"RIP" not as in 'rest in peace'!!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

While I wasn't looking, someone slipped a new term into the hifi lingo
- "rip" as in copying something from some source media.

Exactly what does it mean, what media is referenced and what is its
history?

Thanx,

ESTG/
20 answers Last reply
More about rest peace
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Rip: Copy from a CD, typically in digital form, and typically at
    faster-than-realtime speeds.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    <erigby@batelnet.bs> wrote in message
    news:1123508364.005684.201950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
    > While I wasn't looking, someone slipped a new term into
    > the hifi lingo - "rip" as in copying something from some
    > source media.
    >
    > Exactly what does it mean, what media is referenced and
    > what is its history?

    ripping is the process extracting bit-perfect digital audio
    data directly from audio CDs.

    The term was *old* when I first learned of it, which was in
    the mid-late '90s.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    It is my understanding that Redbook Audio is a digital audio data storage
    system that does not have the likes of a file system, like you would find on
    a data CD. It is more like the grooves on an old LP. The original idea of a
    CD audio player was a digital extension of the idea of the LP. It spins.
    It's round. It has a hole in the middle. The tracks on a disk need to be
    accessible while the disk is spinning and in any rotation so you can cue a
    track from somewhere near the beginning, not necessarily the exact same
    sample every time; much like dropping the needle in the darker grooves on an
    LP. Because there is no file system, it takes some special care to extract
    the audio as a pure digital stream.

    ~James. :o)


    <erigby@batelnet.bs> wrote in message
    news:1123508364.005684.201950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > While I wasn't looking, someone slipped a new term into the hifi lingo
    > - "rip" as in copying something from some source media.
    >
    > Exactly what does it mean, what media is referenced and what is its
    > history?
    >
    > Thanx,
    >
    > ESTG/
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:35:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    wrote:

    ><erigby@batelnet.bs> wrote in message
    >news:1123508364.005684.201950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
    >> While I wasn't looking, someone slipped a new term into
    >> the hifi lingo - "rip" as in copying something from some
    >> source media.
    >>
    >> Exactly what does it mean, what media is referenced and
    >> what is its history?
    >
    >ripping is the process extracting bit-perfect digital audio
    >data directly from audio CDs.

    I've also heard it used for digitizing/digitally recording LP's
    into a computer, though that may be a more recent and less "correct"
    usage. OTOH, usage is what defines a word as much as anything.

    >The term was *old* when I first learned of it, which was in
    >the mid-late '90s.

    So what's the origin? I can easily think up a folk-etymology origin
    (thus it's very likely to be wrong) that "ripping" a CD means doing
    copyright infringement, from "ripping off" the rights owners of their
    earnings. But I have no evidence from that.

    -----
    http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    "Ben Bradley" wrote ...
    > I've also heard it used for digitizing/digitally recording LP's
    > into a computer, though that may be a more recent and less
    > "correct" usage. OTOH, usage is what defines a word as
    > much as anything.

    To me, at least, "ripping" refers specifically to recovering the
    stream of digital data from a RedBook audio CD and storing
    it into a proper computer file (wav, etc.)

    Capturing/recording/transcribing from other sources (such as
    LPs or tape, etc.) is NOT "ripping" as the original was not a
    digital source.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:51:21 -0400, "James Lehman"
    <james[remove]@akrobiz.com> wrote:

    >It is my understanding that Redbook Audio is a digital audio data storage
    >system that does not have the likes of a file system, like you would find on
    >a data CD. It is more like the grooves on an old LP. The original idea of a
    >CD audio player was a digital extension of the idea of the LP. It spins.
    >It's round. It has a hole in the middle. The tracks on a disk need to be
    >accessible while the disk is spinning and in any rotation so you can cue a
    >track from somewhere near the beginning, not necessarily the exact same
    >sample every time; much like dropping the needle in the darker grooves on an
    >LP. Because there is no file system, it takes some special care to extract
    >the audio as a pure digital stream.

    So you maintain ripping a CD is just a synonym for playing it?

    I don't see any particular problem in reading data from any chosen
    point in any file on any non-linear medium - CD, floppy or hard drive.
    There can be a rather looser attitude to error-tolerance. on an audio
    CD, I suppose. Does this have relevance to it's unique data
    structure?

    I first heard the term "Rip" meaning extracting the music from
    computer games, when it was integral to a data file, not stored
    separately and accessibly. Now I see it used in reference to getting
    audio and/or video data off media in a way other than that intended by
    the maker.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Laurence Payne wrote:
    > So you maintain ripping a CD is just a synonym for playing it?

    "Any sufficiently precise playback is indistinguishable from copying."
    Which is precisely why better media are viewed as a mixed blessing by
    the publishing industry.

    > There can be a rather looser attitude to error-tolerance. on an audio
    > CD, I suppose.

    Audio CD playback corrects errors by interpolation, which is fast,
    usually good enough for human consumption, and in fact is *more* robust
    on seriously damaged disks. Data CDs use error correcting codes, because
    they need to return exactly the right bits... but that means that when
    the damage is worse than the ECC can deal with, they basically give up.

    (Note that if you're archiving audio, there's a good argument for
    pulling two copies, one in each representation, since age and abuse
    affect them differently.)
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
    > So you maintain ripping a CD is just a synonym for playing it?

    No, "ripping" implies an element of COPYING, not just playback.

    > I don't see any particular problem in reading data from any chosen
    > point in any file on any non-linear medium - CD, floppy or hard drive.
    > There can be a rather looser attitude to error-tolerance. on an audio
    > CD, I suppose. Does this have relevance to it's unique data
    > structure?

    It is that conversion from a RedBook digital "stream" (or the
    extraction of audio from a game, etc.) into a "proper computer
    file" that is the essence of "ripping" to me.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Bingo!

    "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
    news:dd8qcn$t94$1@news01.intel.com...
    > "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
    > > So you maintain ripping a CD is just a synonym for playing it?
    >
    > No, "ripping" implies an element of COPYING, not just playback.
    >
    > > I don't see any particular problem in reading data from any chosen
    > > point in any file on any non-linear medium - CD, floppy or hard drive.
    > > There can be a rather looser attitude to error-tolerance. on an audio
    > > CD, I suppose. Does this have relevance to it's unique data
    > > structure?
    >
    > It is that conversion from a RedBook digital "stream" (or the
    > extraction of audio from a game, etc.) into a "proper computer
    > file" that is the essence of "ripping" to me.
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Laurence Payne wrote:
    > On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:33:49 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    > <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:
    > >Capturing/recording/transcribing from other sources (such as
    > >LPs or tape, etc.) is NOT "ripping" as the original was not a
    > >digital source.
    >
    > But there are digital sources other than RedBook CD?

    DAT, MO, ...
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    dpierce wrote ...
    > Laurence Payne wrote:
    >> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:33:49 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    >> <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:
    >> >Capturing/recording/transcribing from other sources (such as
    >> >LPs or tape, etc.) is NOT "ripping" as the original was not a
    >> >digital source.
    >>
    >> But there are digital sources other than RedBook CD?
    >
    > DAT, MO, ...

    To my way of thinking DAT and MO were formats/media
    were *designed* to be recovered digitally whereas audio
    CD (as contrasted with CD-ROM) was never designed to
    be used to reproduce the exact digital sample stream. The
    minimalist error detection/recovery methodology used in
    the RedBook format would appear to support this theory.

    But, really, this discussion of the etymology of "rip" has
    exceeded its useful span.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Joe Kesselman wrote:
    > Laurence Payne wrote:
    > > So you maintain ripping a CD is just a synonym for playing it?
    >
    > "Any sufficiently precise playback is indistinguishable from copying."
    > Which is precisely why better media are viewed as a mixed blessing by
    > the publishing industry.
    >
    > > There can be a rather looser attitude to error-tolerance. on an audio
    > > CD, I suppose.
    >
    > Audio CD playback corrects errors by interpolation, which is fast,
    > usually good enough for human consumption, and in fact is *more* robust
    > on seriously damaged disks. Data CDs use error correcting codes, because
    > they need to return exactly the right bits... but that means that when
    > the damage is worse than the ECC can deal with, they basically give up.

    Sorry, this is simply not correct. CD's use interpolation only if
    the already built-in error correcting codes fail. Red book CD's
    already use a couple of layers of error correction, including
    CIRC. The actual unrecovered data error rate on even moderately
    maintained disks is still on the order of 1 bit in 10^12 or better.

    Now CD-ROM adds another layer or two of error correction on top of
    that. But to state that CD's ONLY use interpolation for error
    recovery is simply false.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > dpierce wrote ...
    > > Laurence Payne wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:33:49 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    > >> <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:
    > >> >Capturing/recording/transcribing from other sources (such as
    > >> >LPs or tape, etc.) is NOT "ripping" as the original was not a
    > >> >digital source.
    > >>
    > >> But there are digital sources other than RedBook CD?
    > >
    > > DAT, MO, ...
    >
    > To my way of thinking DAT and MO were formats/media
    > were *designed* to be recovered digitally whereas audio
    > CD (as contrasted with CD-ROM) was never designed to
    > be used to reproduce the exact digital sample stream. The
    > minimalist error detection/recovery methodology used in
    > the RedBook format would appear to support this theory.

    Which "minimalist error detection/recovery methodology" would
    that be. Red bnook audio CD's use several rather sophisticated
    error encoding/detection and recovery algorithms, including EFM
    encoding, CIRC (Cross-Interleaved Reed-SOlomon Coding), etc..

    Typically, the raw bit error rate on a CD is on the order of 1
    bit in 10^5 or 10^6, but after CIRC error correction, this is
    reduced to 1 bit in 10^11 or less. I have routinely seen discs
    play the entire way through without a single uncorrected error.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    dpierce wrote ...
    > Richard Crowley wrote:
    >> To my way of thinking DAT and MO were formats/media
    >> were *designed* to be recovered digitally whereas audio
    >> CD (as contrasted with CD-ROM) was never designed to
    >> be used to reproduce the exact digital sample stream. The
    >> minimalist error detection/recovery methodology used in
    >> the RedBook format would appear to support this theory.
    >
    > Which "minimalist error detection/recovery methodology" would
    > that be. Red bnook audio CD's use several rather sophisticated
    > error encoding/detection and recovery algorithms, including EFM
    > encoding, CIRC (Cross-Interleaved Reed-SOlomon Coding), etc..
    >
    > Typically, the raw bit error rate on a CD is on the order of 1
    > bit in 10^5 or 10^6, but after CIRC error correction, this is
    > reduced to 1 bit in 10^11 or less. I have routinely seen discs
    > play the entire way through without a single uncorrected error.

    I meant relative to data-grade error detection/recovery schemes.

    If it is that common to be able to read RedBook data stream
    without errors, why do people have so much trouble ripping
    them? Even pristine discs right out of the shrink-wrap.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    James Lehman wrote:
    > It is my understanding that Redbook Audio is a digital audio data storage
    > system that does not have the likes of a file system, like you would find on
    > a data CD. It is more like the grooves on an old LP. The original idea of a
    > CD audio player was a digital extension of the idea of the LP. It spins.
    > It's round. It has a hole in the middle. The tracks on a disk need to be
    > accessible while the disk is spinning and in any rotation so you can cue a
    > track from somewhere near the beginning, not necessarily the exact same
    > sample every time; much like dropping the needle in the darker grooves on an
    > LP. Because there is no file system, it takes some special care to extract
    > the audio as a pure digital stream.

    That's not correct.

    CD audio data is collected into well-defined units that comprise
    a hiearchy which certainly qualifies as a random-access, indexable,
    seekable (with 100% repeatability) hierarchy.

    The smallest addressable unit in a CD is a subcode block, which has
    its own sync work, instructions, data, commands and error correction
    information. Such a block can define the beginning of a track or index,
    which is uniquely and repeatably accessible, just as would the sector
    on a harddrive.

    The lead-in tracks contain track and index tables that can be read in,
    as the vast majority of CD players do. That's why when you put in a CD,
    the player will often display immediately how many tracks it finds. It
    does not have to read the entire disk to gather this information: it's
    all in the index track. Another word for "index track" would
    appropriately be "directory." This area includes not only track
    subcode block index information, but includes track and index timing
    as well.

    Once any one entry is known, the drive can be commanded to seek to
    the exact location on the disk and start playing (reading) immediately.
    It will do so from the same sample every time you command it to do
    so. There is no inaccuracy in that respect. You're limited to starting
    reading from the beginning of a sub code block, and not anywhere in
    the middle, simply because the error correction requires an entire
    block to perform its operations.

    In all respects, a CD is far more different from an LP than it is
    similar, and for more like a hard drive than it is different.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > dpierce wrote ...
    > > Richard Crowley wrote:
    > >> To my way of thinking DAT and MO were formats/media
    > >> were *designed* to be recovered digitally whereas audio
    > >> CD (as contrasted with CD-ROM) was never designed to
    > >> be used to reproduce the exact digital sample stream. The
    > >> minimalist error detection/recovery methodology used in
    > >> the RedBook format would appear to support this theory.
    > >
    > > Which "minimalist error detection/recovery methodology" would
    > > that be. Red bnook audio CD's use several rather sophisticated
    > > error encoding/detection and recovery algorithms, including EFM
    > > encoding, CIRC (Cross-Interleaved Reed-SOlomon Coding), etc..
    > >
    > > Typically, the raw bit error rate on a CD is on the order of 1
    > > bit in 10^5 or 10^6, but after CIRC error correction, this is
    > > reduced to 1 bit in 10^11 or less. I have routinely seen discs
    > > play the entire way through without a single uncorrected error.
    >
    > If it is that common to be able to read RedBook data stream
    > without errors, why do people have so much trouble ripping
    > them?

    I have never had trouble ripping disks on my system. Ever.

    Maybe its because my system is reasonably well maintained, using
    something other than the cheapest P.O.S. drives that have been
    beaten to smithereens on OS's that are maintained and free of
    extraneous tasks and all that. Maybe it's because most people's
    systems are a total mess.

    Yes, some peeople have a lot of trouble ripping CD's without
    errors. They bring the disk to me, and I can read it with no
    problems. TO me it's a miracle that there system can do anything
    at all.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    James Lehman wrote:
    > Oh really?

    Really. Do you have a copy of IEC 60908 on hand?

    > Are you a software engineer too!

    Yes, I am.

    > The data on a hard drive is truly random access and because of that it can
    > be in any order.

    "Random access" does not mean the same thing as "random order."

    > That's why we have things like disk defragmenters. There is
    > a file system in place that requires that the entire partition on the hard
    > drive has a format regardless of the amount of data that is stored there.

    Irrelevant to the fact that an audio CD is an addressable, random
    access device.

    > CD audio is nothing like the data structures that are stored on
    > a hard drive.

    Might I respectfully recommend you obtain a copy of the Redbook
    CD audio specification and cite the particular section that supports
    your assertion?

    > The tracks are most definitely in order on the disk and they can be accessed
    > simply by moving the laser read head a certain amount to catch the stream
    > somewhere near the beginning of the track.

    It CANNOT read arbitrarily within a CD frame, since the entire
    frame is needed for CIRC decoding.

    Might I respectfully recommend you obtain a copy of the Redbook
    CD audio specification and cite the particular section that supports
    your assertion?

    > CD audio was developed WAY before
    > anyone had the idea of putting a file format and computer data on a CD. Sure
    > lots of enhancements to the format have come along over the years. I'm
    > talking about first generation CD.

    Might I respectfully recommend you obtain a copy of the Redbook
    CD audio specification and cite the particular section that supports
    your assertion?

    And we ARE talking about "first generation," i.e., redbook
    standard CD's,. i.e., IEC 60908 format audio CD's.

    A reasonable summary of the principles involved can be found
    in texts such as Pohlman's "Principles of Digital Audio," Ch. 9,
    "The Compact Disk," and the details therein.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:33:49 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:

    >To me, at least, "ripping" refers specifically to recovering the
    >stream of digital data from a RedBook audio CD and storing
    >it into a proper computer file (wav, etc.)
    >
    >Capturing/recording/transcribing from other sources (such as
    >LPs or tape, etc.) is NOT "ripping" as the original was not a
    >digital source.

    But there are digital sources other than RedBook CD?
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    Oh really?

    Are you a software engineer too!

    The data on a hard drive is truly random access and because of that it can
    be in any order. That's why we have things like disk defragmenters. There is
    a file system in place that requires that the entire partition on the hard
    drive has a format regardless of the amount of data that is stored there. CD
    audio is nothing like the data structures that are stored on a hard drive.
    The tracks are most definitely in order on the disk and they can be accessed
    simply by moving the laser read head a certain amount to catch the stream
    somewhere near the beginning of the track. CD audio was developed WAY before
    anyone had the idea of putting a file format and computer data on a CD. Sure
    lots of enhancements to the format have come along over the years. I'm
    talking about first generation CD.

    ~James. :o)


    <dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
    news:1123601875.443766.88710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > James Lehman wrote:
    > > It is my understanding that Redbook Audio is a digital audio data
    storage
    > > system that does not have the likes of a file system, like you would
    find on
    > > a data CD. It is more like the grooves on an old LP. The original idea
    of a
    > > CD audio player was a digital extension of the idea of the LP. It spins.
    > > It's round. It has a hole in the middle. The tracks on a disk need to be
    > > accessible while the disk is spinning and in any rotation so you can cue
    a
    > > track from somewhere near the beginning, not necessarily the exact same
    > > sample every time; much like dropping the needle in the darker grooves
    on an
    > > LP. Because there is no file system, it takes some special care to
    extract
    > > the audio as a pure digital stream.
    >
    > That's not correct.
    >
    > CD audio data is collected into well-defined units that comprise
    > a hiearchy which certainly qualifies as a random-access, indexable,
    > seekable (with 100% repeatability) hierarchy.
    >
    > The smallest addressable unit in a CD is a subcode block, which has
    > its own sync work, instructions, data, commands and error correction
    > information. Such a block can define the beginning of a track or index,
    > which is uniquely and repeatably accessible, just as would the sector
    > on a harddrive.
    >
    > The lead-in tracks contain track and index tables that can be read in,
    > as the vast majority of CD players do. That's why when you put in a CD,
    > the player will often display immediately how many tracks it finds. It
    > does not have to read the entire disk to gather this information: it's
    > all in the index track. Another word for "index track" would
    > appropriately be "directory." This area includes not only track
    > subcode block index information, but includes track and index timing
    > as well.
    >
    > Once any one entry is known, the drive can be commanded to seek to
    > the exact location on the disk and start playing (reading) immediately.
    > It will do so from the same sample every time you command it to do
    > so. There is no inaccuracy in that respect. You're limited to starting
    > reading from the beginning of a sub code block, and not anywhere in
    > the middle, simply because the error correction requires an entire
    > block to perform its operations.
    >
    > In all respects, a CD is far more different from an LP than it is
    > similar, and for more like a hard drive than it is different.
    >
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

    > Now CD-ROM adds another layer or two of error correction on top of
    > that. But to state that CD's ONLY use interpolation for error
    > recovery is simply false.

    Thanks for the correction. Point remains that CDs are surprisingly
    robust things.
Ask a new question

Read More

Audio