> 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.

Audio fingerprinting?

>Audio fingerprinting?

Bought a spotify card with cash, email was registered on public wifi.

Who cares? :-)

They'd probably do a shit job of capturing it?

Even 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...

Bro. Who cares. Ive got bunch of songs like this. The loss makes it more nostalgic

They 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.

You 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.