RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Kick back and talk about anything here. Music or non Music related..Anything goes....within reason!

Moderators: parametric, Derek, Fozzer, Saul

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Wed May 17, 2017 8:14 pm

Cheers Saul,
Saul wrote:As for brands of SD card do keep in mind it's not just the "brand" but also the speed. The "sustained" read/write rate. All cards are definitely not made equal but you should be fine with Sandisk, Kingston, Corsair, OCz etc. I usually go for a Class 10 card. They are a little more expensive but I have never had any problems with them but saying that, Class 4 and above should be ok.
I am going to go with this SanDisk one:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00V62XBQQ/ ... =UTF8&th=1

I spent ages hunting around. This is 200GB for £65.99. I have some Amazon gift-voucher credit to use up. Plus I am on a Prime trial-period so I get next-day free-delivery (so yes, I can trace it being dispatched from Wigan Depot at 4am again!).

But strangely, if I want the SanDisk 256GB SD card, then it's over 100 quid?! I only thought it would only be another tenner or something?

Ta,

Paul

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Thu May 18, 2017 8:54 pm

Thanks Saul,

I took a look at the two STREAMING subscription sites thanks. Yes, you do have to provide your credit card details prior to receiving their free-trial-month period. I had to do the same for Amazon when trialling 'Prime' and 'Videos'. I may or may not do this though, I am not sure. I have kind of gotten to the point where I am reluctant to 'joining' things - if you know what I mean!
Saul wrote:Yeah converting from one lossy format to another is not ideal but in reality your not likely to hear too much difference if any. Remember this is "conversion" not re-compression.

Personally I would rip my cd's to flac and be done with it. The ripping process is pretty quick and the quality gains are huge and I think as you will be mostly listening through headphones? you will definitely notice the difference.
Ok, I don't want to keep spinning you around in circles (as I am myself!) but I would like clarification again please, if you would be so kind:

If I rip a CD on my PC using FLAC, then I will then have a file which is as-near-as-damn-it as good a quality as the original. It would still be 16/44.1 and would also be 'uncompressed'. And it is only possible to attain such audio quality by using FLAC. I think, in-a-nutshell, that is fairly correct.

However, a few posts back, I mentioned that:

. . . at the weekend I ran a little A/B test in which I listened to an mp3 of a song and then compared it to the same song played on the hard-copy CD. This was performed using the same £50+ Sennheiser phones (which I know I can trust - having owned them since the 1990's). I could hear no difference (or perhaps maybe the tiniest amount of slight negligible contrast) between the mp3 and hard-copy CD. Now, "maybe my ears are crap" you might argue! True; but they are not THAT crap! In which case (Saul), you kindly recommend I rip the special CD's I want to have (on my new Sony Walkman) using FLAC. That is perfectly fair enough - but it would only make justifiable sense if I (me!) can actually detect an appreciable difference between WMA/mp3 and the newly ripped FLAC version! As you can tell, I am taking into consideration that you yourself (and others like Chris or John etc) CAN in fact detect a difference between the latter mentioned comparison, and therefore your 'ears' maybe more tuned/skilled than my own! But my reason for laboring this distinction is because if I (me) can't tell any difference between them then there is no point in re-ripping the CD's again (in FLAC).

Now, when I listened to the sample tracks of "Bitches Brew" - I posted the LINK at the weekend - on that FLAC 96/24 download retail site, then I really COULD hear a difference more or less straight away!

Ta,

Paul

User avatar
Saul
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:00 am
Contact:
Ireland

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by Saul » Thu May 18, 2017 11:01 pm

Ok but that sample of 'Bitches Brew' was actually recorded at a much higher bit rate than CD which is 16bit 44.1Khz and that is why there was such a noticeable difference.

The other thing is it all depends on the original material. Some cd's will sound better than others in much the way some movies look better than others.

I think the bottom line is "trust your ears" if it sounds better for you then that is what really matters :)
Saul
Site Admin
Sign up to the Newsletter
FREE Home Recording Training Video Course
Follow me on Twitter @YamahaMusicians
Follow Us On Facebook
Epiphone EJ-200CE/Taylor 114e ES2/Yamaha FG830/Roland Juno DS88/Pianoteq Pro/Amplitube 3.0/Apple iPad Air 2/Apple iMac 27"/GarageBand 10.0.3/Logic Pro X/Absynth 5/Ableton Live 8/KRK Rokit RP5 G3 Monitors/Focusrite Scarlett2i2 2nd gen
Mac & PC Computer Repairs, Upgrades. Web Hosting, Installation and Design www.thegraphicscompany.uk

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Thu May 18, 2017 11:17 pm

Cheers Saul,

I meant 41kHz and not 44.1. But thanks for pointing out my typo!

So the 24/96 FLAC versions are only available if the record company (Columbia in this case) have made this format available, hence enabling online music retailers to purchase it from them, and sell it on to consumers like us?

In other words, it is impossible for anyone to craft a 24/96 FLAC out of some other pre-existing format they might own (eg. a regular CD)?

If the record company has not made it available in 24/96 then nobody is going to be be able to access this version?

Ta,

Paul

User avatar
Saul
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:00 am
Contact:
Ireland

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by Saul » Thu May 18, 2017 11:49 pm

monsterjazzlicks wrote:Cheers Saul,

I meant 41kHz and not 44.1. But thanks for pointing out my typo!

So the 24/96 FLAC versions are only available if the record company (Columbia in this case) have made this format available, hence enabling online music retailers to purchase it from them, and sell it on to consumers like us?

In other words, it is impossible for anyone to craft a 24/96 FLAC out of some other pre-existing format they might own (eg. a regular CD)?

If the record company has not made it available in 24/96 then nobody is going to be be able to access this version?

Ta,

Paul
That's it. You can't make a 24/96 out of a 16/44.1

The only reason you don't see more 24/96 is partly because of the file sizes but also because most people have no idea about the difference in quality and probably don't care. It's only really us musos that are really interested in the fine details.
Saul
Site Admin
Sign up to the Newsletter
FREE Home Recording Training Video Course
Follow me on Twitter @YamahaMusicians
Follow Us On Facebook
Epiphone EJ-200CE/Taylor 114e ES2/Yamaha FG830/Roland Juno DS88/Pianoteq Pro/Amplitube 3.0/Apple iPad Air 2/Apple iMac 27"/GarageBand 10.0.3/Logic Pro X/Absynth 5/Ableton Live 8/KRK Rokit RP5 G3 Monitors/Focusrite Scarlett2i2 2nd gen
Mac & PC Computer Repairs, Upgrades. Web Hosting, Installation and Design www.thegraphicscompany.uk

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Thu May 18, 2017 11:53 pm

Thanks Saul,

I kinda wish I was never informed about FLAC as I am sort of 'hooked' now - as you can probably tell! :?

So you don't think the average-Joe would be able to notice the superiority of a 24/96 version?

I will have some more questions over the weekend, if you don't mind, as I have been digging a little deeper in the purchasing side of things. . .

Ta,

Paul

User avatar
Saul
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:00 am
Contact:
Ireland

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by Saul » Fri May 19, 2017 8:19 am

Well I'm pretty sure if you were to tell someone about the differences and then present say a 24/96 next to the average mp3 they would be able to tell the difference however, it's as I said before, are the differences so great that they would be willing to spend so much more money on the flac version? For us musicians I would say yes but then we are listening to "everything" in the track because we have an interest in the instruments as well as the music itself.

Services like Spotify are so popular because they give the majority of people access to so much music at relatively little cost and at a "perceived" quality that they are happy with.

Speaking personally if I could stream in 24/96 for all my music then it would definitely be worth paying the extra but right now the only "higher quality" services that are available are all CD 16/44.1 and I really don't think that is worth the sort of money they are asking.

By the way that was my typo earlier not yours. It should always be 44.1Khz :)
Saul
Site Admin
Sign up to the Newsletter
FREE Home Recording Training Video Course
Follow me on Twitter @YamahaMusicians
Follow Us On Facebook
Epiphone EJ-200CE/Taylor 114e ES2/Yamaha FG830/Roland Juno DS88/Pianoteq Pro/Amplitube 3.0/Apple iPad Air 2/Apple iMac 27"/GarageBand 10.0.3/Logic Pro X/Absynth 5/Ableton Live 8/KRK Rokit RP5 G3 Monitors/Focusrite Scarlett2i2 2nd gen
Mac & PC Computer Repairs, Upgrades. Web Hosting, Installation and Design www.thegraphicscompany.uk

User avatar
SysExJohn
Member
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:00 am
Contact:
Uganda

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by SysExJohn » Fri May 19, 2017 9:26 am

C'mon guys, don't you read my posts any more?

Not 41kHz, nor 44kHz (closer) but 44.1 kHz see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_D ... ital_Audio.

No-one (but bats) can hear up to 48kHz. That's what 96kHz sampling gives.
We can only hear up to 20kHz when we're young. From the early twenties we start to lose the high frequencies and this continues into old age.

24 bit sampling just increases the dynamic range, which at 96dB (CD) is sufficient anyway.

The differences you're hearing are due to a remix, including more of the close mic recording.
If you wrote that FLAC recording to CD, it would still sound the same.

It's all marketing HYPE!
Don't be fooled.

Snake oil has a greater effect! ;-)
MIDI Tutor forum at http://midi-tutor.proboards.com/index.cgi.
UW500; 2xMU1000 + PLGs AN, DX, VL, VH & PF; SC8850; EWI4000s + VL70m; Samson Graphite 49.
AN1x, Novation X-Station 25. E-MU 02 cardbus + 1616m x 2. Sonar 7 PE. XGworks ST. & SQ01.
Garritan GPO4, COMB2, JABB3, IO, Organs, Steinway, World, Harps + GPO5.

User avatar
Saul
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:00 am
Contact:
Ireland

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by Saul » Fri May 19, 2017 10:39 am

Of course we are splitting hairs here. The sort of differences we are talking about can easily be wiped out by a large amount of variables from the audio interface you use to the monitors/speakers/headphones and the listening environment.

All of which is why I keep mentioning cost and file size vs returns. IF your happy with the cost and the increased file size then absolutely no reason not to record at 24/96. Most modern audio interfaces will easily record at those levels. The Yamaha AG03 and AG06 I have here can do 24/196 and for just over £100 that is pretty decent. 196khz though is definitely marketing hype!

I thought this from Tweakheadz kind of summed it up :
Use 24 bit for every recording if you have this feature. I was a believer for the past decade that 16 bit was the way to go and I have absolutely changed my mind. No matter of what you are recording this is true. If you have a nice mic, a very good preamp and a clean audio system and are recording highly dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitars, classical orchestras, acapella vocals, the difference will be there. But! Its not that 24 bits of data makes the sound better. It actually does not. What is does is give your audio more room to breathe in the numeric realm of digital audio. Remember, we are talking about numbers, calculations, not analog waveforms. With 24 bits of data demarcing your recording medium, its is possible to record extremely dynamic music, with very quiet soft passages and extraordinary loud passages. Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system. One can record with no compression. You can record at lower levels, with more headroom. This ensures that the occasional peak is not truncated at the top and it will give converters some room the breathe. Because you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth, your instruments will sound clearer, and the vocals may sound "cleaner", the song will mix better and there will be less noise. So its not that 24 bit recordings sound better. In fact they may sound just as bad or worse than 16 bit. But 24 bits gives the recordist a noise floor and headroom to create an excellent recording. Its a tool, and in the right hand, it can blow you away, audio wise.
Of course you only get out what you put in. A crap song badly played is still going to sound crap no matter what you record it with.
Saul
Site Admin
Sign up to the Newsletter
FREE Home Recording Training Video Course
Follow me on Twitter @YamahaMusicians
Follow Us On Facebook
Epiphone EJ-200CE/Taylor 114e ES2/Yamaha FG830/Roland Juno DS88/Pianoteq Pro/Amplitube 3.0/Apple iPad Air 2/Apple iMac 27"/GarageBand 10.0.3/Logic Pro X/Absynth 5/Ableton Live 8/KRK Rokit RP5 G3 Monitors/Focusrite Scarlett2i2 2nd gen
Mac & PC Computer Repairs, Upgrades. Web Hosting, Installation and Design www.thegraphicscompany.uk

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Fri May 19, 2017 12:48 pm

Hi John,
SysExJohn wrote:C'mon guys, don't you read my posts any more?
Yes, of course I read them and also I included you in a statement this week saying that your 'ears' are likely to be more superior/skilled than mine!

And as you correctly pointed out, it's: 44.1 and not 41kHz (as the typos stated). At the time, I was more fixated on asking my the question than I was the accuracy of my typing!

Ta,

Paul
Last edited by monsterjazzlicks on Fri May 19, 2017 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
SysExJohn
Member
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:00 am
Contact:
Uganda

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by SysExJohn » Fri May 19, 2017 12:51 pm

Of course, when you're recording individual tracks to make a mix, then absolutely use 24 bit, this means that the recorded noise will never be a problem when many tracks are combined. The problem is that, as well as the audio we want to be recorded in the final mix down, there will always be some noise present.
24 bit and a higher than needed sample rate pretty well ensures that noise won't be a final mix problem.

If you really want to, then use oversampling at high rates, although there's not a huge amount to be gained.
The subject is a complicated one, and one, I'm prepared to admit I don't fully understand it, but oversampling can, if implemented well, further reduce the noise floor. Otherwise, very high sample rates just record frequencies that we can't hear, i.e. up to 48kHz.
There's quite a good article about oversampling here: http://www.earlevel.com/main/1996/10/19/oversampling/

We mix at 24 bit at 48 kHz, or 96 kHz (or even 192 kHz for the certifiably insane), then convert to 16 bit 44.1 kHz for playback. ;-)
The noise floor is then so low that it should be perceived as silence. 8)

The extra dynamic range and bandwidth are heaven sent in the studio, but not necessary once the mix has been completed.
We can convert the studio, high sample rate, deeper bit depth final mix to CD standard audio safe in the knowledge that it should sound wonderful.
96 dB dynamic range and a frequency response to 22.05 kHz is astoundingly good,
Providing always that the recording engineers know what they're doing. (Not always a given!) 8O
Good microphones, good, low noise, analogue pre-amps and so on.

It also pays to know that the Miles Davis recordings that were referenced were made back in the early seventies.
Even analogue recording techniques back then wre not of the standards that we know today.
It's no wonder they sound "muddy" and lack transparency.
------------------------------------------
It serves as a reminder to remember that not so long ago when the PSTN (the public switched telephone network) was analogue, call quality was often appalling.
A change to a digital central network called the IDN (integrated digital network) changed the frequency response from about 3 kHz tops, to just 4 kHz.
This was 8 bit samples at just 8kHz.
All of a sudden it sounded as if the person being talked to was "in the next room".
This was the effect of going from analogue to a very simple digital signal.
---------------------------------------

It's also worth remembering that the top C note of a piano has its fundamental at just above 4 kHz.
Not many instruments have a range any higher than this.
Of course there's loads of overtones and the hiss from cymbals.
MIDI Tutor forum at http://midi-tutor.proboards.com/index.cgi.
UW500; 2xMU1000 + PLGs AN, DX, VL, VH & PF; SC8850; EWI4000s + VL70m; Samson Graphite 49.
AN1x, Novation X-Station 25. E-MU 02 cardbus + 1616m x 2. Sonar 7 PE. XGworks ST. & SQ01.
Garritan GPO4, COMB2, JABB3, IO, Organs, Steinway, World, Harps + GPO5.

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Fri May 19, 2017 1:31 pm

Saul,
Saul wrote:Of course we are splitting hairs here. The sort of differences we are talking about can easily be wiped out by a large amount of variables from the audio interface you use to the monitors/speakers/headphones and the listening environment.
Thats why, when making an A/B comparison, I listened to the recording on headphones so that there would would be as little distraction as possible; and also on the same pair of phones for consistency.
Saul wrote:Of course you only get out what you put in. A crap song badly played is still going to sound crap no matter what you record it with.
Yes, but if the song is rubbish and not performed well, but it was RECORDED using the most excellent engineers and equipment, then the result would be a crap song that sounds (audio quality-wise) excellent! I would put much of today's Pop music in this pigeon-hole. Compared with (say) live Charlie Parker 1940's recordings (which are mostly dreadful quality [ie. you can't hear the Piano, Bass or Ride-Cymbal]) but the music is excellent. I feel it is not the quality of the audio which is the governing factor of what constitutes as a good 'song', but rather the excellence of the song's Form, Structure, Lyric, Harmonic and Rhythmic content; and either consistency and interpretation of the musical score (eg. Beethoven), or execution of Improvisation (eg. Jazz).

I suppose, in this latter paragraph, I am trying to define what CRAP is. Saul, you started all this!

Ta,

Paul

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Fri May 19, 2017 1:58 pm

Saul,
Saul wrote:I thought this from Tweakheadz kind of summed it up :
Use 24 bit for every recording if you have this feature. I was a believer for the past decade that 16 bit was the way to go and I have absolutely changed my mind. No matter of what you are recording this is true. If you have a nice mic, a very good preamp and a clean audio system and are recording highly dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitars, classical orchestras, acapella vocals, the difference will be there. But! Its not that 24 bits of data makes the sound better. It actually does not. What is does is give your audio more room to breathe in the numeric realm of digital audio. Remember, we are talking about numbers, calculations, not analog waveforms. With 24 bits of data demarcing your recording medium, its is possible to record extremely dynamic music, with very quiet soft passages and extraordinary loud passages. Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system. One can record with no compression. You can record at lower levels, with more headroom. This ensures that the occasional peak is not truncated at the top and it will give converters some room the breathe. Because you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth, your instruments will sound clearer, and the vocals may sound "cleaner", the song will mix better and there will be less noise. So its not that 24 bit recordings sound better. In fact they may sound just as bad or worse than 16 bit. But 24 bits gives the recordist a noise floor and headroom to create an excellent recording. Its a tool, and in the right hand, it can blow you away, audio wise.
Well I don't understand the 'science' behind it all - and so I will not pretend that I do! But some of the points made above were definitely what I was experiencing when first listening to 24/96 FLAC.

I could hear that the instruments had more room to breath and there sounded to be very little 'compression' or 'brick-wall' Limiting. The dynamic-range was also greater in that, compared with most instruments hovering around the same level of volume (generally speaking), the whole thing was much more 'expressive'. The 'space' ('dimension'?) between the instruments was very apparent and I felt - instantly! - that the recording had taken on a whole new sonic meaning. Overall, I thought the FLAC was slightly quieter (or rather less 'brash') than the CD version. And I could tell this in less than 10 x seconds!

Now, some people might say it's a case of 'The Emperor's Clothes', but I would defend my aural experience to the very end!

Ta,

Paul

User avatar
monsterjazzlicks
Super Patch Creator
Super Patch Creator
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:37 pm
Great Britain

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by monsterjazzlicks » Fri May 19, 2017 3:58 pm

Hi again,

On this particular website:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.c ... es%20davis

of 'Acoustic Sounds', you can see that there are THREE different versions of FLAC on offer. eg. 24/192, 24/96, and 24/44.1.

In the case of album: "Cookin' With The Miles Davis Quintet", this recording is offered in all three versions costing: $17.98, $17.98 (again!), and $24.98 respectively.

Unfortunately, the provided compass of the sample demonstration is not identical for all three tracks. I mean, for the 24/192 and 24/96 versions, it is set mid-way through the Trumpet-Solo; so an A/B comparison is achievable here. However, for the 24/44.1 version, it is set mid-way through the Piano-Solo (which makes A/B comparing difficult).

So, in comparing the Trumpet-Solo excerpts of the 24/192 and 24/96 versions, I was able to here a slight difference. I would not say that the QUALITY was any better (and this is possibly related what Saul's TweakHeadz review is saying), but I could hear the 'separation' - or 'space' as you may refer to it as being - which I have stated in my earlier descriptions/experiences.

Size-wise, to my understanding it appears that the file-size of each version is: 24/192 = 1.20BG, 24/96 = 766MB, and 24/96 = 406MB.

Ta,

Paul

User avatar
SysExJohn
Member
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:00 am
Contact:
Uganda

Re: RE: Sony mp3 Walkman (help?)

Unread post by SysExJohn » Sat May 20, 2017 11:22 am

Hi Paul,

Sorry not to respond yesterday ... busy day!

I realise, in retrospect that I should have chucked in a few smilies after my "C'mon guys ..." remark. ;-)
It wasn't meant in a serious way. So my apologies for that omission. :oops:

I thoroughly agree with everything that was said in the tweakheadz paragraph you quoted.
But did you notice he was talking about recording? The words "record" and "recording" occur several times in the article.
And he writes about pushing the noise floor as low as possible.
Then, when all the individual tracks are mixed together, the sum is still extremely low.

It's just that there is no evidence that I've seen that tells me that, once recorded, a 24 bit product is noticeably better than 16.

I have to say that I always regard with a degree of suspicion the tracks available for audition on some of the sites like the one you refer to.
I can hear differences in that material too, and my hearing is now very poor due to old age.
What I suspect is that there are some slight differences in volume levels, or they are fiddling around with the demo tracks in some way to make the higher cost tracks sound better. (Except for the vinyl ones, which everybody knows are FAR Superior.) ;-)

For me after spending many years pursuing the ultimate in Hi-Fi (that I could afford) I realised I was wasting my money, and converted my spending in to buying recordings. It's the music that matters.
Yeah, it's great to hear fantastic fidelity, but in the end it's what the musicians are doing that's of prime importance to me, now.

So I'd rather buy several different pieces of music than blow it all on just one ultra fidelity piece.

But it's all such a personal decision anyway, isn't it?
MIDI Tutor forum at http://midi-tutor.proboards.com/index.cgi.
UW500; 2xMU1000 + PLGs AN, DX, VL, VH & PF; SC8850; EWI4000s + VL70m; Samson Graphite 49.
AN1x, Novation X-Station 25. E-MU 02 cardbus + 1616m x 2. Sonar 7 PE. XGworks ST. & SQ01.
Garritan GPO4, COMB2, JABB3, IO, Organs, Steinway, World, Harps + GPO5.

Post Reply

Return to “Chill Out Room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Derek and 1 guest