Ripping Vinyl Via Your Scanner? 537
An anonymous reader writes "This site describes a method of extracting audio off of scanned images of vinyl records. Kazaa vinyl swapping is on it's way!" While this method creates exceptionally noisy samples, you can definitely hear the underlying music.
Re:It's spelled "vinyl" (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty funny write-up, actually, but I'll believe he actually did it when I see the code.
Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
More like he'd rather get his practical joke on slashdot, and if he supplied the code, it'd be a lot easier to prove it's fake.
Let's apply Occam's Razor.
Those music samples could have been generated by software that reads stitched together images of scanned vinyl records.
Or they could be just regular samples of music taken off a record/cd/tape and run through a static-izer for effect.
Which is simpler?
Let's see the code, please...
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:3, Insightful)
how? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:3, Insightful)
Why this comment is nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, where the analysis is wrong is a tougher question for me. I'm guessing, however, that it has something to do with the fact that the author assumes that the info isn't encoded on a logarithmic scale. You do, after all, have to have a very special amp to use a phonograph.
b.c
Re:If it's noisy, why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
grooves per side (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sorry no mod points (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If it's noisy, why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
I use Kazaa without spyware. It's great - biggst filesharing network I've found (I have problems with WinMX). For the spyware-free Kazaa, see www.kazaalite.com
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the purpose of language is to communicate. So, yes, it's possible that an over-fixation on grammar could lead to a blockage of communication. But it's just as possible -- and I would say, even more likely -- that everyone striking out on their own and establishing their own "new rules" will lead to linguistic fragmentation and the death of communication. Look at it this way: Try picking up an early but still Modern English text -- something written back before printing presses and dictionaries. Try to read it. Pick up a New York Times article from, say, 100 years ago. Try to read it.
Which of those, do you think, would be more readily comprehensible? And don't you think it might have something to do with the standardized spelling and grammar employed in the Times?
As someone scientifically trained, I am simply aware that non-standard usages can be deadly to communication and the progress of the field.
Finally, I'd like to comment on
Actually, no. Usage of "[sic]" and other correction of grammar does not imply that there is a correct way of speaking. These do imply there is some sort of "correct" way of writing