back to article Apple is Fisher-Price of sound quality, says Neil Young

Over five decades Neil Young has played a variety of roles including sixties protester, folk singer, Ronald Reagan supporter, grunge rocker and film maker. Now he's donning a new hat: Apple basher. Young says Apple, with its ubiquitous iPod and iTunes, has dumbed down sound quality to "Fisher-Price toy" levels that place …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Jobs Horns

IPOD users are t*ssers

I challenge anybody to listen to dark side of the moon in MP3 format. The Hammond organ sounds like it's on full spin cycle.

Who wants to listen to portable music anyway? We have the radio, the trees, the birds and the bees. Plus if you do stick wires in your ears you are more likely to be run over or mugged.

0
0
Bronze badge
Black Helicopters

Bass

mp3s sound tinny because they, no compression rate can low bass hz, with most shops sell variable compressed files

Vqf should have won the war except it doest sound street

0
0
Unhappy

So what we need...

...is an online store offering the user a wide choice of formats/encodings/bitrates in which they want to receive their music - the higher the perceived quality the more you would pay.

Drum roll, in through the door, may I present to you www.allofmp3.com - ah, snag, sighs.

0
0
Thumb Up

@Johan Vavare

He's right. I had to mention this because, well, I never noticed that actually happening here before.

As for why Apple, maybe it's all those no-fi devices being sold to make your iPod a "stereo". Perhaps it's those sqr(-1)-fi bud things you could - but shouldn't - stick in your ear. Or, it might be just that Job's head is the biggest target floating above the parapet.

0
0
Alert

What a colossal load of bollocks

My iPod (80GB - ie larger than a 50GB Blu-Ray disk) is used to store and play CDAs transcoded as Apple Lossless MPEG4 files. It's not as good as a CD player or a DAT machine, it's BETTER. If DVDAs were rippable, I'd use those or SACDs as my source. They aren't so I can't. It's not Apple or the rest of the CE industry that's stopping us enjoying higher resolution audio, it's the record industry.

Young, if you're listening, take your complaints up with them. Or just shut up.

0
0

Point is...

It's fine enough for people to argue "who cares?" because few have decent equipment, but that if you think about it, you are being sold music which you may want to keep for years and will never be able to hear it in better quality should you one day get better equipment.

Should be stressed though most of the poor quality MP3s are the result of bad quality rips, which is prevalent because extremely few people know how to rip properly or use the right software to rip exact copies (that don't just sample off the decoded audio, but actually read the raw data exactly), and don't notice because they play back on an iPod with the crappiest of crappy earphones. Combined with the poor quality encodings that commercial companies use when flogging download music.

Anyway, the problem is that CD is lower quality than Vinyl, and downloadable music in the form of MP3, AAC, whatever is lower quality still. Matters not to the majority when they are under 18 and don't care, but the music still suffers and when they grow up, get a decent job and can afford the kit to enjoy "proper" music, they'll realise their entire collection is actually shit and the industry no longer produces anything of decent audio quality. The only way they can hear music as intended is to go to a concert (talking of which, how many who say MP3s are great, have gone to a concert and heard so much detail they never hear in their MP3s?).

Worse is the fact they are being ripped off at CD prices for less than CD quality, with no packaging, and DRM on top!

P.S. Bet if this article hadn't mentioned Apple, the responses would have been quite different ;)

0
0
Paris Hilton

MP3 information

@hi_robb:

I have to say I really agree with the points you are making. If you read my post above I'm sure you will notice that.

However, when you say: "it's those frequencies which you can't hear which give the space between the band members, and the ambience of the studio etc,"

it's actually a bit screwed up.. it not FREQUENCIES it is TIME DOMAIN artifacts that kills the acoustics, combined with a 2xsingle-channel analysis rather than a stereo image analysis during encoding that does that. There are no 'frequencies you can't hear' - except above/below your hearing range.. but there are acoustics/ambience such as early reflections ( echoes in the <30ms range ) and late reflections ( >30ms ) that gives the space between the band members. And, yes, audio data compression has a tendency to destroy that information.

Another important point about MP3 quality;

The MP3 protocol does NOT specify the encoding method, only the DECODING method. Since it's all about psycho-acoustics and predictions of a listener might or might not hear, the encoding algorithm has a big significance in the resulting quality. And, there are many different encoding algorithms out there - all encoding to MP3. Thus, only focusing on bitrates might be slightly misleading.

I am not sure, but I think AAC was developed by Dolby, and that the encoding algorithm is specified in the format. That would make it at least a bit more reliable than MP3, but not necessary better..

Paris, because she sure shouldn't be compressed.... :)

0
0
Silver badge

@ShaggyDoggy

> How do you do "over 100% modulation" ?

You overdrive the transmitter, so if you have a 100 Watt Tx, you modulate it with more than 100 Watts of "music"

>Once you get to 100% what happens next ?

You generate a ton of 2nd harmonic (bad, but the listener doesn't hear that) to your A.M. frequency. So if you transmit on 1000kHz, you create interference at 2000kHz but for the listeners, they don't hear the 2000kHz signal, it just seems to them that the quiet passages aren't so quiet, and the loud bits sound louder.

0
0
Paris Hilton

@Tam Lin

You have a point about the iPod docking stations, and as Apple has a very high reputation on design, I guess most people assumes that it's valid for sound quality, too...

Hmmm, in all honesty, I have found many comments being quite 'right' here throughout the years.. but thanks anyway :)

Paris, cos she wont know the difference anyway..

0
0

whatever...

I rip 256kbps AAC/MP4 44.1KHz/24 and it sounds CD quality to me on my iPod Nano 3G. I wouldn't buy normal iTunes DRM-enabled 128k MP4s, but the iTunes+ stuff sounds perfectly fine.

0
0
IT Angle

Back to the future

As long as compressed audio is used for direct listening ( without processing ) and there are alternative high-quality formats available, I think this discussion is more of a 'style debate'. However, I read lots of articles/reports talking about the future of music sales as being COMPETELY BASED ON DOWNLOADS. The day when you have to download a free-but-advertisement-financed stream as the ONLY format available for a new album/song the compression formats will actually really start to matter. Let's hope that there will be some remnants left of the culture that actually led to the development of audio recordings, compression, etc.

When the CD format was designed by Philips, they consulted many classical music experts, like Herbert von Karajan etc. to make sure the format was good anough to carry all music styles. Will that happen with online streaming formats, or will they be chosen only to fit +-3dB dynamic commercial mainstream music ?

Worth thinking about, really....

IT?, because this is a job for the IT community..

( Sorry for talking too much, but this is interesting )

0
0
Coat

Blame Apple?

I think Young is blaming Apple because Apple has sold the vast majority [of late] of MP3 and AAC players [does anybody else use AAC in a player?]. They could of set some type of standard but didn't.

Surely with a 160GB iPod they could allow non-lossless formats as an option.

I'd blame Apply ob the over-hyped over-priced products. I'll take my $40 512MB Lyra any day. Drag and drop my MP3s in the player's drive unlike the crappy proprietary and buggy iTunes that you need just to transfer music.

0
0
Jobs Horns

iPods are crap

Prepares to be flamed.....(except by webster the wan*er)

But this is an important comment - you spend hundreds of pounds on an Ipod - and you get 50p headphones.

0
0
Stop

There seems to be a large number of...

wankers on here that believe an iPod cannot play uncompressed audio. iPods CAN. they can play AIFF, WAV and Apple Lossless MP4s.

I've know for a long time that Apple-bashers based their vitriol on total ignorance, but I'm surprised to find that there are so many tossers out there who've never touched an iPod, considering the massive sales of the thing.

Mr AC, take your 512MB (!!) Lyra and cram up your cretinous, know-nothing backside.

0
0
Boffin

DVD-A

Quote: Young has long resisted new-fangled digital music technologies

Not true, actually, Neil Young was always been a strong proponent of high resolution audio, releasing many of his titles on DVD-Audio.

It makes sense that he would embrace high res audio on Blu-ray.

I'm all for high-res audio myself. I use 320kbps on my iPod though which is good enough for the road and for hooking up to portable speakers. For home use, I prefer to listen the the original CD,

0
0
Anonymous Coward

He's right

Downloadable compressed sound files sound like crap, dull and flat. I remember the first time I burned a CD from an album I bought on iTunes and popped it in my (moderately good) car stereo system. "What the hell is wrong with this??"

If I like an album enough to want to buy it, I buy the CD to listen to at home and in the car, and rip it to my mp3 player for portable listening. To me, $10 spent on a downloaded album is a waste of money if it sounds like a 1970's 8-track tape.

CD's are fine for me . . . and DVD Audio disks for special occasions (i.e., recordings good enough to sound better than on CD).

And please don't tell me about vinyl. Sure, if you have a $5000 transcription turntable and can afford to buy a new copy of the LP after every 6 plays, fine. Otherwise, you are dealing with monauralized bass and mid-bass, clicks, pops, hiss, high-frequency distortion and mistracking, sound quality that degrades toward the inner grooves, wow, flutter, rumble, acoustic feedback . . . yuck, memories of the bad old days.

0
0
Happy

I like woody songs...

not tinny ones.

Young is quite right. Lossy compression (including DAB) knocks the stuffing out of music.

0
0
Unhappy

Quality of the music is far more important than sound fidelity

It seems most people are so obsessed with sound fidelity that they are no longer able to listen to the music.

There's a recording of Pablo de Sarasate playing his "Zigeunerweisen" on an old wax cylinder, made around the turn of the 19th century, the sound quality is obviously awful, there is lots of noise, little if any dynamic range and the higher registers are almost inaudible (unless you know the piece well, you probably wouldn't notice anything played on the E string above first position, nor any of the artificial harmonics), yet, it's one of the most outstanding recordings in history if you know how to listen to music instead of sound fidelity.

Likewise with so many recordings made by great artists in the last century, all long before there was any decent recoding technology. Many of these historic performances are unmatched by performances of today's artists despite all the high tech and impeccable sound fidelity available now.

Ever heard of a work called "The Rite of Spring" by Igor Stravinsky? Try comparing some CDs with recordings of it. All of the recordings made since digital recording became available pale in comparison to recordings of this work made in the 1950s and 1960s. Yes, the sound quality is an order of magnitude better on the recent recordings, but the performances just aren't. It will take another Karajan or Bernstein to come along and record this work digitally in a way that *musically* matches historic performances recorded on the lesser capable technology of the day.

0
0
Thumb Down

Some perspective

Personally, I don't have a problem with compressed (mp3 type compression) audio quality. I don't think the ipod sounds too bad either.

I bet in a controlled environment you'd struggle to find anyone who can tell the difference between 320kb MP3 vs. WAV or even 192 vs. Wav. Time and time again people have failed in double-blind tests to tell the difference in high end audio equipment and supposedly superior audio formats.

Dynamic range compression is however another matter entirely - imo it's most of the reason behind why people still claim vinyl sounds better (it's the only sane reason i can think of). A quick waveform analysis of a modern CD will show you that nowadays they compress CD's literally to levels of distortion (you'll notice flat peaks at the loudest parts). That WILL make a difference in sound quality just as driving an amplifier too hard will.

www.theaudiocritic.com is an excellent site, this article in particular is a favourite of mine:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Yes yes yes, when I stop buying food, I'll buy expensive audio equipment

No wait, I won't.

Do I know that better gear exists? Yes.

Does a bit rate of 192 sound just fine to me on my car stereo, laptop, desktop? Yes.

Do I give two guanos about being able to hear the outer limits of frequencies in music? Not really, no.

Telling me that I'm horribly wrong about the quality of music I listen to or the gear I use is retarded as:

a) My hearing isn't that great (nor is the hearing of anyone over the age of 16 ferchrissakes). So I can't tell much if any of a difference and....

b) Spending umpteenth thousands of dollars on expensive audio equipment isn't my top priority and honestly? Never will be.

Regarding Mr Young: I'm suspecting his codger-"get off my lawn you damn kids" rant is more inspired by a desire to plug his new blu-ray compilation.

As he sells his music on iTunes I seriously doubt that he really considers them the bane of music everywhere. But they make a great target.

0
0

compressed minds of the recording industry

I, too am a sound engineer, having done shows at places like Disney, worked eith Chet Atkins, Ralph Stanley, and Ben Folds, and say the problem is with the studios wanting (and acheiveing) to sell the public a lower quality product.

As other engineers have noted, once lossed up, and compressed down, the files can not be fixed. They will always sound like crap!

Having a studio system worth over $100,000.00 is sure nice when I want to listen to LP's, or early cd's, and BlueRay. But the crap being put out by the mainstream studios leaves much to be desired.

Why do you think the receivers now come with sound processors in them? To make up for bit-cheating, level boosted, overly compressed, over-processed, lossy radio fodder, played back on a toy with (in the words of Billy Joel) "Three Inch Speakers" > and that is if you are lucky.

It is a good thing that I prefer Indie type music, 'cause many of them have left the Big Studios, and are doing it themselves, > well maybe with the help of some good old fashioned soundmen like myself, and putting "IT" out there on their own.

Nothing like the feeling of cutting out the "the man", and doing it like it should be done, (as Frank said) "Doin' it My way"!!!!

And people have been sold a bill of goods for many years >remember Dolby Noise Reduction? > They said "you can not hear it", but anyone with a decent system that includes tweeters had no trouble being disappointed in the reproduction of the sound with that system. >wake up and smell the hosers, 'cause they are cheating you when you download.

And finally, my M-D player sounds great, if I do not use the LP settings!!! unknownsoundman@yahoo.com

PS: "We could use some more talent in the monitors!"

0
0

Mixed feelings

Hate his music with a passion, but agree with his comments. High sample rates if you really do have certain doggy attributes (No, not being able to lick those...) but really the problem is an excessive shift to quantity over quality. Capacity should be much higher now with ML codecs - what would you pay for either 80GB disk or 8GB flash now?

BTW, just because something has a big 'PRO' badge on it (like some of the kit mentioned previously) doesn't make it so - often the reverse

:)

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

All due respect, but Neil is flat out WRONG.

It's the EYES that are the windows to the soul.

...of course, being a musician (of sorts), he WOULD get it wrong.

We graphics people, OTOH, understand these things!

0
0

93dB

Yes CD has a 93dB dynamic range, so why are modern recording compressed so that the level hardly deviates by more than a dB ?

Wait ... it's so it sounds good on a iPod ... silly me.

0
0
Stop

For the benefit of the deaf, LISTEN!

Sure, Young has a poke at iTunes, probably because it’s the major distributor of on-line music on the internet and it, like all of it’s imitators want to deliver music at a substandard quality.

Ask a person in a repro house if he/she thinks jpegs are better than CMYK separated lossless tiffs or lossless eps files and they will laugh at you. The same goes for music.

By all means, collect sub standard mp3 music files, but if you get a windfall and purchase some good audio equipment, don’t expect them to become better. The quality was removed from them before you purchased them. In fact, they will most likely sound worse because your new equipment will show up how crap the recordings were.

Even on my PC, I can tell the difference between a max quality Lame encoded mp3 and a CD. A Sonic Fury (Santa Cruz) card on some very old Altec Lansing (hissy) speakers. The CD sounds better, surprise!

Some people are just bloody deaf, I remember talking to some folk about Nick Cave’s “Abattoir blues”:

Me – Did you think that the squeak on the bass drum pedal should have been oiled?

Them – Uh?

Me – You know, the bass drum pedal, it’s got a squeak, and it’s really prominent?

Them – What squeak?

Me – Play it now, listen, it’s got a squeak.

Them (playing it) – I can’t hear a squeak.

Me – Oh, forget it.

If I were a musician, spending time and money creating the sound I want, I’d be annoyed that the majority of my listeners are deprived from the same quality I listened to, not because of the equipment they own, but because of the format they use.

Audiophiles are not necessarily mega rich people who purchase a couple of meters of speaker cable for 500 pounds or convert the top story of their house into horn speakers (A guy in Japan did this). If you like music, you purchase the equipment needed to play it that’s within your means. Wanting your music to sound better is not a crime, but providing music that CANNOT sound better is.

0
0
Boffin

Yep his right, but....

Compression is horrid, we all know it. Even though I used to work in the Audio business I took the easy road and did all my CD's at 128kbps...

It was all good for a while.

Then I upgraded the sound system in my SUV from a stock one to something much better.

Boy do I care again - it sounds bloody awful!

Re-did a few CD using EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and Lame, minimal compression and some other tweaks...huge difference.

However, it's till easier to buy of iTunes and just hit the road and that is still 128 unless you get iTunes Plus.

Convenience or quality...

You can however see it from the Musicians point of view, they spend all this time crafting their sound and we don't really get to hear it as they intended.

If anyone has been lucky enough to be in a studio and hear the master recordings, it's pretty damn amazing!

0
0
Thumb Up

"new-fangled digital technologies"

"Young has long resisted new-fangled digital music technologies"

Another reason this is not true is the fact that Neil was one of the first people in the United States to have a full digital recording studio, somewhere around 1983.

0
0
Thumb Up

Apple fan agrees - much to my own surprise!

Actually you have all heard the sound suck in various ipods, I'm sure. Especially if you use the EQ, there will always be some obvious distorsion. I never understood why Apple could not fix a seemingly simple bit range saturation problem. At least they have finally fixed it in the new iPhone, which sounds great.

But here comes a real life story: I believed VBR 192 kbit/s would suffice for everything. I even made blind tests to confirm that 160 was the limit where the compressed sound was undiscernible from CD original.

Then I got a pair of high end speakers and a burr-brown equipped receiver (for the interested: Gamut Phi7 and Onkyo SR 805). Still everything sounded great. I was as happy as any man with new high effect toys can be. And then I switched from signal cable to optical.

It completely DESTROYED most of my music (especially modern rock suffers badly). It sounded awful, hard and crashing sounds escaped my previously fabulous setup. I started checking for errors and found none. Then I inserted the original CD and this time chose Apple lossless. Fantastic detail at any volume! Gorgeous nuanced high resolution sound! Wow!

The funny thing is I had no idea that the previous sound was below par. It sounded great. Now it is greater. And ears are picky indeed, now most everything sounds poor, because I have experienced Hi-Fi.

Morale: do not buy great hi-fi equipment unless prepared to suffer the consequences Mr. Young is suffering in these posts. Everyone will (rightly) start calling you a snob.

/Philip Bergen, snob.

0
0
Thumb Up

NEIL YOUNG IS THE MAN!!!

Neil Young is the man and when it comes to sound and music... the man knows what he's is talking about. No one is more dynamic than he... take a look at his career...he's done EVERYTHING!!! HAS HAD A 40 plus year career and still sells records and tickets... and is high respected in the music biz. I've seen the guy 14 times! The man has a close relationship electricty! WHO ELSE IS STILL WRITING AND PERFORMING THEIR OWN SONGS?, GOOD SONGS BY THE WAY! Ipods do suck for sound... you cant beat the conveince its true, but the sound is terrible.. there is no warmth at all. Nothing beats vinyl records.... NOTHING. If you have a good record and a decent player....they sound... by far, way better then a CD. The music feels like it's in the room with you and you can listen a lot longer...where as a CD or MP3 starts to wear on you nerves and you ears. We have been going backwards in this department. Neil is not a crotochty old fart... you'd be surprised at the shape he's in. He's a musician and many are coming out against the MP3... not just older folks. They want their music to (surprisingly!) to sound good! Most people I know who are really into music collect and play only records..cause they know what music should sound like. We need more people like Neil Young to speak out against these shitty standards offered to us today. ROCK ON NEIL!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

metrics

Re:

One of the last audio comparisons I saw (a proper one with metrics rather than bs) still gave mp3 (via the LAME codec) the edge on AAC. Reason given - codec more mature so the implementation is about as good as it could be whereas AAC still has

BS!

Anyone working in professional audio design know that metrics: signal to noise ratios, harmonic distortion figures, IMD, frequency responses don't prove one sound system is better than another!

The metrics are used in design to give something to work towards, at the end of the day, you test the performance by listening.

CD systems always come out tops in terms of the metrics compared to Vinyl, but everyone knows a good vinyl system sounds superior to CD!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Only one aspect

There is much variance caused by different headphones, ear-buds, speakers with the i-pod. Considering the size and capacity of portable mp3 players they are, on the whole, a good thing for most people. At least when using an I-Pod I don't have to endure the horrible acoustics and jackass audience behavior in the converted sports arenas that many live concerts are held in.

0
0
Coat

What's the problem?

I'm stating the bleeding obvious, but here goes anyway:

Why can't folk buy a CD and play it on a CD player? You can get portable ones, negating the need for ipods, flash MP3 players etc etc. Not only that, you have your music there 'til you destroy it, should you want to.

It's only the manufacturers that have caused these problems by making stuff easy to copy. If you give folk the means to copy stuff...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Interesting Point

Yeah, if I was a musician (and I only dabble) then I would probably a bit miffed about the drop in the quality.

A bit of a step back really, just because bandwidth is sort of metered.

As a consumer of music I expect the songs I like should play ok on a mono tape deck, that is the dance music standard.

But for high end stuff where someone really knows their art, then yes whatever gives the best fidelity should still be prized.

0
0
Happy

God cannot be wrong

Neil rocks!!! And he's right, the sound quality of my iPod is not up to much. It's too tinny!!

0
0
Thumb Up

Declining standards

Maybe he's motivated by a precipitous decline in standards on Apple's side. I have a clamshell iBook (2001-ish), and the audio output is frankly wonderful. It makes the Sound Blaster Live in my main comp sound like mere onboard audio. A pity the old clamshell can't handle modern codecs.

0
0
Flame

AUGH!

Separate to my other comment, the number of people I want to HIT in this thread is... well, I don't usually want to hit anyone. What on this planet possibly gives so many people the right to ground their statements in the fantasy that if they can't hear something, no-one else possibly could either?

0
0
Thumb Up

Right to criticise apple!

Not because of iPods because they are caplble of lossless high quality sound, but, ofr the iTunes store which sells you tracks at twice the price of a CD with half the quality.

The CD format was constrained by what could be achieved for a reasonable cost by the available technoligy twenty years ago.

It is ridiculous that twenty years later with no technical constraints

Apple are overcharging for tracks which are less than CD quality.

Admitedly they do make some tracks available as lossless ACC but then you must overpay even more for only CD quality.

0
0

@Ethan Grammatikidis

"Separate to my other comment, the number of people I want to HIT in this thread is... well, I don't usually want to hit anyone. What on this planet possibly gives so many people the right to ground their statements in the fantasy that if they can't hear something, no-one else possibly could either?"

Yeah, someone saying that "nobody can hear those frequencies" is annoying. I'll out myself as one of the ACs (when I stop buying food...) and defend my angle on this.

Those of you that still have hearing can enjoy your crazy good sound systems. I will call you an audio snob, but I do understand that it's your deal not mine. I know that you may not be targeting my post in particular but this is the internet, where all things are taken personally. My original post was a plea for the audiophiles to stop telling people that it was somehow wrong for not wanting insane gear.

Hearing audio at 192-320 kbps is perfectly enjoyable for me. When I say that I can't hear the difference, I mean it. The gear I've got is decent, but not decent enough to tell any discernable difference between the mp3 and the cd (128kpbs is another story altogether).

I can't see paying an crapload of money on an uber sound system so I can hear how terrible the music I've bought off of beatport or itunes sounds on it. It sounds perfectly fine on what I have and the better gear would actually detract from my enjoyment of the music.

My 2p

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Of course Apple owns all the rights to all the music

and so they could just sell it at any price, or even give it away for free, also they could just distribute in any format and any quality they like, it is just that they are nasty and greedy that they charge money and that they have some stuff with DRM and at lower quality than CD. Its all up to them, nobody else has anything to say in how they distribute and for how much. The recording companies have nothing to say and the musicians also have no say.

Come to think of it Apple doesn't have Beatles tracks because they hate the Beatles, they could just distribute Beatles tracks if they wanted but they don't want to. The surviving Beatles and the heirs of the two deceased members of the band have of course absolutely no say in all of this.

People, if you think you can sell music online as you please without the music industry allowing you to do so, if you think you can decide all the details without the music industry telling you what you can do and what you can't, then why don't you set up your own iTunes shop? You should outsell Apple in no time.

0
0

@J.P. Pachet

"Old man, look at my life"

Make that...

"BPI, look at my files "

0
0
Anonymous Coward

conversion

Has anybody realised how the quality of D/A converter can affect the sound? The buzz always mentions how low the bitrate is, or poor compression algorithms, but it's rather the matter of good converters dedicated for audio. Your 192kbps mp3 will sound much better when played on audio equipment rather than via your laptop's green headphone plug.

0
0
Bronze badge
Linux

ph0r I.T.

everything on the planet is a job for mechanical engineers

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017