Page 1 of 2
#1
It may seem like a bit of a mad question but let me explain...

Basically I have a cheap transistor practice amp but I've learnt to make the most of it and get a half decent tone.

The other day I plugged in my guitar and for some reason it sounded very muddy. I checked the settings and they haven't changed, the amp is in the same place and likewise I haven't moved anything in the room that would alter the acoustics.

The only thing that I can think that is different is that it's been sunny these last few weeks but yesterday it rained heavily (thunder storms, etc.)

Could this effect my tone or am I having some kind of mental breakdown?
GUITAR COMPANIES - Contact me if you'd like to sponsor my signature!
#2
The number of things that can affect "tone" or how your amp sounds are pretty much infinite.
Room shape, size, materials used, temperature, yes, even humidity can affect how sound travels to your ears.
#3
I have been wondering the same thing. To me, it feels like my amp (a tube amp) sounds a bit muddier on hot days. I'm not sure though wether my amp really sounds different or if it's just my imagination.
#4
Given that both temperature and humidity have a measurable effect on sound propagation through the atmosphere the answer is clearly "yes".

How much is open to question of course.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#5
It’s also possible that humidity affects paper speaker cones, although I can’t find any good data on how and how much.
#6
Absolutely.

Tuning a guitar and changing environmental conditions is evidence enough. Sound as a medium is subjected to the same physical pressures as any energy carrier. Tune your guitar basically.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#7
Yeah, probably. Aside from soggy speaker cones and all that, air density will be different based on temperature and humdity levels. Oh well.
#8
So the answer is clearly yes. Any advice on what I can do to improve it on those days when for some reason it just sounds off?

I anticipate lots of sarcastic coments suggesting that I get a better amp - believe me, if I had the money I would!
GUITAR COMPANIES - Contact me if you'd like to sponsor my signature!
#9
Basically materials are subject to change at different PSI. Some materials change little, some a lot. So imagine everything from the bridge of your guitar to the strings nut and neck have the ability to expand and contract because of different atmospheric pressures and temperatures. Normally we don't notice this with day to day changes in our environment, but a precision instrument, like an electric guitar with precise pickups, is going to 'detect' those changes and so will a precise amp. How do you get over this? Well one way is to have presets on your amp for those changes plus more guitar tuning more often. The other is to spend more on rugid systems. Basically battle-tested gear from tours.

At the end of the day you should be really not afraid to get up and dial in something else with your amp and pedals. Tune your guitar and use what you got. You should be able to reclaim your tone unless your amp is just unable to deal with the stress, in which case, new amp.

This is one reason why solid-state systems are not a bad idea.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#10
The problem isn't my guitar going out of tune. It's the amp giving out that horrible 'broken glass' sound rather than smooth sine waves. I guess it just means that I can't rely on using the same settings and will have to adjust it on an ad hoc basic
GUITAR COMPANIES - Contact me if you'd like to sponsor my signature!
#11
Quote by Deermonic


This is one reason why solid-state systems are not a bad idea.


Umm...What?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#12
Quote by Arby911
Umm...What?


Solid state amplification. No tubes. Good guitarists can play well on them or hybrids. Plenty of examples.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#13
Quote by Matriani
The problem isn't my guitar going out of tune. It's the amp giving out that horrible 'broken glass' sound rather than smooth sine waves. I guess it just means that I can't rely on using the same settings and will have to adjust it on an ad hoc basic


It's interesting that your guitar is not noticeably different as you say which makes me think your amp is just not up to the changes.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#14
Quote by Deermonic
Solid state amplification. No tubes. Good guitarists can play well on them or hybrids. Plenty of examples.



I believe his point was that solid-state, transistor based amps are subject to the same changes in pressure, humidity, temp. Etc. as a tube amp would be, and that is the source of TSs qualms. Unless all solid-state tech now comes with a complementary vacuum in which to use it, that would be cool
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#15
Quote by Deermonic
Solid state amplification. No tubes. Good guitarists can play well on them or hybrids. Plenty of examples.


Fine. Good. Whatever.

Has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is common-use atmospheric tonal stability, and there's nothing that suggests SS does that any better (or worse)than tubes.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#16
Oh right - yes, they all are. I would think the failure rate lower than tubes from environmental stresses due to their lesser complexity and solid parts.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#17
Quote by Deermonic
Oh right - yes, they all are. I would think the failure rate lower than tubes from environmental stresses due to their lesser complexity and solid parts.


Lesser complexity? I'm guessing you're not an electronics technician?

What you appear to be saying is that you THINK that tubes are fragile?

They aren't.

But...even if that weren't the case, failure rate and atmospheric instability are two different questions...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Aug 21, 2015,
#19
sometimes a perfect setting one day sounds crap the next, not convinced it's anything but your brain though
#20
Quote by Arby911
Lesser complexity? I'm guessing you're not an electronics technician?

What you appear to be saying is that you THINK that tubes are fragile?

They aren't.

But...even if that weren't the case, failure rate and atmospheric instability are two different questions...


We are talking failure rates due to atmospheric instability. The sort of things bands touring experience and so switch to better heads etc.

Complexity isn't about ruggedness but simply lesser parts means lesser things that can go wrong, so there would be a lower frequency of errors naturally. With solid state systems the material is all contained within solids and exposure to the elements, such as oxygen, is reduced.

I don't think any lamp system can actually claim to be more robust than say LEDs and solid state systems. I mean after all, that is the main claim silicon engineering made at the time and still does. I would think the reason why tube amplifiers exist at all in music is because musicians want them for how they sound, not how well the cope with the elements.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#21
Quote by Deermonic
We are talking failure rates due to atmospheric instability. The sort of things bands touring experience and so switch to better heads etc.

Complexity isn't about ruggedness but simply lesser parts means lesser things that can go wrong, so there would be a lower frequency of errors naturally. With solid state systems the material is all contained within solids and exposure to the elements, such as oxygen, is reduced.

I don't think any lamp system can actually claim to be more robust than say LEDs and solid state systems. I mean after all, that is the main claim silicon engineering made at the time and still does. I would think the reason why tube amplifiers exist at all in music is because musicians want them for how they sound, not how well the cope with the elements.


A. No, we're not, you are. The original question wasn't about failure rates at all, it was about tone and weather. You're arguing a point not relevant. I do note with some amusement that the amp in the OP is a solid state amp...

B. Even were it relevant, the primary benefit of Solid State musical gear isn't reliability, it's weight. Your unsupported opinion as to the robustness of SS v. Tube is both wrong and immaterial. If less parts automagically meant higher reliability, surely the 18w Marshall (TUBE) amp is among the kings of the genre, given that IIRC it's got less than 30 electrical components in the whole damn thing?

You appear to be posting from a position of unsupported opinion and confusing it for fact?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#22
Quote by Arby911
A. No, we're not, you are. The original question wasn't about failure rates at all, it was about tone and weather. You're arguing a point not relevant. I do note with some amusement that the amp in the OP is a solid state amp...

B. Even were it relevant, the primary benefit of Solid State musical gear isn't reliability, it's weight. Your unsupported opinion as to the robustness of SS v. Tube is both wrong and immaterial. If less parts automagically meant higher reliability, surely the 18w Marshall (TUBE) amp is among the kings of the genre, given that IIRC it's got less than 30 electrical components in the whole damn thing?

You appear to be posting from a position of unsupported opinion and confusing it for fact?


Primary reasons can be anything. Cost for example. Its subjective to the situation. This is music, not a science paper King of genre? I don't get it. This is just an answer to his environmental problem.

I don't know what you are expecting from me. Peer-review? Judging by your sig, that's all you should be trusting for a scientific opinion. So if you want to raise the bar to that level of strong inference, then go ahead, show me the peer-review that solid state systems fail just as much as tube systems due to atmospheric conditions. I think there is a gauntlet of evidence to the opposite, hence why you can't avoid the sheer amount of it that you use in your daily life, including the devices used to write this reply. You could do it on a valve computer too... if you want.

If his equipment is failing because of atmospheric conditions, then that's a failure and part of the overall failure rate for that piece of equipment when tallied up. What's unusual about that? Nothing. All manufacturers estimate it with statistics etc. Why would they not? Its how they improve their gear and how we judge its value.

Can moving to a new amp of any system work? Sure, but if he is already experiencing atmospheric problems with SS gear then inexpensive lamp gear isn't going to solve it in the long run. They might have to pay a lot higher for that ruggedness.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
Last edited by Deermonic at Aug 21, 2015,
#23
A lot of words, no substance at all. It's very clear that you have little or no experience in these areas, so why are you so adamant that your opinion is valid?

His equipment isn't failing, it sounds different. (To be clear it may be failing, but we've been given no evidence to that effect.)

I do think it amusing that you present a claim and then believe it's my responsibility to provide evidence to the contrary when you've brought forth no evidence in support? I hate to shock you but that's not how the real world works. If you make a claim, it's yours to support. If you can't we are perfectly justified in considering it nonsense.

Which is how I'm going to proceed.

I'm reasonably convinced, based on these interactions, that you don't know ****-all about what you're discussing and unless and until I see evidence that's not the case I'm going to feel free to consider you a wealth of specious opinion.

Have a nice day.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#24
Quote by Matriani
The problem isn't my guitar going out of tune. It's the amp giving out that horrible 'broken glass' sound rather than smooth sine waves. I guess it just means that I can't rely on using the same settings and will have to adjust it on an ad hoc basic


Wait, you have an ad hoc bassist?
#25
Ok, screw it, you wanted evidence, here's evidence. (I assume the IEEE is sufficiently credible for you?) I've taken this from an article entitled "The cool sound of tubes", published in August 1998 in the IEEE Spectrum, a PEER REVIEWED Journal. I note that I limited the bullets to only those characteristics that were directly related to environmental or reliability concerns.

_____________________________________________________

Vacuum tubes – Advantages

Characteristics highly independent of temperature, greatly simplifies biasing
Circuit designs tend to be simpler than semiconductor equivalents
Maintenance tends to be easier because user can replace tubes

Vacuum tubes – Disadvantages

Low-cost glass tubes are physically fragile
Cathode electron-emitting materials are used up in operation, resulting in shorter lifetimes(typically 1-5 years for power tubes)


Transistors – Advantages

Usually more physical ruggedness than tubes (depends on chassis construction)

Transistors – Disadvantages

Complex circuits and considerable negative feedback required for low distortion
Device parameters vary considerably with temperature, complicating biasing and raising the possibility of thermal runaway
Cooling is less efficient than with tubes, because lower operating temperature is required for reliability
Less tolerant of overloads and voltage spikes than tubes
Maintenance more difficult; devices are not easily replaced by user
Older transistors and ICs often unavailable after 20 years, making replacement difficult or impossible

____________________________________________________
When you noted my signature perhaps you should have considered it more closely?

Have a nice day.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Aug 21, 2015,
#26
I am a scientist and a biologist watching you basically take a chapter from Dawkins and then play around with it like you are an atheist debating creationist. Your strategy would work in a normal evolutionary biology vs creationist debate but frankly, fails when you try to pull it off here on a music forum. Sorry, but you need that pinch. You don't have a toolkit which you think can beat anyone over their head with. You don't. You have the standard anti-creationst debate skills, period. Pulling them off here just makes you look amateurish to a scientist. Believe me

Its completely obvious that solid state systems replaced tube systems due to ruggedness and ability to deal with the elements better. We keep tube systems alive because we want them because we like how they sound, not how reliable they are under conditions that vary. We build for that.

In my books any amp that is buzzing through internal problems has failed to work especially if the operating parameters are within the units thresholds as advertised. In the field we replace it with something more rugged. If its a tube system then you will be paying for it. Simple as that.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#27
Quote by Deermonic
I am a scientist and a biologist watching you basically take a chapter from Dawkins and then play around with it like you are an atheist debating creationist. Your strategy would work in a normal evolutionary biology vs creationist debate but frankly, fails when you try to pull it off here on a music forum. Sorry, but you need that pinch. You don't have a toolkit which you think can beat anyone over their head with. You don't. You have the standard anti-creationst debate skills, period. Pulling them off here just makes you look amateurish to a scientist. Believe me

Its completely obvious that solid state systems replaced tube systems due to ruggedness and ability to deal with the elements better. We keep tube systems alive because we want them because we like how they sound, not how reliable they are under conditions that vary. We build for that.

In my books any amp that is buzzing through internal problems has failed to work especially if the operating parameters are within the units thresholds as advertised. In the field we replace it with something more rugged. If its a tube system then you will be paying for it. Simple as that.


Ah, thanks! See above from a peer reviewed journal. You may apologize (or not) at your convenience. Your argument is now with the IEEE, not me.

Nice try at arguing from authority, which might have worked had you been an authority in the right field. Implementing a red herring defense was interesting as well and I also admire your last-ditch effort at ad hominem.

Have a nice day.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Aug 21, 2015,
#28
Oh and by the way, in science a student who turns around with a google searched paper in a few minutes isn't exactly signalling that they are reading the material objectively.

So I will read your quick searched paper to determine if it really says solid state systems are less rugged than tubes.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#29
Quote by Deermonic
Oh and by the way, in science a student who turns around with a google searched paper in a few minutes isn't exactly signalling that they are reading the material objectively.

So I will read your quick searched paper to determine if it really says solid state systems are less rugged than tubes.


Please, be my guest.

Here's a link for your convenience.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/the-cool-sound-of-tubes


Also, since I'm not a creationist, I'd accept your expertise in the arenas you claimed, assuming what you claimed was in line with scientific consensus (such as it is...) but in this arena I've vastly more expertise than yourself. I'm not infallible, but you stepped in the wrong ring this time.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Aug 21, 2015,
#30
You are obviously just quick googling some words in the hope you have a science for valve tech and SS tech being coequal in terms of ruggedness under different environmental conditions.

All one has to do is look at the specifications for each unit and max/min operating ranges temps.

Anyway this is getting lame. I read your article and its a general review of tubes and SS not specifically addressing which fails less during atmospheric change.

Anyway it should be completely obvious to any guitar enthusiast that tubes themselves require to be in an operational temperature range to work properly! Outside of that and you loose tone. That's something SS doesn't depend on and if it does, not in the same way tubes need too. You need to error correct that with additional help. Warmer rooms or ventilation. SS can use heatsinks.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
Last edited by Deermonic at Aug 21, 2015,
#32
Quote by Deermonic
You are obviously just quick googling some words in the hope you have a science for valve tech and SS tech being coequal in terms of ruggedness under different environmental conditions.

All one has to do is look at the specifications for each unit and max/min operating ranges temps.

Anyway this is getting lame. I read your article and its a general review of tubes and SS not specifically addressing which fails less during atmospheric change.

Anyway it should be completely obvious to any guitar enthusiast that tubes themselves require to be in an operational temperature range to work properly! Outside of that and you loose tone. That's something SS doesn't depend on and if it does, not in the same way tubes need too. You need to error correct that with additional help. Warmer rooms or ventilation. SS can use heatsinks.


You pretty clearly didn't read the article, as it specifically addresses that tubes are more temperature independent. It also says that SS circuits are more complex, also contrary to your earlier claims.

I've often seen that when someone claims something as "completely obvious" it usually means that it's their unsupported opinion and they really, really, want us to take it as gospel. Thanks for reinforcing that.

I can see that you have a deep and abiding need to be right, even when you clearly aren't and even when you've been presented with the evidence you requested so I'll move on, which is what I should have done a long time ago.

As always, have a nice day.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#33
There was a small table in the whole article discussing a range of issues. The article is not specific to the question at all of environmental influences and doesn't say SS is more complex than tubes, just generally tube systems have the less complex circuit design, not overall design complexity.

In science when addressing specific questions, we don't quote mine part of the article. Either it is addressing the issue specifically or not. Another serious issue I have is that this paper isn't referenced properly. There should be refs for each of those bullet points. There is none. So where did that info come from? Beats me. Then again I think you just see Peer review as something 'authoritative' rather than something you can actually follow through to see how other sciences corroborate it, via referencing. Personally I wouldn't go near a paper that lacks good referencing. So where did it come from? Surely that should be corroborated throughout applied scientific journals that could be ref. Instead there is nil.

Tubes are more temperature independent because of systems designed to maintain those temperatures through heating retention etc, not that the temperature has no effect on tone, which should be obvious to anyone who has operated valve amps in different environments. It needs to maintain these values to operate independently doesn't it? If it can't, then it isn't going to work as intended.

If tube technology was more robust and really temp independent of environmental conditions we would be using them for weather detection systems rather than SS systems. That ain't happening.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#34
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#35
Well, THIS electrical engineer (admittedly not a SCIENTIST, like deermonic, so clearly my opinion is only worth so much) agrees with the point Arby is trying to make. I also don't remember when anyone recommended a tube amp to the TS, so I guess Dr. Scientist of the Academy for Intellectually Superior Beings was the only one who felt the need to bring this up.

So, just to be clear, deermonic brought up some irrelevant argument and then proceeded to condescend Arby while spewing straw-man arguments about something that devotes absolutely nothing to answering the TSs question.

Boy, I'm glad I decided to go for the EE instead of the Biology degree. Apparently there is a pre-req. for being an asshole in order to get the degree.
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#36
Quote by Deermonic
Your strategy would work in a normal evolutionary biology vs creationist debate but frankly, fails when you try to pull it off here on a music forum. Sorry, but you need that pinch. You don't have a toolkit which you think can beat anyone over their head with. You don't. You have the standard anti-creationst debate skills, period. Pulling them off here just makes you look amateurish to a scientist. Believe me

Is this /r/iamverysmart satire, or are you genuinely this unaware of yourself?

In case it's the latter, so far your arguments have included "it should be obvious," a misspelling of the word "lose," a fundamental misunderstanding of how tubes need to be "warm" to work, and an accusation of using google to find relevant information (as if that were not a useful strategy here) while yourself citing exactly zero sources besides your own dizzying intellect. If you want to jerk yourself off, there are better websites for that. Otherwise, you may want to finish what I seriously hope is your sophomore year before you start lecturing people on how much you know in comparison.

You're not the only scientist on here, but you are the only one currently embarrassing the profession.
#37
I didn't introduce academia. I just pointed out his arguments found in evolution are just being rehashed and new words inserted. I spotted it because I am a biologist and made them aware of it. It didn't phase me. If you can reference where claims that tubes and transistors are equally tolerant to atmospheric conditions then show it. I say one reason for SS is that tubes require heating to work correctly and that if OP is finding their atmosphere sufficiently harsh enough to throw a less sensitive SS out of whack, then tubes are going to require more care.

Btw show me where I was the first to insult anyone in this thread. Have a good read. It didn't start that way until a poster on here wanted to get personal. Not my boat ty. Nor is it even relevant or necessary. Plus I don't take things that seriously )
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
Last edited by Deermonic at Aug 21, 2015,
#38
Your credentials and argument have been noted and will be given due consideration.

If you're not taking this seriously, perhaps you could try not to condescend so much. It tends to give the opposite impression.
#39
Actually seems they are arguing that its not coequal but valves are better.

That claim is a big one but then again expensive custom solutions can do it. How helpful is that to the OP exactly?
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
#40
Quote by Roc8995
Your credentials and argument have been noted and will be given due consideration.

If you're not taking this seriously, perhaps you could try not to condescend so much. It tends to give the opposite impression.


I said I am not that serious as some are with unnecessary personal remarks. Just read the first page. Its plainly obvious where the personal remarks originated.

Who have I done that too personally? The person who was doing that was trying to be condescending and I spotted what they where trying and made sure they know I am aware of it. They even acknowledged as much saying I should accept their expertise. I couldn't care less about personal claims. I don't take them seriously. What I am is skeptical of the position being surmounted here that valve systems are more rugged dealing with environmental changes than SS.

An uncorroborated statement in a journal article isn't helping the claim. That's where I am at.
Dean MAB1. Epiphone Annihilation V. EVH 5150III. Orange PPC112. Earthquaker devices - The Warden, Arrows, Acapulco Gold, Levitation, Night Wire. TS9, DD3, GE7, NS2, LS2, Polytune mini, Small Stone. SM57. Focusrite. LINUX!
Last edited by Deermonic at Aug 21, 2015,
Page 1 of 2