4 Jul
2003
4 Jul
'03
12:49 p.m.
Hi Larry,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:37:33AM -0400, Larry Troxler wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2003 22:43, Ryan Underwood wrote:
In general, I've taken "ripping" to mean a digital copy, but the meaning
has seemed to change with the copy protection issues lately. It would
probably be a good idea for people that use the term to make the
distinction between analog ripping and digital ripping when talking
about the subject or when describing a particular set of audio files.
--
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253
Just my two cents, you can rip a CD in either
analog or digital form.
Analog will incur some lossiness since the path is
CD-DA -> DAC -> ADC -> WAV
The ADC (analog to digital conversion) is a lossy operation.
Ripping directly from the CD is preferable since there is no ADC
involved. But it is not necessary to get acceptable sound quality.
Programs like cdparanoia and EAC operate as digital rippers, using the
cdrom's built in mechanisms to extract the audio data directly. There
are other programs however (such as cdsound-recorder) that will play the
disc through your CD drive's built in DAC, and record the sound through
your soundcards ADC input. Or, you can use a standalone CD player for
the same effect.
Wow, I guess that either I have always been mistaken about this, or the meaing
of the word has changed over the years. I always thought that "ripping" meant
getting a byte for byte digital copy, converting the CD audio format to a
soun file format. What you're describing, I always thought of as "taping".
So when some in the Linux Audio world talks about, say, ripping samples from
an audio sample CD into wavs, in order to load them into csound (just picking
a likely application), do they mean they made an exact digital copy, or do
they mean they made an analog copy? I always thought it would mean the
former, but am I wrong? This is a quite important distinction, don't you
think?