean that the typical audiophile went along with these limited fixed systems. Most listeners simply stepped away from HEA, or never knew HEA existed, but I don't think that means you throw away the room. What it does mean is the audiophile community is far bigger than HEA.

michael green
PH 702 762 3245
Email mgtune@yahoo.com
Back to top Go down

Posts : 2166
Join date : 2009-09-18

PostSubject: Re: Tuning and Musical Adventures   Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:53 am

Tested My System’s Frequency Response

Sonic ran some test tones from 1kHz down to below 30hz and I got a handle of my systems freqency response into the bass.

This is the first time Sonic did any form of testing since the time the Magneplanar 1.5QRs were moved from the nearfield to a mid-field position (and the Janis W-1 subwoofer system withdrawn). The move of the Magneplanar MG1.5QRs towards the front wall I reported in December 2016 and later bringing the panels to 14 inches from the side walls in July 2017.

For this test, Sonic kept still and maintained a locked position of the measuring SPL meter (Ratshack) given that sine tones were used.

I used 500hz at 70db as the 0db reference point. For this test, Sonic used the Ratshack only to back up my listening impressions such if there is a peak or dip being heard. Given the inaccuracies of the Ratshack, the actual numbers I read off the meter are reported because they are not considered accurate.

What Sonic learnt was (within the limits of measurement and my hearing capability):

a. the frequency response is flat from 300hz to 1khz.

b. moving down in frequency, there is a rise in bass from 200 hz down with a peak at 80hz, then the response drops a bit in the 70 – 80hz range.

c. in the lower bass range we have a broad peak from 70hz down to 50hz where response is very strong compared to the reference level.

d. when 40 and 45 hz are reached, the response is falling back to a level similar to the reference.

e. there is still some useable output in the high 30hz range, below which the response drops off sharply and by 30hz and below the signals are inaudible.

Sonic is rather pleased with this result as it shows adequate bass and explains why playback of classical (except the deepest organ notes) and jazz music have more than enough bass, sometimes too much, yet other types of music can, depending on the recording, go unexpectedly thin because of the relative dip at 70 - 80hz dip. It also tells me why I can often listen at low levels with reasonable satisfaction, the rising bass gives some compensation for the Fletcher-Munson effect of the ear’s declining sensitivity to bass frequencies with falling volume level.

Of course, if I want to be really methodical, Sonic should take a number of readings in spots at and around my listening position and average them.


Back to top Go down

Posts : 2166
Join date : 2009-09-18

PostSubject: Re: Tuning and Musical Adventures   Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:35 am

Tuneability Tips

Yes Zonees and good readers, Sonic has a suggestion how you can achieve tuneability quite simply and it is how I have learnt to EQ my sound for different recordings I listen to – digital, analog, music, drama, historical recordings.

This post will need Michael’s guidance of course!

Sonic understands that the mighty tuneable systems of the Mighty Tunees Hiend001, tjbhuler, Bill333, Drewster may not be for everyone with their top-tune canopies, low-to-the-floor platforms, open chassis and tuneable loudspeakers. That level of tuning is not even for me.

My system and room are actually very modestly tuned compared to the standards of Mr Green and the Mighty Tunees’ rooms and systems. All my gear is loosened up enough so they sound easy and there is acoustic treatment from MGA enough to deal with the hard sound of my room walls.

So to start you on the road to tuneability, Sonic will like to discuss how I am using small amounts of equalization to achieve musical satisfaction. This assumes you have an integrated amp or preamp with Tone Control knobs (bass and treble, even better if you have a third midrange control too!), otherwise you will need an EQ box like the JVC SEA-10 Sonic uses.

So here are three simple ways you can get started – involving Taking Stock, Carrying Out Equalisation and Exorcising Yourself:

Taking Stock – you are going to use EQ to gently compensate for difference in recordings to make them sound best in your home. If you have High End Audiophile thoughts buzzing in your brain, tell yourself now that just because a recording needs compensation does not mean that it is a bad recording or your system is junk.

If you can play many recordings Flat till now without discomfort is a sign your room/system is in the ballpark!

The good news is they can sound much better and you can enjoy them more with equalization.

Now think of each recording you play in these terms – ask yourself:

1. Is this recording is too bright and thin?

2. Is this recording is too bassy and muddy?

3. Is there is something wrong in the mids – either pushed too forward or too distant?

Of course you might be in a happy place where the particular recording you have chosen plays flat enjoyably then you sit back and be happy in the music till the next recording you want to hear.

On the other hand, you might face one of these issues or sometimes a combination of two of these flaws.

Usually nowadays you will find the majority of problematic recordings will be "bright and thin" rather than "bassy and muddy" and sometimes are recessed mid (Nr 3) and "bright and thin".

EQ can make flawed recordings of good music enjoyable but Zonees should understand there are issues which EQ will not fix: room boom or overhang from slap echoes. Also there are spatial things captured by the microphones that systems will not playback properly unless they are tuned the way Michael, Hiend001, Bill333, tjbhuler do things.

These will include late 1960s analog pop recordings where the whole drum kit is recorded full range but compressed and mixed “small” into one speaker like some early Bee Gees, or guitars on/in a speaker which when fully tuned can explode in side and project forward and back of the speakers like in the Led Zeppelin recording which Michael reported.

Carrying Out Equalisation – When you next play music from any source listen to the first track for a few seconds and ask yourself “do I like this sound Flat? If not, what do I need to do?”

Then trust your judgment and use your tone controls. You can either turn up the bass if the recording is thin (and vice versa, turn down the bass if there is too much) OR you can “do a Walker” by turning up the bass a little and turning down the treble to mimic Peter Walker’s shelf controls his Quad preamps.

That will be it with many recordings – even just fixing one end of the frequency range will often make things more listenable. Forward or recessed mids are harder to fix with just Bass and Treble tone controls. If you have a Mid control, use it. If you have an EQ, adjust the 1kHz up or down.

Then enjoy the music.

Zero the controls at the end of the record and play the next recording on your playlist. Adjust to taste with tone controls and enjoy the music. Do this over and over until the use of your tone controls become second nature.

After a bit practice you will instinctively be able to compensate on the fly. Trust your instinct. Do not worry about the last dB of correction. Experiment a bit – you like Bob Marley? Play some tracks and push the bass up. At some point you will feel the music move you and then past than the music gets muddy. Learn as you go along. If your CD sounds bass light add a bit more bass and maybe a bit of treble cut and you will brings it way closer to “perfection” than any system played Flat.

Do not worry if you have overdone things or under-compensated by 1dB. You are in this to enjoy music – leave the obsessing to High End Audiophiles and their “fixed sound”!

The Red Flag to observe is this: if you are using tone control knobs you just be able to fix your recordings within 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock at most, assuming the tone control Zero adjustment is 12 o’clock. If your tone control is using sliders or you have an EQ box like Sonic, you should never need more than +/- 3 dB at any frequency. Big boosts or cuts indicate major issues that may not lie in the recordings but in the room and system equipment chain. If this occurs, note where the problem is and PM Michael for advice.

Exorcising Yourself – exorcise the evil spirits of HEA from your mind! Just because your system cannot play your favourite Beatles, Bach or Bob James flat DOES NOT make it a failure! Resist the corrupting spirit of HEA whispering in your ear “the best systems play everything Flat.”

Your reply to the evil spirit of HEA is: “I don’t care because I am enjoying the music more than ever!”

Remember all amps and preamps had tone controls until Julian Vereker of Naim made the first preamp without tone controls in the early 1970s. Audiophiles in the 1950s and 60s had tone controls and EQs and were not afraid to use it. Sonic learnt not to be a prisoner to HEA-thought. You can set yourself free too!

Take your time to develop the instinctive skill of tonal adjustment. Don’t think you have to get it right today. You can always get it right tomorrow.

Don’t let the evil spirit of HEA tell you “how do you know you are not corrupting the musician’s intention by using EQ?”

Your response: “if I achieve a musical existential experience, I have honoured the artiste! And you, the HEA people do not enjoy the music more by playing them Flat!”

And get practice…your skill in using tone controls/EQ is an art. It took Sonic a surprisingly short time to develop this.

Train yourself by going to jazz clubs, rock concerts and classical performances – any musical performance you like...string quartets, reggae, blues, drum & bass, Indian ragas, Chinese opera, Lapland throat singing. Enjoy the music then try to bring the feel and tone of the live musical event back home with your tone controls. When you can do that instinctively you will unlock so much more of our hobby!


Back to top Go down

Posts : 2166
Join date : 2009-09-18

PostSubject: Re: Tuning and Musical Adventures   Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:14 am

More on the PSVane 12AX7-TIIs  

Sonic has now exceeded 80 hours of burn-in of the PSVane 12AX7-TIIs, we have reached the manufacturer’s recommended hours of burn-in and Sonic can hear that a core sound of the PSVanes is emerging.

Sonic thinks the sound is pretty good though different from the vintage sound of the Mullards – with the PSvanes we are hearing a modern tube sound which is defined by smooth clarity with much tauter transients especially in the bass.  Sonic is listening to a Three Blind Mice CD – the Isoo Fukui Quartet – and is surprised how deep the bass went and how tight it is.  

With the Mullard/Eicos, the sense of the sound in particular the bass is bigger though but with a slightly slower presentation. The PSVanes seem to lack the forgiving quality of the Mullard/Eicos meaning Sonic can hear more clearly if an LP is worn – the Mullards whisper in my ear “there might be some wear in these grooves” while the PSVane make a more forceful “listen to the wear in these grooves!”

However the PSVane 12AX7-TIIs present music well and from what I am told by friends of PSVane tubes, the tubes will age well and be very musical beyond 100 hours and stabilise there for the Long Term.

And given what Michael said years ago about tubes settling in, the sound will continue to develop for years Shocked


Back to top Go down

Posts : 2166
Join date : 2009-09-18

PostSubject: Re: Tuning and Musical Adventures   Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:19 am

Greetings Zonees

Have a read – this article (dating from July – September 2011) appears to show that even different brands and forms of storage devices for our WAV, FLAC and MP3 files affect the sound we eventually hear in our rooms.


For full article and pictures go to:

From EnjoytheMusic.com/the HIFICRITIC Vol. 5 No.3

Quoted text begins:

Listening tests reveal significant sound quality differences between various digital music storage technologies.

Article By Andrew Harrison and Stephen N. Harris

Press 'play' on the remote control, and the chosen music selection sounds out into the room, sweet and clear. However, instead of a revolving record or compact disc, that music is now preserved as a digital snapshot, stored around the home on computer hard disks, perhaps a specific music track among tens of thousands that are randomly accessible in an instant. A decade or two ago, it would have been science fiction — but now sofa-punishing levels of convenience allow us to hear any music in our collection, without so much as opening a jewel case.

However, computer network audio is about rather more than convenience. It has as much to do with consistency, arguably more so than the 'perfect sound forever' CD ever did. Once favorite CDs have been carefully ripped into a stateless digital form — hopefully using software respected for its fastidious bit-accurate transcriptions — we just need somewhere safe to store all that data. The same goes for higher resolution material we may have archived from recordings or downloaded from online 'HD music' sites. For playback, the initial sound quality will presumably be determined by high quality D-A conversion and subsequent analogue replay chain.

Problem is, the sound of 'bit-identical' computer audio may well be just as inexplicably inconsistent as analogue. High-end audio has long been affected by seemingly insignificant environmental factors; and as we move further towards hard-disk — and, ultimately, solid-state — storage, we're discovering that another variable can unhinge the final musical experience. Only this time, there are even fewer answers why.

Anecdotal murmurings and some limited first-hand experience suggested that digital music files can sound different when played from different computer media sources. Take the simple playback of a stereo audio file, such as FLAC, Apple Lossless or uncompressed WAV, for example. Such a music file is typically played from either a computer's internal hard-disk drive, the network-attached storage (NAS) on the local home network (LAN), or maybe a USB thumbdrive. Is it really possible that the sound quality of bit-identical audio files' is influenced by their storage medium before being delivered to the hi-fi system's DAC?

Fellow computer audio enthusiast (and Naim PR person) Stephen Harris and I launched into some preliminary listening tests, to establish under reasonably controlled conditions if audible, repeatable differences could really be heard. We readily confirmed that the final sound quality is influenced not only by the choice of network player, DAC, digital cables, or indeed many other long-recognized factors, but additionally — and quite markedly — by the manner in which we now store large quantities of our music at home.

Initial tests compared two NAS drives from the same manufacturer, played through a reference two-channel system. The two drives were solid, reliable units and essentially equivalent — yet they also had certain intrinsic differences which we hoped might reveal any audible differences if they were present. While both had the same overall chassis and software operating system, their four-bay storage had a different array of 3.5in hard disks. Additionally, the two units also had different processor architectures, which might also affect perceived audible differences.

Having established early on that these two NAS units did indeed sound quite different, we went on to isolate differences between the individual drives, this time mounting all types concurrently in the same NAS chassis. Now we were in for an even bigger surprise.

Listening to Two QNAPs
With these two quite similar NAS units to hand, a good starting point was to compare them to see just how obvious was the sound quality difference. On the face of it, there was little to differentiate the QNAP TS-439 Pro and QNAP TS-419P+ (dubbed QNAP1 and QNAP2 respectively). Both are four-bay boxes for users who need terabytes of storage capacity, with various RAID redundancy options to protect data in the event of disk failures.

QNAP1 is able to read and write files slightly faster. It uses an Intel Atom 1.6GHz single-core processor, and was configured with four 2TB Seagate LP so-called 'green' type hard disks that spin at around 5900rpm (rather than the more common 7200rpm). Though this makes it marginally quieter, a multi-bay NAS drive is rarely suited for sitting in a listening room unless inside a thoroughly sound-deadening cupboard.
QNAP2 has a very different Marvell ARM 1.6GHz processor, optimized for lower power consumption, and was fitted with four 2TB Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 disks.

QNAP1 was found to serve up music with a similar level of rhythmic drive and image soundstaging as a good CD transport playing directly into our system's DAC. If anything, there was perceptibly more 'drive', in the sense of bass euphony and articulation, but this came with increased level which made the sound a tad bass heavy.

Also, QNAP1 did not sound as clean as CD in the higher registers. Some edgy grain exaggerated the sampled horns that sets the scene in the opening of Primal Scream's Loaded, adding to the color but nudging it off neutrality. Splash cymbals lived up to their name.

QNAP2 rendered the same song more tunefully. It was more organic and made more sense, the lines of melody and rhythm cooperating better. As well as showing better individual instrument distinction, the whole piece sounded tidier, tonally less messy without the roughened HF, and perhaps better integrated in musical intent.

So that's rocky electronica, sounding a bit more wiry and rougher through one NAS drive compared to another.

Penguin Café Orchestra's Union Café has an altogether more natural recorded acoustic. On Scherzo and Trio QNAP1 promoted the leading edge piano transients, following through with a lighter, brighter instrument tone – possibly Steinway-like? The same piano had more lower mid body on QNAP2 and slightly softer hammer impact, perhaps more like a Bosendörfer.

That hint of glaze on QNAP1 also showed an impaired subjective noise floor elsewhere. In hi-fi parlance, QNAP2 had the blacker silences and deeper spaces between notes. If anything, this track highlighted a fundamental shift in timbre between the storage sources. This wasn't the gentle tweak of a DAC's digital filter option; we felt it was more akin to changing loudspeakers. System sound was improved as if the DAC itself had been upgraded, say from a £500 to a £2000 model.

Madonna's Swim also proved illuminating. William Orbit's judicious dollops of bass synth showed how the QNAP1 had been exaggerating some of that low energy (albeit at the higher end of the range, so leaving 'infrasonic' impact somewhat weakened). QNAP2 was undoubtedly tighter here, and more disciplined.

So, having lined up two NAS drives from the same manufacturer, mixing up their disks and processors, it took just a few tracks to render the sonic differences obvious. Now it was time to try and isolate parts of the storage chains. For example, we had no idea if we were hearing differences in the processor architecture or between the hard-disk (or solid state) drives.

Different Drives, Same NAS
While most NAS drives fit the standard 3.5in Serial ATA hard disk, it's not uncommon now to find support for the laptop-size 2.5in units too. The Synology DS411slim is built expressly to take these smaller hard drives.

The DS411slim is an ARM-powered NAS. Like QNAP it uses a versatile Linux operating system, but Synology's firmware allows easy setup of individual, separately addressable volumes. We selected two traditional hard-disk drives (HDDs), and two solid-state drives (SSDs): a 500GB Hitachi Travelstar 7K500,a 500GB Seagate Momentus 7200.4, a 128GB Kingston SSDNow and a 120GB Corsair F120.

In our initial listening tests, I couldn't discern any tangible difference in sound between the two hard drives. Harris thought the Hitachi sounded very ethereal, almost out of phase, and rated it lowest; the Seagate was sharper with a more thumpy bass, slightly brighter with a slight tendency to sibilance. Both lacked much drive in presenting the Madonna track, and were certainly 'mushy' compared with the best sound quality we'd heard from the QNAP stable.

Drive three (a solid state type) gave a far from subtle shift in tone and soundstaging. I thought that here this Kingston SSD spread the stage wider, could really pull apart the multi-track layers, and certainly led in blackness too, sounding agreeably quieter than it had any right to. Yet there was also a dull flatness to its presentation, even a graying of timbre.

If the Kingston SSD stood apart from the disk drives for its mostly good yet quite alien character, drive four made itself known for entirely the wrong reasons. This Corsair drive (another SSD) conspicuously highlighted vocal sibilants, and had a hard, relentless quality that was impossible to miss. Strangely, it also robbed the music of pace; it was the least engaging on any emotional level thanks to an enveloping tunelessness that appeared to carve up a song like an MP3 rip. (It may be quite significant that the Corsair Force Series F120 takes a rather unusual approach to handling its data I/O. The Sandforce SF1200 controller chip uses what Sandforce calls DuraClass technology, which suggests this SSD's microcontroller is exerting itself more than usual in order to maintain a high throughput of data.)

In a quick personal ranking to date, covering all these tests, my notes put the Kingston SSD's sound quality first — with hindsight more a cerebral than an emotional choice — then the QNAP2, followed by either of the 2.5in drives in the Synology DS411slim. QNAP2 still had perhaps the most engaging bass performance of the crop, but its involving musicality came at the expense of a somewhat narrower soundstage.

The System
The reference system comprised a dCS Purcell upsampler and Delius DAC, feeding a Music First Audio system controller and Chord Electronics SPM1200C power amp, and Bowers & Wilkins 802D loudspeakers. Cabling was predominantly Nordost, with an Isotek Titan mains conditioner.

The link between the NAS units and the traditional hi-fi comprised two Naim units, a UnitiServe and an NDX. The UnitiServe was primarily used as a CD ripping tool and a network media server. The Naim NDX is a network music streamer with onboard DACs, bypassed here to use the dCS two-box DAC.

The various storage drives were sited in another room, connected to a Cisco Linksys E4200 wireless gigabit router in the listening room via 25m of Belkin Cat 6 Ethernet cable. Another gigabit switch in the remote room (a Netgear ProSafe GS108), enabled several NAS units to be online at the same time, each connected to the router/switch with high-quality Cat 5e patch cable.

Tentative Conclusions
This initial trial was not intended to be an exhaustive study into all the factors that can affect the sound quality of network and computer audio, only to confirm or deny the suspicion that digital bitstream coming from hard disks are not all equal. Which has to be somewhat surprising, to say the least.

By now we should know better, and acknowledge that digital audio is very far from immutable. Most of the troubling inconsistencies in CD playback, for example, have been at the point of domain conversion, typically the digital-to-analogue conversion in the playback chain. But the movement of digital bitstreams around the system, such as over a 75-Ohm cable from disc transport to DAC, have been prone to known and definable transmission problems — more so for the venerable S/PDIF standard that rolls up the clock signal within the data channel.

Carriage of digital data over Ethernet, for example, ought to be less troubled by the vagaries of the cable and interfaces. And what of the data being unraveled at the source, from the hard disk or solid-state drive? Why should the type or brand of the disk have such an audible impact on the final sound quality? Clearly, there's scope for more hypotheses to be set and tests undertaken, with lab measurement as well as subjective listening. Maybe we can solicit logical explanations from engineers who understand the low-level mechanics and operation of computer file and storage technologies, and can suggest specific avenues to explore.

This first test was also not intended as a buyers' guide to decide which disk or NAS is likely to work best in high-end audio applications. But our findings suggest there may certainly be some mileage in such reviews, once the several variables have been reduced sufficiently to be sure we're hearing the fingerprint of a specific NAS unit, or hard disk, or perhaps the way the disks are combined in a particular array.

Another Wildcard: The Striped Synology
here are many variables in network audio, as many (quite possibly more) than in an analogue-only hi-fi system. Take RAID arrays. A RAID ('redundant array of independent disks) is a neat way to combine the capacity of several smaller disks to make one larger addressable volume.

A number of disks may be combined in three main ways, with benefits like increasing read/write/latency performance, or building in succinct redundancy by sharing the same data between disks, so that whole disks can be pulled out without any overall data loss. Some RAID setups — arguably the best, given at least four to play with — improve both speed and safety. These are RAID 5 (with enough redundancy to allow one disk's complete loss/ removal); RAID 6 (two disks); and RAID 10 (one or two, depending on which of the four actually expire).

The RAIDing of volumes could be the subject of a further investigation, to see if compounding disks may even exaggerate their audible signatures. For this initial study, we pulled out another Synology NAS unit, a DS211 two-bay box with two 2TB Western Digital RE4-GP 'green' disks set up in RAID 0. In other words, the two disks have data striped across both to augment performance. In the best case something like the sum of each individual drive's data throughput can be exploited, but at the risk of total data loss in the event of one disk expiring.

While this additional test was in no way scientific, we thought it would be worth finding out if this alternative NAS box/disk/RAID configuration offered anything different in our initial delve into the sonic differences of storage systems.

As it turned out, it was possibly the best sounding source yet. It could sustain pace and drive, and gave body and richness to music where the Kingston SSD, for example, had been heard as limpid and lightweight. Maybe higher frequencies still weren't as insightful as direct CD playback at its best, but the sound had a relaxed quality that this listener has found quite enticing enough to plan a migration of all music onto it — pending a test of other NAS combinations!

Back to top Go down

Posts : 2166
Join date : 2009-09-18

PostSubject: Re: Tuning and Musical Adventures   Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:56 am

Changes As They Come

Sonic is now thinking of this room with a view of the maintainability of the system.

To achieve this, I need to address some things.

One is the numerous DTs hanging from the ceiling. They work but Sonic has never been happy with this arrangement. While it solves some of the acoustic problems it looks untidy and makes cleaning the upper reaches of the room inconvenient when using ladders and other cleaning equipment Sonic uses which knocks into them.

Then there are the multiplicity of EchoTunes mounted on the ceiling (not at the ceiling/wall seams) as devices to break the flow of pressure at the ceiling. They are cobweb and dust magnets.

The acoustic control that has been achieved for this room and Sonic’s understanding of it through Michael’s guidance has put me in a place to address these issues. This is because Sonic is at heart a cleanliness freak (NOT I emphasise one with OCD).

While those who have management control of my dwelling tolerate what Sonic has done, I am also receiving hints that things must be cleaned up since Sonic has indicated my satisfaction with the sound quality. On inviting them for a listen they agree the sound is good.

Together we agreed that Sonic will work to maintain all the good Tuning gains achieved in this room (the elimination of the “hard wall ring” colouration) while rationalising the way things are hung and stuck about in the room.

A course of action is being rolled out and will be reported over the next few weeks.


Back to top Go down
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: Tuning and Musical Adventures   

Back to top Go down
Tuning and Musical Adventures
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 Similar topics
» Tom Tom Resonant Head Tuning
» musical purpose
» Musical Youth - John Peel Sessions (1982)
» GN'R vs Nirvana mentioned in VH1's "Top Five Musical Feuds"
» Derrick Morgan Selection

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Michael Green Audio Forum :: Listener's Forum :: Audio Around the World-
Jump to: