| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2005 : 04:27:05 AM
|
Some more primitive questions about recording. I have done a search here and on the web, but can't find anything that I can use directly. So, yet again, I throw myself on your mercy.
Yesterday, I got up my courage (the proper cable connections with all those choices, and perfroming the proper sequence of events so you don't blow things up, is very daunting) and experimented with the Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro mixer. Briefly, the mic setup (trim, gain, etc.) and connection into my Gina3G and then into Audition, went very well. Everything about it worked well.
But, 2 confusions ( and maybe more I haven't realized yet) still exist.
1. I didn't know how much to pan either track: the left was mostly guitar and the right was mostly voice, so I just made an aribitrary setting of 2 units (I don't even know what 2 units means) L and R. The result sounded pretty good and the Audition frequency displays showed a slight volume (dB) and frequency/timing shift between the two tracks. The phase difference display was really good: a nice tight oval, just like Dancing Cat recordings I have ripped and looked at.
So, is there some target to shoot at for pan, some criterion to judge what I am doing, or did I just luck onto something right?
2.I had intended to also mix in the output of my Baggs M1 pickup, fed through my Baggs PADI, and then into the 1202. My intent was to give the guitar more definition and fuller sound. I could set the trim, gain, etc. fine, but the sound of that track was really *ugly*. First, I am not quite sure how to set the PADI's parametric EQ/preamp for recording (it was initially set up by listening to the output of a friend's old power amp, but he dumped it - so that is no longer an option). I think I know how to do it through the Mackie - just solo the track and listen while I tweak, right? But then, what do I do with that track? I know that some of you have said you use *part* of that signal, and Mark has said he pans it way to one side (if I interpreted him correctly). Any suggestions?
yr. obdt. svt.,
Reid
|
|
|
`Ilio Nui
`Olu`olu
USA
826 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 09:55:13 AM
|
Reid,
This is a very good question which goes right to the heart of recording: how to create a soundfield. Sometimes it's much easier with 4 or 5 instruments than with an solo artist. Picture yourself in a small room with Sarah playing and singing. If you're right in front of her and beyond, say, 10 feet, how would you hear her in the soundfield. I would imagine that her voice would come straight at you before the natural ambience of the room diffused her voice. Her guitar on the other hand, having a greater frequency range and less direct sound pressure, would come at you straight also, but more diffusely. It would be a little wider in the soundfield than her voice. Now let's see if I can use that to address "confusion 1"
I wouldn't say you got lucky. You had a stereo spread of about 20 degrees, so it still sounded natural. The wider you pan those channels, the less natural it would sound. I would suggest that you don't pan your input channels at all. When you do, you actually make a hard-copy of that setting (we call it "wet"). So, if you ever want to put Sarah back in the middle, you can never quite do it exactly. The same goes for the guitar. There are panners in the Audition software that will allow you to manipulate the degree of pan for playback. Once you find the desired pan settings (by listening), leave it there. Again, the same goes for the guitar, the problem arises that the guitar, recorded on a single track, needs a little wider field. Here's something you can try. After you have recorded the guitar and are happy with the results, make a copy of the track, open up a new track and place the duplicate on that track, exactly aligned with the original. Now pan one of those tracks 2 units left and the other about 2 units right (in the software, not the Mackie). On playback, it should have more of that room feel we talked about above.
Confusion 2- Why do you want to put the PADI in the recording chain? Does your Baggs M1 not provide the EQ or enough power to drive the Mackie pre-amps? You are correct that the direct track will "give the guitar more definition and fuller sound", but not for the reasons you might think. The direct track is usually a great source for adding bass definition and maybe a little high-end sparkle. So let's see if I can give you an example.
Start by plugging your guitar directly into the Mackie and using it as a PA. Play out through your speakers and adjust the tone to where it's pleasing to you; as if you were playing a performance. Less is more. Now add the PADI to the equation. Did it get better? Is there more noise? Remember, if you now record this sound, it's a wet recording and you can't do anything about it. You're better off recording as flat as you can in the direct track and then, if necessary, manipulate it in the software. That's what your plug-ins are for. Usually what I do with the direct track is run a low-pass filter and knock off most everything but the bass, then adjust that level to get that crisp alternating bass that we recognize as slack key.
If you're not already doing it, you should create a Master Track and buss all you channels to that and listen only to that stereo pair. It will not only give you a better representation of the sound, but the summing of the bussed track levels will give you a true picture of total volume and whether or not you're clipping.
Now that you got up the courage, it's time to be courageous.
Dave |
Edited by - `Ilio Nui on 03/07/2005 09:58:28 AM |
 |
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 10:45:12 AM
|
Thanks Dave,
I grok most of what you said intellectually, and now I have to experiment with everything to actually figure out how to do it. The software is easy, especialy since experimentation is so easily reversible; it is the new mixer hardware, its functionality and connectivity I need to learn more about.
The reason I panned with the mixer controls is because, at the center detents, I was getting mono from the 2 tracks together as they went into the computer via the Gina. Should I pan hard right and hard left to separate them entirely? Would that effectively be a dry signal for each track?
I put the PADI in there for just the reason you supposed. The M1 is a passive magenetic humbucker with a floating second coil that picks up top vibrations as well as string vibrations over the pole pieces. I got it because it sounds good over something like an AER Cube and it is transferrable from guitar to guitar. It puts out very little signal, like all of its kind, and its cable is only 12 feet long (and losing 1 dB per ft.). So, the idea (maybe badly done) was to put its unbalanced 1/4" connector into the PADI and use the PADI to boost the signal so that the Mackie could deal with it. And, in addition, use the PADI as a connector for a *balanced* line out to run across the house to the Mackie and the rest of the recording gear that lives in another room. The 5 para EQs in the PADI are there to take the objectionable effects of pickups out - like boominess, etc. I could just run its EQs all flat (no cut or boost anywhere) and perform the experiment you suggested. Sound right?
It was that bass *definition* (the mics give the guitar enough overall bass) and high end sparkle that I wanted out of it, but how do you get the high end sparkle if you low pass filter it? I suppose I could filter the middle out.
Is anything I just wrote off-base? (Or more off-base than usual :-)
BTW, every answer that I get from you and Lawrence and Mark gets copied into a Word doc that I keep as reference.
Thanks again...
...Reid
|
|
|
|
`Ilio Nui
`Olu`olu
USA
826 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 11:37:26 AM
|
quote:
The reason I panned with the mixer controls is because, at the center detents, I was getting mono from the 2 tracks together as they went into the computer via the Gina. Should I pan hard right and hard left to separate them entirely? Would that effectively be a dry signal for each track?
OK, I think I understand your set-up a little better. If you are using the Main Outs of the Mackie to feed a channel each in the Gina, then yes, Pan hard left and hard right. If I understand the GINA, doesn't it have two XLR inputs with preamps. If so, wouldn't that be a better choice than going through the mixer? I would also plug the "direct" guitar straight into one of the TRS inputs for the third channel, instead of the mixer. - If you're going to use the mixer, then the Mackie has some very cool choices. You could run the mic guitar in channel 1, Pan left, the vocal in channel 2, pan right and direct in channel 3 using the "Alt 3-4" option. So your three cables would be Main Out R/L and Alt Out R or L. The effects inserts can also be used as outs as long as you only put the jack into the first click (the second click is for the TRS return). It's been a long time since I used my mixer for recording so I had to refreash my memory. I only use it for playback.
As for the PADI. Your explanation was perfect and it makes perfect sense to do it that way.
quote:
It was that bass *definition* (the mics give the guitar enough overall bass) and high end sparkle that I wanted out of it, but how do you get the high end sparkle if you low pass filter it? I suppose I could filter the middle out.
OK, you busted me. If I low-pass the signal, then I only have bass info. Usually that's all I want. There are a couple ways to get the bass and high-end sparkle. EQ out the middle or use two seperate, duplicate tracks; one with a low-pass and the other a hig-pass filter.
Trust me, I'm not trying to be intellectual. I'm just a hands-on engineer who loves to record and help people make good records.
All the best,
Dave |
|
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 11:55:46 AM
|
Dave, howzabout you come visit us (and the invitation is open to all our favorite slackers) and straighten me out for sure?
Yup, you got it. The mixer is because Gina3G only has 2 inputs/preamps, and I am not altogether happy with their pramp/phantom power implementation. I shouldn't have presumed, I guess (Wot, you don't know *everything*?). I also shoulda followed Lawrence's example and gotten the Layla3G with more inputs, but who knew?
So, the pan hard R&L will do it for the mics, but I must use the Mackie to mix in the pickup with the guitar-heavy track, because, again, Gina only has 2 inputs. That is not a hardship, I have enough controls and filters. I don't mind that that signal is wet because it is kinda an "accent". Or should I mind - Oh yeah, it makes the whole guitar side wet, but I can do it, I think, so that it sounds good. Not perfect, but nothing about me is perfect. EQing out the middle is easy.
And, Dave, intellectual is good - one of has to be, or I am blown out of the water.
...Reid
|
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 2:50:24 PM
|
Yes - your main problem now Reid...
is that you are trying to record what SHOULD BE a three to five track recording onto just two tracks on the fly. This is like recording a live concert PA mixdown on the fly. That is rarely done these days! Too many people have realized that you will not get the best mix by doing the mixing during the actual recording (or tracking). This is why Les Paul (A guitarist you may note) helped develop the multi-track recorder in the first place. You will have to tweak things for quite a while before you arrive at a good Pan/EQ/Mix for the guitar vs Voice overall. Then you will find out that a particlular mix,eq,pan of Direct vs Mic for the guitar on one tune will not necessarily be the best for the next tune!
I suggest selling the 2 channel digitizer box and investing in AT LEAST a four channel unit, but at this point it would be wiser (and cheaper in the long run) to go for an 8 channel unit like the Echo Layla or MOTU units.
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 03/07/2005 2:53:22 PM |
|
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 04:12:40 AM
|
OK, it is obvious that I have made some less than optimal decisions about hardware, wasted some scarce money, and drifted away from my original intent. It is probably worth reexamining that goal. I don’t want to make yet another mistake and get deeper into a hole.
First, the purpose of recording. We are hobbyists, and wanted to use recording as a tool. One thing it does is sharpens direction and impetus for learning particular songs really well, as gigging does. But, you can do it without the constraints of gigging and you can review what you have done. A second effect is learning what you really sound like. Two examples: One song that Sarah arranged sounded right when played casually, but sounded like a dirge when recorded and played back – the tempo was too slow and the software showed us that it needed to be sped up by about 25%. Then it sounded really good. Another song she wrote had the melody too much above her range and she strained to sing it. There was no simple way to deal with that, which was made really clear on a recording, and led her to rethink and rewrite the piece. The third purpose is the occasional sharing of a recording as she did on the Taro Patch CD. That is about it. There is no idea of producing a CD as some of our Patchers have done, although if we get our act together, we might assemble one over time and give it to friends and family.
Recordings on the Taro Patch CD got us started on this odyssey. So many of the pieces sounded *so* good, and they were recorded under very simple conditions. Sarah used an ancient electret Radio Shack mic run into an ancient casette tape deck. Her pieces didn’t have the really good sound quality that many of the others did, but it was very easy for her to do, and she had fun and learned. So, it occurred to me that a simple upgrade in a few areas – better mics and a better recording mechanism - would do the job, raise the sound quality to the level of our friends’.
What we wanted to end up with, as hardware and software, was a simple “canned”, preset, standardised, system, that could be set up and broken down quickly and easily, and that Sarah could do by herself whenever she had the urge (including having a remote terminal to the recording PC, by using my laptop, that she could just click to start and stop). As far as I know, the other folks on the CD did the recordings by themselves without much trouble. Am I really wrong? Right now, in our case, I am always involved and setup is a production (but, surprisingly, the mixer made mic preamp level setting a constant) . I had been hoping that, after I figured out the mixer conections, that I could step out of the actual recording process, except for *simple* “post production” software tweaking, done at leisure.
So, it seems clear that we have drifted farther and farther from that goal. Is that goal a pipe dream? Will trading up for a Layla or MOTU get us closer to the goal? For our purposes, do we need the “precision” (I can’t think of a better word) of a semipro recording studio, with me as a “Recording Engineer Very Junior Grade”?
...Reid |
|
|
|
`Ilio Nui
`Olu`olu
USA
826 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 05:39:15 AM
|
Reid,
Again, well said. Having lived with a 2 input system for many years and learning how to layer the sounds is what I think made me a better engineer than most. Without spending another dime, you have enough system to create good recordings, be they hobbyist or semi-pro. I think all it takes is a paradigm shift on using it.. Think of it as two or more systems. System one is the hobbiest. I use my own system this way. I set up two mics that are always at the ready. I turn on the computer, play guitar and sing. What I'm listening for is all the things you listed above. Is the key right, speed right, could I arrange it differently. This is the "Sarah just sits at the computer mode". System two is the scratch recording, where I make a non-a***-retentive attempt to get the material as close as possible to my final. If the song requires vocal, I would lay down guitar first, then go back and overdub the vocal. Does it sound right, do I need to change a guitar passage, is the arrangement still viable, did I sing the right phrasing? Heck, this might even be good enough to stop there. Then there's system three: Work on nailing each track. Don't just lay down one guitar track. Play the song completely through, mistakes and all. Lay down four or five, side by side. You may have twinged the guitar in the third measure on track 1 but you played it perfectly on track 3. Well, the nice thing about software is that you can cut and paste. You'll have enough information to fix just about anything. If not, record some more. The same thing goes for vocals.
If you take the system you already have and learn the basics, you will gain the expertise to be able to take that onto any recording platform. At the same time, it will become apparent what your needs are if you want to make it better (to your ears). At that point you are an informed consumer.
Use what you have and learn.
Dave
In the world I came from “Recording Engineer Very Junior Grade” was called an Intern. That's where you learned to scrub toilets, make coffee and occasionally set up a mic. Oh yeah, once in a while I was allowed to push the "play" button on the tape deck. If you did that well enough they called you the TapeOp. Thank God for home recording. |
Edited by - `Ilio Nui on 03/08/2005 06:37:57 AM |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 09:54:32 AM
|
quote:
OK, it is obvious that I have made some less than optimal decisions about hardware, wasted some scarce money, and drifted away from my original intent. It is probably worth reexamining that goal. I don’t want to make yet another mistake and get deeper into a hole.
No, you have not made any "mistakes" that I have seen. You are venturing into "new waters" and are in a learning process. Usually learning uses some money either for teachers or for tools or both.
You are giving very mixed messages here. Your questions and concern about extreme details of precise mixes and levels indicated that you were trying to achieve something more than a simple "scratch" recording. Very good recordings can be made with stereo mike(s) and a good recorder. One of the best recordings I ever made was done with two Altec Condensor (M29 or M49, I forget which) mikes and a Revox recorder. However, with this approach there is very little you can do to the recording AFTER it is recorded, and one must take extreme measures BEFORE recording (room, positioning, mix, pan, EQ etc.) to get a good repeatable sound. If you want maximum control after the initial recording and want some independence from the acoustic environment (room) then close-miking and multitracking is the approach needed.
If you do not want to buy more channels then don't, but be prepared to accept what you get when you make the recording. And, of course, you can do multiple takes with differing adjustments for each take and then choose the ones you like afterwards. It just depends upon how much patience the performer (Sarah) has ! Usually the high-strung artists have very little patience to keep doing things over, but George W. managed to get dozens of takes of the same song out of some of the Dancing Cat artists (or so I have heard).
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
|
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 10:52:08 AM
|
Yes, you are right about the "mixed messages", Lawrence. I think it is partly a function of this learning process (my ignorance) and it is partly a function of my innate, and perhaps quixotic, desire to do something really well. I have always gone full bore on anything I did (Andy calls me Hard Core :-); you know the old adage "if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well". In this case, as you point out, Sarah and I will have to accept a compromise result, at least until, and unless, I can better understand how to make a "turnkey" system work well, get more $$ to facilitate that, and understand the underlying functionality/technology. And, you and Dave and Mark have been remarkably helpful, and certainly patient with my fumbling. It is not that I don't *want* more channels, I simply can't afford them now, and I feel overwhelmed at the moment with all the new notions I am trying to get a handle on. I make really bad decisions when I don't understand a subject well. Also, I am still unsure that my "robo" recording setup idea is viable with current equipment and practices - all of you have emphasized the artistic nature of recording. Yes, I am doing as you say - close micing and multitracking, to the extent I can at the moment, AND making the recording setup as repeatable as possible. We take pictures of everything we do (Mic position, stand, boom, chair, guitar placement, distance to Sarah's mouth from mic, Sarah's head and body angle, guitar angle) print them out, measure distances and angles and record them, take pictures of mixer and Gina control positions and we have a book of all our attempts (most partial failures, of course). We are closing in on much of these, thanks to you guys, and evaluating our results through our ears.
Just as an aside, my cuckoo engineering mind has been thinking up a phased array (of mics, which could individually be cheap) passive sonar system that would first ping the room with a known signal source to record room properties, use a DSP to set up phase steering parameters in the mic array after listening to a trial run by the musician, and then automatically select the best sounds from the guitar player/vocalist and reject everything else. I did a patent and DOD search, and similar things already exist, including cheap systems for sports fishermen. Then I wouldn't have to worry about mic placement, or room characteristics at least. But that is kind of daydreaming.
...Reid |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 12:33:15 PM
|
Yes - I realize that you take the engineer/scientist approach on your undertakings, but also realize that that is both an advantange and a disease! It can drive other folks crazy if you exhibit too much of it (as my wife can attest)!
Phased arrays: No-doubt you have found references to this kind of thing in a speech recognition context, and some limited success has been achieved in this area. However, do not get the behaviour of sound in a gas (air) and in a liquid (water) confused. Sound behaves in a much more predictable way in a liquid. Sound travels at 1130 ft/sec at sea level and at 25deg C in air. At 3Khz (peak sensitivity of the ear) the wavelength is about 1/3foot = 4 inches and at 13.5KHz it is only an inch. Change the temperature or air pressure just a little (storm comming in?) and guess what happens? And what if the performer (God forbid!) wants to shift around in their chair an inch or two, or maybe (because they are such primadonna's you know) they might also want to actually breathe! Now, (you are going to say) but what about an adaptive system? Well, then look up the papers on adaptive systems, and..... 
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 03/08/2005 1:57:39 PM |
|
|
|
`Ilio Nui
`Olu`olu
USA
826 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 5:38:24 PM
|
I could upgrade my ProTools studio for the price of all that. Gina Schmeena, you could really buy some stuff.
Dave |
|
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 03:26:26 AM
|
Oh Boy...(hijacking my own thread, and in an attempt to drive Lawrence crazy :-)...
About 15 years ago, there were active EQ boxes for stereo systems that pinged the room and set the EQ for the room characteristics. A guy I know had one and it worked well. That could be done fairly regularly to check ambient acoustics.
Steerable Phased Arrays don't move physically (they depend on phase differences, of course), they can react in nanoseconds and they are spread out in space, capturing sound info in 3 dimensions. They don't need to point directly at anything. The DOD put out RFPs for these things a dozen years ago. A crude version is used in counter-battery control systems for things like mortars. One exists (and I have read the article) for counter sniper fire control. Hears the bang (which, as an impulse, contains nearly all frequencies), locates it, computes the return trajectory, and poooof. It is small and back-packable, hardened, and uses inexpensive mics.
But, Dave is right. Probably can't afford the technology, especially since DOD ashtrays cost between $600 and $6000 :-).
Just entertaining myself...
...Reid
|
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 07:09:22 AM
|
Reid,
I have one of the EQ boxes you describe: 1/3 octave with built in pink noise generator and reference mic. EQ flattening using pink noise for a room ignores the phase component and works kind of OK at low frequencies, but is frowned upon these days because it cannot flatten the room very well for more that one "sweet spot". There are also impulse-based Room EQ devices but the end result is the same. Afterall, the impulse reponse and frequency response are the flip-sides of a Fourier transform pair. I understand completely how acoustic phased arrays work (as well as Radar Phased arrays, and optical phased arrays- like those used at the Keck). One of my former managers did his Masters thesis on the subject (for voice recognition). Those rifle-shot locators work with (relatively) widely separated microphones and are actually not very accurate (within 10 feet is good enough to lob an artillery shell). You are talking about some oxygen-free copper here (i.e. Bogus Science). Most of those DOD things are pipe-dream experiments that the DOD likes to spend money on. I have been a recipient of such money myself. The physics of the problem remain the same. Very small changes in temperature, pressure, humidity, people moving around in the environment, air conditioning, wind, etc. will dramatically affect the propagation (especially phase) of sound above 3Khz, and in a random and non-predictable manner. Lots of folks have tried to remove room reverberation using the same techniques, but have discovered that moderate success can be obtained below 1KHz but get terrible results above a few Kilohertz. I do deconvolutions of impulse response(s) using MatLab as part of my job and am very familiar with all the Math and Physics involved it these issues. I am also very familiar with the work of the Naval Underwater Sound Research Lab and what they were doing (until a few years ago) with sounds under water. (Unfortunately some of their devices have a very unhealthy effect upon ocean animals).
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 03/09/2005 10:26:05 AM |
|
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 10:43:57 AM
|
I believe you Lawrence, but BBN (DARPA's wholly owned MIT subsidiary) claims differently. They have built a POC (Proof of Concept - love DoD acronyms) system that they are selling, both to DoD and local law enforcement agencies, if you can believe it. It is built out of COTS (Consumer Off The Shelf - really, they write "COTS"; what a laugh!) devices. 12 omni mics are fastened to the "warfighter's K-Pot" (soldier's helmet)which is localized via GPS, and the signals below 10khz are wifi'ed to a WinXP laptop where their algorithms live, and the result get sent back to the weapon. They *claim* that if the mics pick up the muzzle blast the shooter is toast, and they say they can do it with the sniper round's shock wave alone. So, maybe it is just Your Tax Dollars at Work :-) I figure I could do it all with smoke and mirrors.
BTW, a long time ago I used to advise the computer jocks at NUSL when they were in New London, before they moved to Newport. At that time they were blowing trained dolphins out the tubes at depth and then instructing them in funny tasks via sonar. Not sure if the dolphins were very happy about it, but they did what they were told.
The Feds are wierd.
...Reid |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 4:07:23 PM
|
Reid,
Just a suggestion: Never ever be within 100 feet of a shooter if these guys with their autolocator are firing from 1000 feet away. Sure, the shooter will be toast...and so will everybody else within 100 feet or so. (But that's just collateral damage and does not even make it into the news reports). PA was looking into buying one of those systems for our local police, and they are useful for picking out the place to send the cruisers, but they had the sense to pass on the opportunity.
Just another side note: A program much like "mythbusters" had a shoot out at 1000 yards between some Civil War cannon enthusiasts and the present top-of-the line laser-targeted Howitzer (with ordinary shells - not self guided ones). In five shots the Civil War gun hit the bullseye 4 times and fell just outside the bullseye once. The MXXX Howitzer did not hit the 30 foot by 60 foot panel that the Bullseye was painted on even once! (But the high-explosive shells dug lots of interesting craters all around the panel area) I was surprised that the U.S. Marine Corp allowed the contest to be broadcast. In a real battle these Marines would just keep firing until they scored a hit since their firing rate was 20 times faster than the C.W. gun.
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 03/09/2005 4:16:54 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
