Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3  (Read 26253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13986
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #210 on: October 21, 2020, 09:25:12 AM »
Thanks.  Will need to get my editing setup back in action first, then I'll take a deeper look at Reaper.  Currently using Samplitude.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13986
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #211 on: October 21, 2020, 01:18:19 PM »
Really enjoying listening to that Jimmy Herring Egg recording again, big thanks Rock' and Kind'.

A more advanced post on OMT mixing today-
When I keep myself in analytical mode when listening to high quality recordings like that one where things are working well (acknowledging that what denotes "high quality" to me is the ease in which I can let myself switch out of that mode and get carried away by the music), one of the more nuanced things I tend to notice are the differences between the portrayal of the quieter, less-dense parts and the louder, denser portions.  That leads me to thinking about why they are different, how I might manage them differently, and how I might arrange implementation of that in an automated way. 

It's not so much the change in dynamics as experienced through the recording (which can also be a factor of course), rather I've long noticed quieter/less-dense parts sound best with more emphasis on the ambience than loud/dense parts which sometimes tend to get thick and cluttered, loosing dimensionality.  I suspect this is likely the acoustic behavior of the room as experienced at the recording position as the room gets increasingly loaded with acoustic energy which is no longer being sufficiently dissipated, and that is being faithfully translated through the recording.  Three things from my experience inform this view: Listening of various bands/ensembles in specific rooms - particularly amplified material performed in rooms designed for acoustic music; listening to my own recordings in surround and trying to decide on an optimal level of the surround channels - generally deciding it should vary along with the density and intensity of the music; and the difference when mixing to 2 channels - where it should also vary, but needs to be adjusted with more careful consideration, and the overall amount and its dynamic variability is more critical, for somewhat different reasons.  This balance between Direct and Ambient sound is one of the two things (and pretty much the only two IME) that beg to be treated somewhat differently for 2-channel stereo verses multichannel surround stereo, the other being how best to manage 3 front playback channels instead of 2.

For somethings I've been willing to put the time into I've used manually applied automated volume envelopes on the rear-facing channel(s).  I haven't but could do the same with some or all of the content from the omnis as well if things get over boomy when it gets loud.  I've not yet played around extensively with trying to further automate it using gentle program compression but that would be a much easier way to do it. Something like parallel compression on the ambient stuff so it automatically contributes more during the lower level parts and effectively gets backed off during the louder parts.

I have tried applying some gentle straight-compression to the rear facing channels and couldn't really get that to work in the way I wanted (that being parallel only in the sense of the main channels not being compressed at all), and should probably revisit this with proper parallel compression on the ambient channels as that tends to sound more transparent to me.

Interestingly I wonder if applied to the omnis it might be good to use a somewhat differently shaped detection signal.  Reducing the omnis when the bottom end gets over thick, and reducing the rear facing channels when the ambient reflections get over-dense.

This is complicated stuff, don't worry about attempting to apply anything like this until you feel fully confident in all other aspects of mixing these OMT recordings.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #212 on: October 25, 2020, 10:02:28 AM »
This is interesting. I recently listened to some Bob Dylan's 40-year-old recordings, some sound fantastic. Even recordings of semi-electric music that were made with cheap microphones sound very good. In contrast, audience recordings of very loud music made with cheap microphones are usually bad. I also guess it has to do with the acoustic of the room. Because the differences between a cheap and an expensive microphone decrease again when recording onstage. I thought that more expensive microphones could capture more precise details, and probably those details are important in an audience recording in a room with bad acoustic. It seems to me that those who record folk and country have a big advantage. Classical music does not forgive any inaccuracy, and loud amplified music has very few details.

I tried several times, when I had a recording where there was a bad sound at the beginning and over time the sound engineer improved it, to choose a different ratio of omni and xy in the first and second part.

It's a good idea trying to reduce the omni or the rear channels for louder parts of the recording.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2020, 10:05:02 AM by kuba e »

Offline heathen

  • (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #213 on: October 25, 2020, 11:41:53 AM »
Never forget the paramount importance of location. Mediocre mics in the best spot will walk all over the best mics in a mediocre spot.
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 | CA-14 omni Pres: CA9200 | DPA d:vice Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline EmRR

  • (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 605
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #214 on: October 25, 2020, 11:48:28 AM »
I think most times I actually end up using everything I put up.  The real challenge is in the level tweaking, especially challenging when many secondary spatial elements are 15-20dB down relative to the mains, and possibly heavily filtered. You can mute/unmute and not hear an obvious difference, so it takes a long period of deep comparative listening to decide if 1) it’s worth keeping 2) should that stuff go up 1dB, or down?  Etc.  Then listen on a bunch of different systems; that’s where I’m most likely to discard an element entirely, like filtered spot shotguns for example. 
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, KMR 81i, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN, lots of other studio appropriate choices
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50, portable MOTU based multitrack DAW for client work

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #215 on: October 26, 2020, 09:53:52 AM »
Heaten, you are right, the location is the most important. But Besides, I have a feeling, there is a bigger chance that the audience recording will turn out well when, for example, jazz is recorded compared to loud rock.

EmRR, you described it exactly. I also sometimes listen for a long time before deciding whether to use the rear channel in the mix. These are very delicate things.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13986
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #216 on: October 26, 2020, 11:11:06 AM »
What EmRR mentions above rings true for me.  Most of the time I also tend to use all of the channels I've recorded and careful adjustment of relative levels is the most critical adjustment.  I do think its important to emphasize that its OK to not use all recorded channels, and to try the option when exploring to determine what works best in the mix. Also to listen long enough to sort of get out of one's head and really get a deep feel for what is best.  Something I've noticed and find quite interesting is that both long-term listening and the first initial few seconds of listening can be especially revealing of certain things I otherwise quickly acclimate to and may tend to overlook when working on a mix.

Over the weekend I pulled out the rig and was listening to one of the last recordings I made prior to the shutdown.  It was at an outdoor amphitheater, and as such avoids a lot of the overloaded room issues when things get cranking. Interestingly what I wished to automate in this case was not the level of the rear-facing channels but the level of the Side channel of the center M/S pair.  Partly because I'm listening back directly from the F8, which provides playback level and pan control for all channels except those routed through M/S>L/R decoding, which can only be muted or soloed.  That means I build the mix around the fixed level of the center Mid channel, and after all other channels are balanced well against that, I play with switching the Side channel in and out.  Remember that I'm using an LCR near-spaced arrangement of supercards, the center of which is serves as the Mid of the M/S pair, so there is already directional stereo information from the 3 LCR arrangement.  The full 7 channel mix with the Side channel muted is nice and solid and dimensional as it is.  Still, switching in the Side channel adds a whole 'nother layer of dimension. Unfortunately I can't vary the level of Side and its a bit too much at some points.  Ideally I'd lower the Side level and suspect I would find a setting that works everywhere.. but the reason I'm posting this is that given the Side level and resulting M/S ratio I was stuck with I found myself preferring both with Side and without Side at different points within in the recording and at different points within my listening time.  Often upon switching it in while listening the otherwise somewhat-excessive Side is attractive, then at some point it strikes me as too much, especially upon long term listening.  Often that corresponds with things getting more dense, complex and louder.  But I also noticed it when stepping away long enough for my acoustic memory to "reset" upon coming back again.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #217 on: October 27, 2020, 08:23:19 AM »
Thanks Gutbucket, that's a good inspiration. I will focus on quiete and louder passages and try different settings.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13986
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #218 on: November 06, 2020, 11:54:43 AM »
This is interesting. I recently listened to some Bob Dylan's 40-year-old recordings, some sound fantastic. Even recordings of semi-electric music that were made with cheap microphones sound very good. In contrast, audience recordings of very loud music made with cheap microphones are usually bad. I also guess it has to do with the acoustic of the room. Because the differences between a cheap and an expensive microphone decrease again when recording onstage. I thought that more expensive microphones could capture more precise details, and probably those details are important in an audience recording in a room with bad acoustic.

Coming back to this, I think it hinges on the naturalness and good behavior of the microphone's off-axis sensitivity and performance being far more critical in a live audience perspective recording, due to that representing such an inseparably large portion of the resulting recording.  In the studio, isolation and extreme off-axis rejection is more possible, easier to achieve, and expected, and whatever ambience it has is more purposefully created.  This is reflected in the particular attributes of high quality "taper" mics.  And by extension, I see the value of OMT hinging largely on improving the quality of off-axis pickup still further with regards to how we are able to manage and manipulate it in an overall sense.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13986
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Revisiting a little OMT mixing trick I really like and intend to explore further
« Reply #219 on: February 17, 2021, 06:25:58 PM »
I intended to get my editing computer back in operation and get down to mixing past recordings over the past year.. but, well same old story.

Anyway, I found an old installation of Audacity on my work computer last week and pulled up a classical recording I'd made prior to shutdown, for a much needed listen and a grin.  I used no EQ at all, which is clunky in Audacity (this version at least) because it is not real-time adjustable. So I decided to use simple channel mixing only and see how good I could get it.

This recording was made using my simpler four channel OMT rig using 4 x DPA 4060s.  The raw recording is in a LRCB (B = back) format using one microphone mounted centrally on each side of an acoustically absorbent rectangular baffle measuring approximately ~20" wide x ~4"-7" thick.  You might think of the arrangement as being somewhat similar to mixing a pair of spaced omnis with a front/back oriented pair of directional mics in the center.


Anyway, I brought in the L/R pair and level balanced those two channels. 
Brought in the C/B pair and split it into two mono tracks, panned the Center channel mono track to center and level balanced that against the L/R pair. 
Good.

I then panned the mono back channel to center and brought it up to taste.
As usual, adding some rear facing (B) channel improved on the LCR mix alone.

Taking it a step further.. and the reason for this post-
I then copied the Back channel to a second track, inverted polarity on the copy, and combined straight and polarity inverted channels to a stereo track again.
This was essentially treating the rear-facing channel like the Side channel of a M/S pair, except instead of a side-facing fig-8 coincident with C as Mid, it is a rear facing baffled omni.
I check it by soloing B+/B-.. and yep, it sounds much like a polarity inverted pair or a Side fig-8.

I un-mute the other 3 channels, bring the +B/-B fader back up and wow.  Such ambient width and dimension. So much better than mono B panned center.
Really good.

I mute the L/R pair, soloing the essentially M/S'ed C/B pair alone.
Not bad at all.  Not as much missing as I expected. Great clarity, depth and dimension.  No discrete L/R imaging, but it takes some listening to hear that the violins are no longer positioned left and cello and bass positioned right behind the up front piano dominating the center, instead the instruments that are further away become more diffuse, reverberant and enveloping, with a lush width complementing the clear center, yet without discrete imaging.

I do the opposite and solo the L/R pair.
I hear L/R imaging again, but if I had to choose one or the other I think I'd prefer the C/B alone.  It lacks directional imaging but has better clarity with a more engaging reverberant width and depth at the same time.

I go back to the full mix.
Yes, this is the full ticket, the complete package.
I play a bit with fine tuning the balance trade off between L/R and the now stereoized B (stereoized only in combination with the other channels).
It's best getting L/C/R balanced first for imaging, then bringing up +B/-B for depth, reverberant ambience, and naturally enveloping audience applause.

The caveat? Bringing up +B/-B begins to cancel out some low-end on the polarity inverted side, skewing balance in the low end.
I make a slight adjustment and bring up R a couple dB to compensate.  Not perfect, but OK

The better fix?   Instead of polarity inverting one copy of B, use the Voxengo PHA-979 stereo phase rotation VST to modify phase of one copy of B by +90° and the other by -90°.  This will keep low-frequency cancellation symmetrical.  Might also try some slight time-shifting of B, either using the delaying function in PHA-979 or via the multi-track editor itself.  PHA-979 is typically used for distance and phase alignment of drumkit mics, and making low frequency phase corrections.  There may be others, but I know of no other plugin with the same direct functionality. 


Additional potential benefit? This kind of symmetrical phase rotation is the basic operation a matrix surround encoder does with surround channel information when creating a 2ch LtRt output.  When played back through a matrix decoder, the B channel information will be routed to the surrounds.  Would need to play with it to make sure the levels end up right played back that way as well as in 2channel, and sure, matrix surround is no longer of much interest to many these days, but this is a cool additional benefit with no additional cost or detriment.  Although it has long been interesting to me I don't really wish to emphasize this last point, as I am mostly just enamored with how well this technique works as a mixing technique for OMT recordings intended for traditional stereo playback.  Yes, I've speculated about this technique previously in these threads, but its time to bring it back to focus again because it's just plain better IMO.  Rocksuitcase, what enlightenment might you provide from your past experience with the surround encoder/decoder you once were involved with developing and selling decades back?
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline EmRR

  • (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 605
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Instead of polarity inverting one copy of B, use the Voxengo PHA-979 stereo phase rotation VST to modify phase of one copy of B by +90° and the other by -90°.  This will keep low-frequency cancellation symmetrical.  Might also try some slight time-shifting of B, either using the delaying function in PHA-979 or via the multi-track editor itself.  PHA-979 is typically used for distance and phase alignment of drumkit mics, and making low frequency phase corrections.  There may be others, but I know of no other plugin with the same direct functionality. 

I need to play with that more, and consider applying it in BPF/HPF/LPF additive scenarios too.  Izotope RX has a phase rotation tool that can also be set to 'suggest' best rotation, if that is applicable. 
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, KMR 81i, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN, lots of other studio appropriate choices
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50, portable MOTU based multitrack DAW for client work

Offline rocksuitcase

  • (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6738
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography


Taking it a step further.. and the reason for this post-
I then copied the Back channel to a second track, inverted polarity on the copy, and combined straight and polarity inverted channels to a stereo track again.
This was essentially treating the rear-facing channel like the Side channel of a M/S pair, except instead of a side-facing fig-8 coincident with C as Mid, it is a rear facing baffled omni.
I check it by soloing B+/B-.. and yep, it sounds much like a polarity inverted pair or a Side fig-8.

I go back to the full mix.
Yes, this is the full ticket, the complete package.
I play a bit with fine tuning the balance trade off between L/R and the now stereoized B (stereoized only in combination with the other channels).
It's best getting L/C/R balanced first for imaging, then bringing up +B/-B for depth, reverberant ambience, and naturally enveloping audience applause.

The caveat? Bringing up +B/-B begins to cancel out some low-end on the polarity inverted side, skewing balance in the low end.
I make a slight adjustment and bring up R a couple dB to compensate.  Not perfect, but OK

The better fix?   Instead of polarity inverting one copy of B, use the Voxengo PHA-979 stereo phase rotation VST to modify phase of one copy of B by +90° and the other by -90°.  This will keep low-frequency cancellation symmetrical.  Might also try some slight time-shifting of B, either using the delaying function in PHA-979 or via the multi-track editor itself.  PHA-979 is typically used for distance and phase alignment of drumkit mics, and making low frequency phase corrections.  There may be others, but I know of no other plugin with the same direct functionality.


Additional potential benefit? This kind of symmetrical phase rotation is the basic operation a matrix surround encoder does with surround channel information when creating a 2ch LtRt output.  When played back through a matrix decoder, the B channel information will be routed to the surrounds.  Would need to play with it to make sure the levels end up right played back that way as well as in 2channel, and sure, matrix surround is no longer of much interest to many these days, but this is a cool additional benefit with no additional cost or detriment.  Although it has long been interesting to me I don't really wish to emphasize this last point, as I am mostly just enamored with how well this technique works as a mixing technique for OMT recordings intended for traditional stereo playback.  Yes, I've speculated about this technique previously in these threads, but its time to bring it back to focus again because it's just plain better IMO.  Rocksuitcase, what enlightenment might you provide from your past experience with the surround encoder/decoder you once were involved with developing and selling decades back?
well, I've been out of the theoretical mathematics biz for some time, however, I will add that you have a solid theory regarding the +B/-B signal. We found that when attempting to use phase shifting to "stretch" the time of arrival, if you place that signal at the listeners rear (180') or directly in front (0') you could achieve a psychoacoustically significant illusion such that the brain/ears will hear added dimensionality. Again, we were analog only, we knew the time/phase shifting wasn't "3D" but presented it in our AES papers and patents as "2.5D". i.e. NOT a full three dimensional soundscape, but closer than L/R only.

Toward your mathematics- I would add that we found placing the 4 speakers in a LCR with one centered rear and putting the +B portion in the C speaker, then the -B signal in the rear speaker created the best 3 dimensional illusion. (as compared with 1 or 2 speakers on the side or rear corners) This prefernce was the result of human subject testing at Syracuse University in a very thorough set of studies aimed at determining what the brain prefers in terms of multi dimensionality and also the sonic quality of different materials of capacitors and resistors. A large majority of listeners preferred the LCR + R as opposed to four corners or 2.5 setups. We posited that because of the use of what you are terming +B/-B signals derived by our algorithms. (which later were stolen/used by Yamaha in their early 2 channel surround simulator circuits.)
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E|DPA 4060 SK
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13986
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #222 on: February 18, 2021, 06:51:24 PM »
^ Very interesting and thanks so much. I have some questions to clarify my understanding of what you posted above that I'll get together later when I have more time.  I'm more curious than ever about the details of that whole thing and would love to be able to pick your brain about it in person.


I need to play with that more, and consider applying it in BPF/HPF/LPF additive scenarios too.

With regards to phase alignment (the primary application of that PHA-979 plugin), it would be applicable to the range of frequencies that are phase-correlated between channels, so the spacing between any two pairs of channels would determine the corner frequency below which it might be useful for that.  For coincident pairs that would be a rather high frequency.  Above that corner frequency the phase is essentially random, so phase rotation should have little if any effect.  Can check where that occurs with a correlation meter.

For doing the "more advanced polarity inversion split-phase" +/-90° thing it applies to the entire audible frequency range if applied to identical copy.

I wonder if the Izotope RX phase rotation tool is doing the same thing by rotating phase across all frequencies by the same amount. 

Link to the PHA-979 plugin web page- https://www.voxengo.com/product/pha979/

From the explanatory PDF found there-
"Phase shifting process of this plug-in does not skew the phase relationship within the
signal being processed, the phase response is linear across the whole frequency range
(this is achieved via FIR filtering). [..snip..] The only drawback of PHA-979’s
phase shifting process is a power spectrum roll-off below 20 Hz and above 20 kHz,
which gets stronger as the phase shift approaches 90 degrees."


musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline hugh

  • (6)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Gender: Male
  • who knows where the time goes?
    • halfbricking
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #223 on: February 19, 2021, 10:54:11 AM »
Love the discussion of phase shift for dimensionality.  Playing with Ambisonic mixdowns, the pure Blumlein figure-8 stereo mixes have plenty of "precision" but don't seem to give a very enveloping feel.  But I've discovered that if you take the "W" channel (i.e. an omni), then add -24dB of (W with 90-degree phase shift) to Left and -24dB of (W with -90 degree phase shift) to Right, the three-dimensionality really pops.  You only need a tiny amount of this level to make a difference, it can be 25 to 30dB down.

I don't have a theoretical background to tell *why* this works or whether it's justifiable by theory :)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13986
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 3
« Reply #224 on: February 19, 2021, 12:06:35 PM »
Welcome to the discussion hugh!  That's interesting.  I'll try that with some of my Ambisonic recordings once I get my editing computer back in action.  When I was using the TetraMic I often used pair of spaced omnis flanking it as a way of achieving increased envelopment, sense of openness and space.  The two approaches may be similar in terms of perception.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2021 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF