# How to rip CDS



## effmaster (Sep 5, 2007)

LOL I do know how to rip a cd in WMP but is there a way for me to go beyond 192 kbps? If not in WMP then where at and i dont mean downloading songs i just want to rip my cds at a higher bitrate than 192 kbps, is this at all possible?


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Sep 5, 2007)

You can't copy something at a rate greater than it was originally sampled.  I think 192Kpbs is the upper range.


----------



## effmaster (Sep 5, 2007)

but from what ive seen on limewire there are higher bitrates than 192 kbps for download and plus when i play a cd i cant remember what it said but i think it was playing like in the thousands for kbps


----------



## Darknova (Sep 5, 2007)

Choose mp3 format and you can go up to 320kbps.

The different formats have different maximum bitrates you can rip at. Try different ones to find one you like.


----------



## Sasqui (Sep 5, 2007)

I've been using this for years, I think the max is indeed 320kbps - this also supports VBR which will make your files significantly smaller.

http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/

Make sure to enable CDDB... all you have to do is enter a dummy email in the options for it.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 5, 2007)

192Kbps for WMA is a "lossless" format according to MS. I have tried and been able to hear no difference between 192 and original on high end equiptment after a reburn.



The 96Kbps that part of my music is in is shit, 128 is still crappy, 172 VBR that MS music used to deliver is good enough for most music.


----------



## IggSter (Sep 5, 2007)

You can rip CDs in a number of different ways:

MP3 can go as high as 320kb/s and is known as a lossy format (due to the fact that you will lose some of the original audio quality

AAC can go as high as 320kb/s and is also lossy but gives superior quality over MP3

FLAC is a lossless compression format which will leave you with files of the same quality as the original CD (note CD tracks will be in the order of 40-60MB each, depending on the track length of course)

A very good free application for ripping and organising is http://www.mediamonkey.com/


----------



## Sasqui (Sep 5, 2007)

Steevo said:


> 192Kbps for WMA is a "lossless" format according to MS.



MS is smokin crack.  WMA is inherently a lossy format, as are all the sound compression technologies.  Though 192 is probably the detectable "threshold".

Edit: there are a few "lossless" technologies out there, but they still remove data from the orginal audio track


----------



## v-zero (Sep 5, 2007)

Use Itunes with LC-AAC at 256kbps vbr if you are an audiophile. If not, use the Nero LC-AAC (free) implementation at q0.5 .

As for what people say about hearing a difference, these people are fooling themselves. In all the blind testing that has been done, around 90% of people find an AAC bitrate at 128kbps to be indestinguishable from a studio RAW recording, whilst 99%+ find AAC at 192kbps to be indistinguishable. HE-AAC has been found to be indistinguishable for 80% at only 84kbps, whilst the other 20% ae found to suffer from certain "replacement" sounds in HE-AAC.

Either way, with 5.1 audio HE-AAC is extremely effective at 192kbps (46kbps per channel and 8kbps for lower-level sounds).


----------



## v-zero (Sep 5, 2007)

Sasqui said:


> MS is smokin crack.  WMA is inherently a lossy format, as are all the sound compression technologies.  Though 192 is probably the detectable "threshold".



No, formats such as FLAC are lossless (mathematically identical).


----------



## v-zero (Sep 5, 2007)

Sasqui said:


> Edit: there are a few "lossless" technologies out there, but they still remove data from the orginal audio track



No, you are wrong they are bit-for-bit copies.

Apologies for the triple post, I am very lazy.


----------



## Sasqui (Sep 5, 2007)

v-zero said:


> No, you are wrong they are bit-for-bit copies.
> 
> Apologies for the triple post, I am very lazy.



Yea, I did a little homework - you're right.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 5, 2007)

CD audio, excluding super audio CD is 1411.2 kbit/s

So no 192 mp3's are not close....

I rip mine as high quality Mp3 320 or Mp4 320, things I'm picky about get ripped as FLAC

Winamp does it and with the plugins does FLAC also.


----------



## v-zero (Sep 5, 2007)

niko084 said:


> CD audio, excluding super audio CD is 1411.2 kbit/s
> 
> So no 192 mp3's are not close....



Not in bitrate, but in sound they are.


----------



## Grings (Sep 5, 2007)

windows media player can do variable bit rate and wma lossless too


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

v-zero said:


> Not in bitrate, but in sound they are.



No they are not..... Trust me...

To the average ear sure most people don't know or care with the average system playing it.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

Grings said:


> windows media player can do variable bit rate and wma lossless too



WMA is not real lossless, its not close at all actually, its not bad, but its not close.


----------



## Grings (Sep 6, 2007)

niko084 said:


> WMA is not real lossless, its not close at all actually, its not bad, but its not close.



aye, i was responding to the op, who wanted to know if he can go over 192k, which both do


----------



## v-zero (Sep 6, 2007)

niko084 said:


> No they are not..... Trust me...
> 
> To the average ear sure most people don't know or care with the average system playing it.



I beg to differ.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

v-zero said:


> I beg to differ.



Well then you know everything..... 

Go buy yourself a scope and a high quality mic and record the sound print with 2 tracks 1 in 192 and 1 in 320 and then for the heck of it record it again with a cd...

By the way do this in a studio with high quality studio monitors for flat output so you can see the difference... Or don't bother at all and plug the scope directly into the output even a high end sound card in a computer...

Sir you know nothing of high quality audio.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

Grings said:


> aye, i was responding to the op, who wanted to know if he can go over 192k, which both do



That is very true, it will do greater.


----------



## v-zero (Sep 6, 2007)

niko084 said:


> Well then you know everything.....
> 
> Go buy yourself a scope and a high quality mic and record the sound print with 2 tracks 1 in 192 and 1 in 320 and then for the heck of it record it again with a cd...
> 
> ...


This is the idiotic response I expected . Clearly there will be a "loss" and a change in the shape of the audio, but I am not talking about technical quality I'm talking about perceived quality. Tracks should be recorded in RAW data, no doubt, but when listening to a song you would be pushed, in an ABX test, to hear a difference between a CD and a 192kbps LAME encoded mp3. 

Do not mistake what I mean. And whilst I do not work in a field of audio, I am somewhat of an audiophile when it comes to music and films.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

v-zero said:


> This is the idiotic response I expected . Clearly there will be a "loss" and a change in the shape of the audio, but I am not talking about technical quality I'm talking about percieved quality. Tracks should be recorded in RAW data, no doubt, but when listening to a song you would be pushed, in an ABX test, to hear a difference between a CD and a 192kbps LAME encoded mp3.
> 
> Do not mistake what I mean. And whilst I do not work in a field of audio, I am somewhat of an audiophile when it comes to music and films.



Well you are talking to an extremist audiophile that is in the business, and there is a very large difference that is also strongly dependent on the dynamic range and frequencies produced in the song. Under ultra high range properly recorded cd's such as classical Cd's by Telarc, and on very high end amplifiers pre amps players and speakers easily costing a basic home system well into the 10,000 USD price range for a basic system, you can and will notice the difference very well, especially if you start getting into 50-60khz and below 15-20hz, which in that case to 90% of people is more a mental effect than something you can hear audibly. There is a very large difference that is extremely noticeable in high end equipment in properly recorded music.


----------



## v-zero (Sep 6, 2007)

If you say so, but then if you have one of those systems you probably don't need to be compressing audio.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

v-zero said:


> If you say so, but then if you have one of those systems you probably don't need to be compressing audio.



Well that is the general idea.. I do have one of those systems, a little bigger and most of the equipment is not new. But I did setup a media server for my uncle who has a little over $100k invested into his audio system, and all of his audio was done in FLAC, and even with that he can still tell a small difference between his $1000 cd player and the media played off the computer, figures he needs a better sound system for the computer, thinks its just a little interference and its already external. Now he is more picky than I am, I don't think that would bug me much as I have listened to it a lot and have no issues with it personally.


----------



## acousticlemur (Sep 6, 2007)

wow..... im not even gonna get into all that crap, i rip everything at mp3 320 or higher 24bit wav @580kbps. and with my audigy 4 pro and bose free style's you can def hear a differance in the lower quality rips.  i dont dl anything anymore. god bless the record "what you hear" option!!!

effmaster, what sound card do you have?


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

acousticlemur said:


> wow..... im not even gonna get into all that crap, i rip everything at mp3 320 or higher 24bit wav @580kbps. and with my audigy 4 pro and bose free style's you can def hear a differance in the lower quality rips.  i dont dl anything anymore. god bless the record "what you hear" option!!!
> 
> effmaster, what sound card do you have?



Recording it back out to 24bit is really kinda useless, being a cd is done in 16bit. Now it has been said when you are producing sounds to keep them in 24bit until you record it.

Where the 24bit comes in handy is when you are using 24bit processing, which is what your sound card will do with a 16bit, although it is possible that when you have it on your drive as a 24bit file that it doesn't have to do as much work, may result in less processor usage.


----------



## craigo (Sep 6, 2007)

Hi guys i use this one with the LAME encoder engine it supports variable bit-rate mp3 (adjusts bitrate according to frequency) also other neat things like normalization and intermediate wav files (graet if im editing) and links to freedb for auto titling album/track info, the only downfall is i have too find my own album art, but for free it is the best app/engine out (IMHO)...anyway..linky

http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/download.html

to use the LAME encoder you will need to drop the dll file into the install directory of Audiograbber

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Lame_Encoder.htm

good luck and may your floor vibrate and your windows shatter


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

I'm gonna also have to back Niko up on the quality issues. I have personally been tested many times by naysayers on the issue. I can clearly hear the difference between 320Kbs Mp3s, FLAC, and even CDs, given the proper equipment and environment. Especially when I use my triple driver Shure in ears, or they test me in the studio over the monitors. It's especially noticeable in music that has long sweeps across a wide frequency range. Classical music is very good for weeding out compressed formats. Generally, the more complex the music, the easier it is to tell the difference. Now, I might struggle to hear the difference on some pop or rap tracks, but I wouldn't be listening to that anyway. lol


That said, I use WinAmp for ripping in Windows.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 6, 2007)

32bit float at 96K sample will capture well beyond what the human ear can hear.




16bit CD's at 44K are right at the level with what a human can hear. There is minimal difference between a super high end audio system and a good midrange system from my expreiance. While it is true that a lossy compression will cut the range and mute some of the background a high bitrate lossless compression will do neither, it merely removes the unused portion of bandwidth. Why describe a single sample that will form one small part of a analog wave at 16 bits of precision when 8 will do? Why sample 44 thousand times a second when the waveform is changing 500 times per second.



I will admit there is a large difference between a original CD and a reburn of music that has been compressed, or badly mixed music, Nelly Fruity Say It Right and something like U2 Actung Baby. A huge difference, but to say that a lossless format changes the music stream is absurd unless outside noise is injected. If it is go with fiber. No extra noise. I use it and have no issues, and a 30' cable will carry 5.1 DTS just fine.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

Steevo said:


> 32bit float at 96K sample will capture well beyond what the human ear can hear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A 500Hz waveform is sampled at 44k, because only it's peaks change 500x a sec, everything in between is an analog slope. If you sample it at 500Hz, you will only get the peaks, and nothing in between. You can clearly hear the difference, even with just a single waveform produced by a synth.

As far as lossless compression, i can still hear a difference, at least in my rips, but that may be because of what I rip with. FLAC sounds less full on the bottom end to me.


----------



## driver66 (Sep 6, 2007)




----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

driver66 said:


>



 Point taken.


----------



## driver66 (Sep 6, 2007)

lol


----------



## Steevo (Sep 6, 2007)

The green dots are samples. The black line is assumed waveform. This was a sample taken of a 256K two pass VBR stereo compilation.  Any change to the music is caused by outside forces or low quality equipment.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

Well, I was gonna drop it, but where is the original, non-sampled waveform for comparison? Not the assumed waveform. There's no control group, so that picture is pretty pointless.

EDIT: Oh, and lest ye forget, with analog instruments, you may hit a 500Hz frequency, but it won't be a perfect waveform, so, when your software "assumes" the waveform, it may well guess incorrectly.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 6, 2007)

Is that a horse? 


But my point is that you can describe those points as 16 bit or how many ever bits of resolution to achieve the same energy peak, and it is still the same, minus a minuscule variation for basic smoothing, and that is probably where the muddying is heard, or not heard for most people. The difference is speaker response, capacitors used, line voltage, driver configuration, and most important ears. 



Long story short, any single point is actually a electrical value that a number is assigned to, and be it a 16bit word used to describe it, or a 8 with a pointer, or just 8 it is the same electrical value.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 6, 2007)

I agree, there might be very, very, very small changes, but even between two samples taken on the same machine there will be deviation. So in all reality, it is up to a end user to make the decision if it sounds good or not.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

Steevo said:


> Is that a horse?
> 
> 
> But my point is that you can describe those points as 16 bit or how many ever bits of resolution to achieve the same energy peak, and it is still the same, minus a minuscule variation for basic smoothing, and that is probably where the muddying is heard, or not heard for most people. The difference is speaker response, capacitors used, line voltage, driver configuration, and most important ears.
> ...


Ah, caught me in an edit. But I think you addressed my point anyway.

So, you are saying that there is a difference heard? So what are we getting at or debating here then? lol

And yes, that was a horse. lol


----------



## Steevo (Sep 6, 2007)

That most lossless formats are truly as lossless as can be, it is an outside force that causes the distortion or deviation from the original. I use all fiber optic to carry my audio between systems, and can't hear a difference between the audio provided by my cd player, DVD player or a high bitrate "lossless" from my PC. All else being equal. Step below lossless and the quality is degraded and is crap at low bitrates.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

Steevo said:


> That most lossless formats are truly as lossless as can be, it is an outside force that causes the distortion or deviation from the original. I use all fiber optic to carry my audio between systems, and can't hear a difference between the audio provided by my cd player, DVD player or a high bitrate "lossless" from my PC. All else being equal. Step below lossless and the quality is degraded and is crap at low bitrates.


Well, I won't debate that. I likely haven't perfected the art of ripping to FLAC. But I just don't bother. My absolute favorites are left uncompressed anyway. I have the space, so it's no bother.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 6, 2007)

Next up quantization and teh errors thereof.


But to be hones it is time for me to sleep some. Good night everyone.


----------



## driver66 (Sep 6, 2007)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

driver66 said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh



What? We came to an agreement. lol


----------



## driver66 (Sep 6, 2007)

lol just dont want to get nikko started 

And I guess I like beating horses


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

driver66 said:


> lol just dont want to get nikko started
> 
> And I guess I like beating horses



Well Wile E and I agree on a lot of things in an audiophiles demands 

Even though you may not actually hear the difference, it has been proven to cause different mental effects when music is re-produced differently. But like we have both said to some its fine to some its not, and it very well depends on music.

Yes there is also a big difference between even a well encoded 96kbps and a poorly encoded 256kbps.. I have personally heard 96kbps encoded songs that sound disturbingly good in comparison to poorly encoded songs at 256 or even higher..

Ya lossless isn't even totally lossless, although it is pretty close.

Also correct there when audio is compressed the low end is the first to go because everyone pretty much knows most people don't have speakers capable of producing 30hz let alone 4-6-8 hz, then the top end comes off 50khz, 45khz, all the way down... They try to lock it in so you keep your 20-20khz, but even in digital audio with compression you can pick up some nasty noise in your high frequencies.

Unfortunate parts of working with CD's.... I love my vinyl! *by the way "good" vinyl is still pretty much "THE" pick of the elite audiophiles... Paying for the records and the players on the other hand, not something I can invest in yet..


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2007)

niko084 said:


> Well Wile E and I agree on a lot of things in an audiophiles demands
> 
> Even though you may not actually hear the difference, it has been proven to cause different mental effects when music is re-produced differently. But like we have both said to some its fine to some its not, and it very well depends on music.
> 
> ...


The biggest thing I have found to get the most out of vinyl on a moderate budget, is to spend the most money on the cartridge and needle. I have a P-Mount Technics turntable, and I use a Grado Gold Cartridge with an Elipticle needle. Spent $50 on the turntable (got it because it had a nice and low "wow and flutter"), and $180 on the cartridge. lol. Sounds superb.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

Wile E said:


> The biggest thing I have found to get the most out of vinyl on a moderate budget, is to spend the most money on the cartridge and needle. I have a P-Mount Technics turntable, and I use a Grado Gold Cartridge with an Elipticle needle. Spent $50 on the turntable (got it because it had a nice and low "wow and flutter"), and $180 on the cartridge. lol. Sounds superb.



Hmm maybe I'll look into that... My gf's dad has a really nice one, but I think if I remember correctly it cost him something like $4000 used.....

I don't have much vinyl because I don't have a player, but there are a few I have bought for the day..


----------



## effmaster (Sep 6, 2007)

driver66 said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh



lol
acousticlemer i dont have a sound card right now i just registered not to long ago to this site middle of august, before that i just read the news section for a couple months lol. anywho im working and playing off my laptop right now which is what i use for gaming with Cod2. Anyways About these different file formats, I thought that RAW was a picture format and not a music format, if it is a music format them does Window Media Player 11 support RAW files? This is my prefered music player program (i never liked Rhapsodys or Itunes lol). 

Any who I just wanted a higher bitrate than 192kbps since im about to hook up my Logitech 5.1 surround sound speakers (their either x530s or x540s I cant remember since at my college campus right now and not at home)  

LOL i am working on building a desktop soon but not just yet im still having to pay off my car and such lol plus dont have time what with work at Publix, College 4 days a week, and finishing up internship at NASA i dont always have alot of time on my hands
goes to cry in the corner.............sniff.......sniff.

Now what is WinAMp and what does it do. I dont think i want to use an ap from nero (the only thing i use it for is burning COPIES of DVD's)

Oh and good lord all this talk of 44khz and such is confusing it makes my head hurt

All hail simplicity at its best


----------



## niko084 (Sep 6, 2007)

Winamp is a media player, they have a lite freeware version and a lifetime full version for like $10 maybe less I don't remember....

Anyways it will play music, tons of skins/effects/visuals, good control, small, efficient, it will now burn cd's also. All around by far my favorite media player.

http://www.winamp.com


----------



## TUngsten (Sep 7, 2007)

The only time I can tolerate listening to mp3s or burned CDs is while I'm driving in the car, and the add'l external road noise (and the limitations of my car audio system) makes it difficult to discern any real difference beyond the fact that compressed burns are always much flatter dynamically and need to be turned up louder. 

At home however, I wouldn't be caught dead trying to run my soundcard output through my old HK tube gear.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 7, 2007)

TUngsten said:


> The only time I can tolerate listening to mp3s or burned CDs is while I'm driving in the car, and the add'l external road noise (and the limitations of my car audio system) makes it difficult to discern any real difference beyond the fact that compressed burns are always much flatter dynamically and need to be turned up louder.
> 
> At home however, I wouldn't be caught dead trying to run my soundcard output through my old HK tube gear.



I can't even listen to mp3's in my car..... Burned cd's I can deal with and normally do listen to but they are dead copies of the original disk *don't want my good discs getting all beaten up*.

But I have more money worth of audio equipment in my car then I think my car is worth...
*That wont change for a long time*


----------



## DRDNA (Sep 7, 2007)

Me and my SUV and my subs powered by 1800 Watts hate any thing less than raw but will at times settle on 320But as far as hearing the difference ...huh..what did you say .um well that depends on the ears listening


----------



## niko084 (Sep 7, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> Me and my SUV and my subs powered by 1800 Watts hate any thing less than raw but will at times settle on 320But as far as hearing the difference ...huh..what did you say .um well that depends on the ears listening



Well with big subs and huge sub amps there isn't much there but distortion and rattling so in that case, ya doesn't much matter, but if a mp3 is poorly, the bass really starts to distort really bad and sounds horrid.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 7, 2007)

TUngsten said:


> At home however, I wouldn't be caught dead trying to run my soundcard output through my old HK tube gear.



I imagine it doesnt have a fiber optic in. 





If you mean to say that a sound card is incapable of output that is high enough quality you are mistaken. SPDIF optical will carry DTS 5.1 24bit 96K, much higher compared to a 16bit 44K CD quality, and with no interfereance from outside signals. Standard CD quality output is PCM 44K. Exactly what is written on the disk. If any interfereance is present is can be assumed from a external source or from the lack of following the specifications.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 7, 2007)

Steevo said:


> I imagine it doesnt have a fiber optic in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are VERY incorrect...

And no he wouldn't do it because a good tube amplifier is the closest thing to perfection in the audio world. The natural disgusting sound of a sound card would destroy the output of that god send amp!

16/24 bit 96k all that is only one very very small side of high quality sound.


----------



## TUngsten (Sep 7, 2007)

niko basically summed it up for me  ^

but you're right of course about the old tube gear not having coax or fiber inputs too

AND if you look at my car
<-------------

you might correctly guess that it's 
a) a 1979 saab, 4spd manual no less!
2) rather noisy at high speeds :shadedshu


----------



## Steevo (Sep 7, 2007)

Then please correct my thinking. I understand that the CD player or hard drives provide digital data that has error checks in place, so there is no degredation there, passed on to the sound card that may or may not have any processing to do on the sound, based on user choices, or hardware, then passed on to a LED that creates the optical stream, with checks in place, so no degredation. 


So far I see nowhere it has left the digital relm, so no degredation of original signal. Then the reciever converts the signal to what the user chooses, be it a surround, or basic stereo.



So what am I missing, there is no interfereance from the CD player or hard drives, possibly some along the PCI bus, possibly some on the sound card itself pending hardware and user choices, none along the cable, and possibly some in the reciever. 


So against a audio source that uses analog cables to pass it to the reciever, and does the decoding itself, you have at least the same number of interferance points.


I will have to try a loopback on my SPDIF out to in and see if there is any interfereance.


----------



## TUngsten (Sep 7, 2007)

Steevo, my comments are solely related to the playing of ripped MP3s/burned CD copies as opposed to listening to originals through a decent soundsystem. The transmission of the data is not the issue, but the compression and data loss. 

In some respects I think that the headphone out on my soundcard might just be the "purest" way to listen to audio files, given that they were purely digital in origin, and not compressed to 10% of the original source material.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 7, 2007)

The problem is distortion in different levels, sound cards pick up emi noise, weak signals over long distances pick up additional noise, the smallest voltage fluxes cause the data when converted back into sound to become warped. Although it is a world better to go with like you said a spdif output from a sound card, it is still in fact very far from perfect...

CD players in their own do not read perfectly, the plastic cd's are made of warps the light slightly, cloudy cables although you may not see it with your eye or even most test software, does exist and does effect things...

You are thinking about it on a very basic level, and on that level you are correct, there is just much more involved. Remember audio is real time also, there is no "the data is incorrect re-send"


----------



## Steevo (Sep 7, 2007)

I can eject my CD from my player and it will continue to play for a few seconds after. Same with my Toshiba DVD player, and my 665 yamaha CD player to a lesser extent.




Most have a small buffer to help with read errors, and also for transmission errors. There is built in error correction on the discs, this is why you can sometimes here "skips" only in certain ranges of the music.




I am going to try a loopback of the optical if it will let me, and test for errors.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 7, 2007)

Loopback through SPDIF


----------



## effmaster (Sep 7, 2007)

^^^^^^^^^^^^
lol relax steevo please seriously guys take this somewhere lese this simple matter turned into a huge fiasco over which sound sounds better lol.


----------



## niko084 (Sep 7, 2007)

That is a valid point also....

Anyways if you want to know more about the highest sound quality levels achievable and what really makes the difference, there are a few very large audiophile forums around you can even read some of the stuff without registering, I could go on for years, but most of what I can say will go far above most peoples heads and into things they don't know about let alone care.


----------



## driver66 (Sep 7, 2007)




----------



## Wile E (Sep 7, 2007)

driver66 said:


>



 That still cracks me up.


----------



## effmaster (Sep 10, 2007)

im almost tempted to ask a mod to close this thread lol though i might miss seeing cows get beaten with a stick


----------

