electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
 
    Front Page  |  Articles  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links  |  Store
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
Live streaming at radio.electro-music.com

  host / artist show at your time
  mosc Chez mosc - tonight, Twyndyllyngs live
Please visit the chat
 Forum index » How-tos » Surround and Sound Reinforcement
What is wrong with X.1 systems
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: diatonis, mosc
Page 1 of 2 [32 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:39 am    Post subject: What is wrong with X.1 systems Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

[editor's note: This post was originally posted on another topic. Since there is interest in discussing the problems with X.1 system, I'm starting a new topic just for that. --mosc]

mosc wrote:
When walking in the park, I'm often amazed how well I can localize a bicycle approaching from the rear, or birds in the trees overhead.


Exactly; and that's why I don't believe in n.1 systems; in the park you can pinpoint sources of sound, with n.1 systems you can't.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jksuperstar



Joined: Aug 20, 2004
Posts: 2478
Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Would this be a 1st step away from panned-mono (X.1) in the consumer market?

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/YSP1/index.htm

(Single cabinet, MANY speaker system that can emulate surround sound. Each speaker is controlled to create multiple wavefronts from the unit, sending surround out to the sides, center channel from the front, etc.)

Like I said, it's still based on X.1 systems, but it's an evolution toward what you are suggesting shuld replace X.1?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

One thing I dislike about the typical 5.1 setup is that it places even more emphasis on the directional setup in many modern living rooms; everything revolves around a shrine-like setup centred on the television. Now I realise the television is vbery important for many people; personalyl I read more books then I see television shows and I don't realy like how in company the tv will draw all atention and kill the conversation.

I've been accused of being negative again in this conversation so let me make up for it by giving a alternative. Look at what these people are doing;

http://plork.cs.princeton.edu/

Those speakers are basically like "inverted surround"; each instrument (in this case laptops) can have a directional aspect to it. Also notice the decentralised structure; no couches aimed at schreens there.

Admittedly this stuff is quite a bit more expensive then setting up a living room with a surround but the idea is great. To me Ge Wang is one of the largest visionaries in modern electronic music.

People might also be interested in wavefield synthesis; a form of 2d (or 3d) sound that *does* enable you to pinpoint a soundsource. Within reason, of cource, since spatial aliassing is involved and there is actually a spatial nequist caused by the distance between the speakers but your ear has the same caused by the distance between the two ears. Very computationally expensive and of cource dozens of quality speakers tend to cost quite a bit as well but to me this is the future. http://gigant.kgw.tu-berlin.de/~baalman/

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:25 am    Post subject: Re: What is wrong with X.1 systems Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen wrote:
[editor's note: This post was originally posted on another topic. Since there is interest in discussing the problems with X.1 system, I'm starting a new topic just for that. --mosc]

mosc wrote:
When walking in the park, I'm often amazed how well I can localize a bicycle approaching from the rear, or birds in the trees overhead.


Exactly; and that's why I don't believe in n.1 systems; in the park you can pinpoint sources of sound, with n.1 systems you can't.


And Stereo is better, then?

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21969
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Stereo is better? Perhaps it is "better", but then it is hard to say. Stereo has however become the standard delivery format for mobile devices like the iPod, so in a way one could say that stereo now has at last become a "standard". How long did it take. Some 50 years? This probably means that people are starting to getting used to the stereo soundfield and are learning to enjoy it.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I hope that I didn't infer I believe stereo is better!
That is the opposite of what I meant.
I was trying to point out the contradiction in the post from kassen, where he states that n.1 is no good as you cannot pinpoint the sound as you can in the park.
You certainly cannot do this with Stereo - far, far from it.

Maybe you cannot pinpoint a tweet from a bird precisely in n.1 but that was not the point of it - the point is a greatly improved soundfield.
And the pinpointing is not too far off if the track was mixed correctly in the first place.
These type of arguments are ridiculous, and analogous to stating that round wheels are worse than square wheels as with round wheels you cannot stop the car rolling down a hill.

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21969
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I think a fair bit of mythology might have been passed down from the early days of stereo. Obviously this is not HIFI in the sense that stereo recreates to perfection whatever has been smurfed down on tape ( uh and we don´t use tape anymore ). What we have been seeing is that people have learned how to listen to a stereo signal on a decent gear and then this has become the "truth". To a certain extent I guess "we" have developed a vocabulary that kinda reinterprets what we hear on a stereo playback system. Another issue is that this has developed into plain peyote madness in some of the audiophile communities. I still remember some truly amazing reviews of ECM jazz recordings in an audiophile rag some 10 years ago or so. OMG Shocked Well, obviously many ECM records can be pretty nice, but still.. Hmm.. do I have that magazine somewhere? I cannot recall the very text in detail but in many ways it was quite revealing re the audiophile newspeak.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17550
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 123
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I started a what's wrong/right with stereo topic here: http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-10856.html

Certainly there is a lot wrong with X.1 systems. This doesn't mean we should not use them. If we are aware of their strengths and limitations, then we use them more wisely.

Stereo is A standard nowadays, one of many, not the only standard. What Elektro80 says about portable devices is true - it's about all there is. But as electronic musicians, I think we should approach sound reproduction systems as our pallet of instruments like classical composers approach the orchestra.

When classical composers compare the symphony orchestra to a string quartet (for example) there are certainly big drawbacks to the orchestra. It's not mobile, it's expensive, it's hard to write out all those parts, it's easy to come up with muddy sounds, it lacks the elemental clarity of the small ensemble or solo performer, etc. Still, the orchestra has made a major impact on classical music. It's possible the multichannel surround systems will do the same for our music.

One thing to consider - stereo (and mono for that matter) are subsets of larger X.X multichannel systems. You can always play these formats on multichannel systems.

X.1 systems are becoming increasingly popular in homes as part of home theater systems. I don't think we should avoid these systems. To me they are a great opportunity uniquely suited for electronic music of all kinds. They are particularly suited for experimental electronic music.

One more thing, a crumby stereo system is crumby, just like a crumby multichannel system is crumby. Blasting the format because there are a lot a crumby systems out there is pointless.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17550
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 123
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:
Another issue is that this has developed into plain peyote madness in some of the audiophile communities. I still remember some truly amazing reviews of ECM jazz recordings in an audiophile rag some 10 years ago or so. OMG Shocked Well, obviously many ECM records can be pretty nice, but still.. Hmm.. do I have that magazine somewhere? I cannot recall the very text in detail but in many ways it was quite revealing re the audiophile newspeak.


Well, I'd rather not see us get sidetracked trying to respond to the audiophile insanity. I consider that stuff a fanatical religious fringe - a counterproductive diversion at worst - irrelevant at best.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I still cannot get over some of these "mod" sites - where it is claimed that scrawling black marker pen will somehow magically improve the sound quality from a CD.
Another hilarious one is to freeze the CD, then thaw it out again, and it will sound better.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Audiophiles?
Some talk sense - others do not have a clue.

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21969
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neilwilkes wrote:
I still cannot get over some of these "mod" sites - where it is claimed that scrawling black marker pen will somehow magically improve the sound quality from a CD.
Another hilarious one is to freeze the CD, then thaw it out again, and it will sound better.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Audiophiles?
Some talk sense - others do not have a clue.


Yup

http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?highlight=audiophile&t=5040

There should be some other exciting threads here too.. but I cannot find them right now.

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17550
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 123
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

OK, back on topic. What is wrong with X.1 systems?

These things are a concern to me.

1) Usually only one subwoofer is provided. I have done several experiments with Robin Miller that conclusively prove two subwoofers are required. (This is also a problem in stereo systems, BTW).

2) The speakers aren't usually matched. The center, front left/right, and surround, speakers are usually of different construction and have different frequency responses and dispersion patterns).

3) While there are standards for speaker placement, it is very rare to find a system that has the standard speaker layout.

4) There are 5, 6, and 7 channel systems out there with different speaker placements. It's hard to produce compatible mixes.

5) There are many formats for delivery - DTS, Dolby, etc. I don't even know them. Maybe this should be a topic in itself.

6) Mixing for multichannel is difficult.

7) How to come up with effective stereo reductions is not obvious.

8) There is a sweet spot. Neil has mentioned that it is not as sensitive as the stereo sweet spot, but it is nevertheless a concern.

One more thing. The .1 is generally misunderstood. It's not for the subwoofer, its for the "Low Frequency Effects". This misunderstanding is a problem. In a 5.1 system, we really have 6 discrete channels, but the .1 (LFE) is rarely used except in movies. The subwoofer channel is derived from the primary channels, usually the front left and front right channels. This misunderstanding is not really a problem with the X.1 system, but still it is a consideration.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

http://www.verber.com/mark/ce/cables.html

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
(this one has the 10 biggest lies about audio - well worth reading)

Enjoy the comedy!

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DrJustice



Joined: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 2031
Location: Morokulien
Audio files: 3

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

mosc wrote:
OK, back on topic. What is wrong with X.1 systems

9) There's no sound positioning along the Y axis

This may sound silly at first. But one or more speakers above the listener (and possibly below?) would literally add a new dimension. Sometimes I've played with the thought of a surround system where you sit in the middle of a cube with speakers on each corner and in the middle of the planes.

There's a few psychoacoustic tricks that can be pulled to pan sounds vertically. Some of these are used in soundcard 3D demos and possibly games which can also trick you to hear sound all around you in the horizontal plane. But these are just tricks and may not be practical or applicable for music.

DJ
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

There is no sound positioning on the Y axis in a stereo system either.

Invalid argument.

You cannot pick shortcomings in surround without applying them to stereo as well.
And if you go to 10.2, then you do indeed have room for movement across the Y axis, hence why Tomlinson Holman has been advocating 10.2 for a while now.
This functionality already exists in Nuendo, but forget it in home user systems, as it is never going to happen.

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21969
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The way this thread has been running I reckon it is valid to mention all shortcomings. I don´t think a simple stereo vs. surround shootout will do.

In many ways both consumer stereo and surround systems are rendering platforms and we have a WYHIWYG ( what you hear is what you get ) situation here.

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DrJustice



Joined: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 2031
Location: Morokulien
Audio files: 3

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neilwilkes wrote:
There is no sound positioning on the Y axis in a stereo system either.

Invalid argument.

Uhum.. Confused
I think we're all aware of what stereo is.

Quote:
You cannot pick shortcomings in surround without applying them to stereo as well.

That will make this discussion slightly difficult IMO...

Quote:
And if you go to 10.2, then you do indeed have room for movement across the Y axis, hence why Tomlinson Holman has been advocating 10.2 for a while now. This functionality already exists in Nuendo, but forget it in home user systems, as it is never going to happen.

I wasn't aware that this is termed X.2. I was imagining the speakers above as one or more of the X'es not as a/the .1 bandlimited (subwoofer) channel.

DJ
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

It's NOT termed "x.2".
the .2 simply refers to 2 LFE channels, which some people think is better as frequencies at or under 8Hz are directional too - it needs to go below 50Hz and less to be non directional.

The height channels can come into play wherever you choose to with the extra 10 channels.
You can configue 5 across the front - L, C,R and Ly/Ry for height channels if desired.
You could then have 2 side channels - which could again be used for elevation, and 3 rear channels.
The problem is in getting all the various manufaturers to agree on a standard.
Which, of course, they never will!

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:53 am    Post subject: Re: What is wrong with X.1 systems Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neilwilkes wrote:

And Stereo is better, then?


Yes, without any doubt.
Real stereo is better then what 5.1 gets used for.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:08 am    Post subject: Re: What is wrong with X.1 systems Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:

And Stereo is better, then?


Yes, without any doubt.
Real stereo is better then what 5.1 gets used for.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:18 pm    Post subject: Re: What is wrong with X.1 systems Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neilwilkes wrote:

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


Ok, theb tell me what you use to generate 5.1 sound, how you mix it and what reverb you use.

Then we'll talk.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17550
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 123
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Please, let's keep this on topic, as far as possible. We are getting close to a flame. What a person uses 5.1 or stereo for is not relevant. Maybe, Kassen, we can start a separate topic about that somewhere.

I again mention that like in geometry where a point is a degenerate circle, stereo is degenerate 5.1. Saying stereo is superior to 5.1 is like saying ice is superior to water. It is similarly resonable to assume that many of the X.1 limitations apply also to stereo.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I think it's relevant.

At one point I discovered that there were no stereo reverbs on the market that suited my needs at the time. What I needed was a real stereo reverb that had parameters to dynamically move the position of the source material as well as the position of the listener relative to the room's walls so; I coded my own. It worked like a charm, sadly it got lost in HD crash. It also ate my laptop's 2GHz pentium 4m alive.

The research that I had to do for that told me that hardly any real spatialisation tools exist that can be used off the shelf if you want moving soundsources and that it's very heavy computationally if you want to do it well.

I know you can do real stereo synthetically because I've actually done it; I've never seen a real n.1 system that went beyond panned mono and so I doubt it has been done at all. So; if Neilwilkes thinks my remark is so funny I'd realy like to know what he uses for this. With that challenge I'm hoping to demonstrate that we are actually talking about completely different things.

Surely if no tools to properly generate, mix and process n.1 material exist and if it's exceedingly rare to find a good sounding n.1 system playing well made material then those are highly topical points in a discussion named "what's wrong with 5.1"? So, if it's so funny it should be easy to tell me what to use for this; if there is anything at all that suits my needs I'll considder switching.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17550
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 123
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kyma sytems are very adaptable for multi-channel reverbs. Many soundtracks used in movies use Kyma systems. Multi-channel audio processing is built-in with these systems.

BTW, IMHO panned mono is not necessarily bad. Most stereo stuff is done that way. The standard mixing board is designed for this.

I know that several people are using Audio Mulch for multi-channel work. If you can't find a tool that does what you want, there are many ways to write your own. MAX/MSP is a suitable platform. Supercollider can be used. There are many ways to go about it.

To be sure, mixing for X.1 is a developing art. Right now, many X.1 productions aren't that successful. Early stereo mixes were much the same in the 50s and 60s. It will take lots of experimentation and time for this to become a well defined science. Working in surround can be quite frustrating. But it can be a lot of fun, and it can provide new dimensions to electronic music that stereo and mono just can't match.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
diatonis



Joined: May 01, 2005
Posts: 54
Location: los angeles, ca

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Hi Kassen,

Have you heard the TC Electronic System 6000?
http://www.tcelectronic.com/Reverb6000

Waves 360 Surround Reverb
http://www.waves.com/content.asp?id=130

Lexicon 960L Multi-Channel Digital Effects System
http://www.lexiconpro.com/960L/index.asp

WizooVerb W5
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/WizooWizooVerbW5-main.html

Tascam Giga Pulse VST Reverb
http://www.tascam.com/Products/GigaPulse/GigaPulse.html

I'm sure there are more surround/multichannel effects out there.

I have learned a lot by your posts - thank you Smile


Kassen wrote:
I think it's relevant.

At one point I discovered that there were no stereo reverbs on the market that suited my needs at the time. What I needed was a real stereo reverb that had parameters to dynamically move the position of the source material as well as the position of the listener relative to the room's walls so; I coded my own. It worked like a charm, sadly it got lost in HD crash. It also ate my laptop's 2GHz pentium 4m alive.

_________________
diatonis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: diatonis, mosc
Page 1 of 2 [32 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » How-tos » Surround and Sound Reinforcement
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
emSynth

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from
our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.


Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use