28 Jun
2004
28 Jun
'04
12:04 p.m.
Jan Depner wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 02:46, Anahata wrote:
I can tell the difference, if it's not done properly, and it isn't
entirely trivial to do it properly. For starters, you need a decent
soundcard ... I've tried the stereo mini-in jack on this laptop and also
on a couple of other older motherboards / soundblasters and the quality
is _nowhere_ near the quality I get out of the VXpocket v2 with balanced
inputs, and even that's probably at the lower end of the "prosumer"
range. Non-sound people I know can immediately tell the difference too.
I've heard enough badly ripped vinyl recordings that I don't really
trust the general populace to make analog-to-digital encodings of any
work. Admittedly there are more complex factors involved with vinyl
than with CD's, but if it's any indication ...
I would like to agree though, and also find copy protection of any sort
to be ridiculous, in that "if I can read it, I can copy it". It's just
that in practice there can be so many hoops to jump through that you
start asking, "why do I even want this in the first place?"
Cheers,
Chris
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 12:35:03AM +0300, Sampo
Savolainen wrote:
What really makes a mockery of the copy protection racket is what the
RIAA calls the "analog hole". If I can hear it, I can copy it. Find a
CD player that can handle the chewed up CD, run the analog outs to your
computer, record it. I seriously doubt that there is anyone around who
can tell the difference between a digitally ripped copy and a digitally
encoded analog copy. you could try to find a CD player
with spdif output and, presuming you have spdif input on your computer,
record the data digitally from a normal player.
The possibility of doing this (I assume copy protected CDs can't prevent
it, if they can be played at all) is one more thing that makes a
mockery of the whole business of copy protection.