4 ms·
>I definitely was not aware Spotify DRM had been cracked to enable downloading at scale like this. What's stopping someone from sticking a microphone next to t
by firefax 10mo ago
>I definitely was not aware Spotify DRM had been cracked to enable downloading at scale like this.
What's stopping someone from sticking a microphone next to their speaker?
Slow, but effective.
- michaelmior 10mo ago> Slow, but effective. I wouldn't call this very effective. It would take an impractically long amount of time to capture a meaningful fraction of the collection and quality would suffer greatly.
- layman51 10mo agoAudio fingerprinting?
- firefax 10mo ago>Audio fingerprinting? Bought a spotify card with cash, email was registered on public wifi. Who cares? :-)
- dbalatero 10mo agoThey'd probably do a shit job of capturing it?
- coppsilgold 10mo agoEven if you plug the audio output into the input you would still be taking a quality loss by passing the audio through a DAC and then an ADC. Maybe if the quality of your hardware is good enough it wouldn't matter, but then you would be limited to only ripping 24 hours of audio per day...
- yungwarlock 10mo agoBro. Who cares. Ive got bunch of songs like this. The loss makes it more nostalgic
- firefax 10mo agoThey recently started offering lossless, could you get down to the equivalent of 320kbps? I grew up on sites like Suprnova, and quickly found I could not discern the difference between 320 mp3s and lossless. Even now, I only seem to notice if I use a very high end pair of headphones, and mostly with electronic music that has a lot of soft parts with sounds that are in the low or high end of the spectrum.
- Clamchop 10mo agoYou don't have to pass it through a DAC. There's no equivalent of HDCP for protecting digital audio end to end. Crudely, you could capture S/PDIF but really, skip that and just output to a virtual audio device for recording. No DAC in the path either way. But yes, it is inconvenient and slow.