Digital Grunt Work

Not enough time or tech know-how to rip your CDs into MP3s? Here's an outfit that'll do it for you. Send your CDs to RipDigital and they come back as bits on a hard drive.

Comments

[MK]

This is just so wrong, and on so many levels, that I can't even find any humor here.

[Dan]

I don't see what's wrong about it. It's the equivalent of having Kinkos handle your photocopying instead of fooling around with the self-serve printer yourself for a couple of hours.

$1.00/disc is more than I'd pay, but I'd definitely go for $0.25/disc. Of course, better yet would be if the CDs were sold in mp3 format in the first place, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[dhex]

but there's no actual physical exertion in ripping cds to mp3.

in fact, there are batch ripper/converter programs that involve little more than picking a target directory.

it's more like paying someone to make you toast because you're too tired to push the lever down.

which is fine, but you're still paying for toast. in this case, toast + the cost of shipping and handling.

[Mikiel]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Fair Use is fair use. If someone wants to take ther music collection with them on vacation it's a lot easier to pack an iPod than 300 CDs. It's only wrong if the consumer shares those MP3 files with someone who hasn't paid for the music. Outlawing RipDigital's business activities because someone MIGHT put those MP3s on the internet is no different from outlawing Burger King because someone MIGHT toss a hanburger wrapper out the window of their car. A business shouldn't be held responsible for the illegal activities of their customers. It's not Ford's fault if I run a red light in my Explorer. It's not Bic's fault if I burn down my neighbors house with one of their lighters...

[junyo]

I thought for just a minute that I was the laziest individual on the face of the Earth, but when I saw this I realized that all of RipDigital's customers beat me hollow.

How lazy a spaz do you have to be to pay someone else to rip your CDs? On a decent machine it takes all of, what? 5 minutes? Don't want to tie up your machine that long? Buy a junk PC, throw a couple extra CD drives in it and dedicate it to ripping, you're still coming off cheaper than this.

[MK]

dhex and junyo spell out half of my original objection. The other half comes down the issue of sound quality. mp3 is lossey. So to summerize, RipDigital will confirm that you are the laziest music fan who likes to listen to crappy sounding recordings all for the low, low price of a buck per CD. Great!

[Dan]

but there's no actual physical exertion in ripping cds to mp3.

There's no actual physical exertion involved in making photocopies or scanning documents, either. Yet people routinely hire others to do that work for them.

It's not "hard"; it's just "inconvenient". It's a pain in the ass to swap CDs every five or ten minutes for days at a time.

[Swamp Justice]

I bet RipDigital keeps a "backup" copy of your new MP3s for their own use.

[Dan]

mp3 is lossey. So to summerize, RipDigital will confirm that you are the laziest music fan who likes to listen to crappy sounding recordings

You're aware that the process of recording music to CD is, itself, lossy -- right? Analog recording provides superior-quality sound.

[Pavel]

Wow. You'd think if you cared enough to put your CDs on mp3, you'd be willing to spend the 10 minutes it takes to learn how to DIY.

Now a service where you mail in your pirated mp3 album collection and they mail you back whole cases jackets and liner notes...that'd be something.

[Jeff]

I'd gladly pay someone $6 per hour to digitize my 300 CD collection. Perhaps your time isn't that valuable - but $300 bucks to avoid spending 50 hours in front of my computer digitizing my CD collection sounds like a good deal to me.

[Dan]

You'd think if you cared enough to put your CDs on mp3, you'd be willing to spend the 10 minutes it takes to learn how to DIY.

"Learn how to DIY"? I know how to mow a lawn; I hire other people to do it because it's boring, I don't want to do it, and my spare time is worth more than that of the person I'm hiring.

I have hundreds of CDs. Swapping CDs every few minutes for 50+ hours might be your idea of a kick-ass way to spend your spare time, but I'll pass.

[dhex]

i'm rather content with CDs, and the difference between an analog recording and a digital recording is much less obvious than a wav to mp3 conversion, even at good quality.

original recording to analog tape is becoming less and less common as well, further darkening the waters.

none of which should stop people from archiving their cds if they so choose, or spending money paying others to archive it, obviously. but most people don't have 300 cd collections, and i don't think this service will be around for too long. (i have about 600, fwiw, with about 200 records on top of that).

[Pavel]

I had a music recording professor that literally appeared to suffer physical pain anytime he was forced to listen to an mp3.

Then of course my grungy old school punker friends refuse to record on anything with more fidelity than a speakerphone.

There's no accounting for taste I guess.

[dhex]

at least we're not using cassettes anymore.

[Dan]

i'm rather content with CDs, and the difference between an analog recording and a digital recording is much less obvious than a wav to mp3 conversion, even at good quality.

They all sound alike unless you play them on a really high-end stereo system.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Analog recording provides superior-quality sound."

Thanks, Dan. Now I can stop believing my own ears.

[dhex]

uh dan, no they don't.

you can tell the difference on $300 speakers or even $3 headphones (i have both).

actually, i'm being unfair. what you meant to say was "to my ears..." just as i meant to say "i can tell the difference" in the sentence above.

i can spot a freakin' mp3 a mile away, especially on instrumental music.

and especially on headphones. everything has a hollow thump down on the low end. even encoding above 192.

which doesn't make mp3s bad!!! it just makes them less good than uncompressed audio. which in turn is less good than the juicy goodness i get out of my mpc's stereo out.

some audiophiles, bless their little criminally insane hearts, will go to even greater lengths, praising mp3s only for their ability to separate real music lovers from the dregs of humanity.

stereo sharia.