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: > > 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? 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
