|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: No they can't do 192/24 DTS - but... posted by michi on January 27, 2003 at 10:58:38:
When you have "bat ears" you hear what Warner executives are thinking.
Follow Ups:
What are you, twelve years old? Just go through threads and do nothing but fling insults?And what kind of moron uses 'bat ears' as an -insult- on an audiophile forum? What's appropriate, Jim, mud ears?
I'd guess, by your post, you're claiming you've got a set of those.
when you hear one.
Tell me how Verance's audibility is a "baseless rumor" when even Verance doesn't claim inaudibility? Seems like a 'base' to me.
Warner chose to use it on their releases and others didn't.I don't like it but I don't like the dsd noise shaping artifacts too.
At least the pcm masters are not contaminaited by the watermarking.
A dsd master will always contains the noise shaping artifacts.Watermarking is optional with DVD Audio AND with sacd.
In fact, Philips demonstrated similar watermarking technology for sacd. It's there for record companies who want to use it.
It's a pity this sacd feature wasn't highlighted in the (biased) audiophile press as well.It's useless to go on and on about it. It will show up on sacd and redbooks sooner or later.
.
and bat ears are not needed to hear it.
Please cite:
1 Disc, 1 Track, 1 Time Mark where you have heard DSD noise-shaping artifacts on a released SACD title.
Bucky Pizarelli disc from chesky.
On every track every time the stick impacts on the vibes.Frank
that one? Have you heard artifacts on any other SACDs? If you haven't heard problems on any discs I own (I have about 150 currently), I will get this one to find out what you're hearing. Do you have a more detailed description of what this artifact sounds like?
I have heard it on other disc too.Louder transients in the upper frequency range sounds a bit distorted and 'unattached' from the rest of the instruments tones.
At the moment it occurs soundstaging looses it's stability and sounds pull back into the speakers. Sonic images are also less solid and give an impression sounding more airy but less focussed.
artifacts?
Have you heard the DVD-A?
Best
Eric
This is particularly the case with brushed cymbals in jazz. I can name at least three discs off the top of my head. Frank hears a somewhat more general problem. In any case, you can easily predict this by looking at the S/N ratio over 10 kHz of actual SACD players in Stereophile's lab tests.
...no reviewers at TAS or Stereophile, or any other reputable magazine (for that matter, neither I nor anyone that I know) have noticed what you claim is "clearly audible". Please provide specific examples to support your case.
These reviewer even fail to recognize simple harmonic distortions generated by the SET tube amps they review.
...trying to reconcile the listening impressions with the measurements. Just because it generates some distortion, doesn't mean the reviewed equipment sounds bad. In fact, SET amps often sound extremely GOOD. Our ears are fairly tolerant of harmonic distortion, but very sensitive to some distortions produced by early (and many more recent) SS amplifiers. I'd take an SET over a Phase Linear amp or a typical receiver amp section any day.
Objectionable distortions that can be easily removed with a sane amplifier design are much more harmfull than any of the dsd or watermark artifacts.It doesn't sound more musical. If it does to you you should attend live concerts a bit more often.
...but neither do I insist that low THD SS amps are better-sounding (or even more accurate overall) for that reason alone. THD figures are close to worthless for judging the sound quality of an amplifier, IMO.P.S. Most of the concerts I attend are of the non-amplified, classical variety. : )
...the timing.
My ears, my system. DK, When I Look Into Your Eyes, "I've Got You Under My Skin", brushed cymbals throughout the track. They are more clearer and more detailed on the CD as played back through my Marantz SA-14. Just bear in mind, I don't think this is a big deal - just as I don't think the watermark thing is a big deal. Nothing is perfect.
the last time you quoted this as an example, not only can't i hear what you claim, but i appear to be hearing more resolution on sacd than what you are hearing on your system (sacd or cd), so whatever the limitation is it's not in the medium.
Christine,
Yes, but not now because I'll need to cite track and time on Waltz for Debby and Know What I Mean?. By the way, sarcasm aside, my conclusion was that you could well be getting less resolution on CD on your system than I am on mine. How you could conclude that you were getting better resolution on CD (where I indicated that I was hearing far more detail in the brush strokes than on SACD) and SACD is beyond reason. Since we would each need to spend 48 hours on planes to do an A/B (and my aural memory wouldn't survive 48 minutes) this will remain a mystery.
it's quite simpleyou say you can't hear hiss unless you turn up the volume. i can hear hiss even at low volume levels. i can even hear a slight wow and flutter characteristic on the hiss.
you say the brushwork sounds like hiss on sacd
it sounds nothing like hiss on either sacd or cd on my system
ergo, i am hearing more than you (this is not intended to be sarcastic or condescending, although i appreciate it sounds a bit blunt)
also - my advice to you was to listen to the disc on another system to see if your impressions can be replicated. have you done so?
since then, i have heard the disc on a high end system (xa777es, krell preamp, halcro dm58, b&w signature 800) and i can confirm all the detail that i quoted are present and even more on a higher end system - far higher than yours or mine.
As I recall, your normal listening level (SPL) is higher than mine. I said that the hiss was lying at about -70dB and the brushwork at about -60dB. I said that turning up the volume made the tape hiss objectionable, not audible. I don't think that the dynamic level of the hiss should change appreciably from system to system. Actually, I said that the brushwork sounded like hiss on my brother's 670. I have no doubt that the CD replay on my Marantz SA-14 is significantly better than your Sony's. Why don't we let Methos listen for himself?
i "turned up" the level to match what you quoted (above 80dB) in your post. that does not imply that is my normal listening level.by the way i said the hiss was detectable even at low listening levels, an observation which you chose to ignore again and again. this clearly shows your system is not resolving the hiss when *you* (not me) listen at levels below 80dB. and it's not tape hiss - it probably comes from the mic.
and you did not say the brushwork sounded like hiss on your brother's system. from memory, you said you couldn't hear the brushwork on your brother's system. you took extraordinary trouble to correct a poster (twice!) who *correctly* noted that there was hiss on the track, which strongly indicates *you* did not observe the hiss.
*** I have no doubt that the CD replay on my Marantz SA-14 is significantly better than your Sony's ***
more sarcasm again?
i would be very interested to hear on what basis you are saying that. have you actually A/B'ed cd replay on the sa-14 vs xa777es? i have, on more than one system.
ps - i don't see how my posts are impeding methos' ability to test for himself. all i am saying is that you have yet to convince me.
Yours as I recall is more like 75dB. On my brother's 670 you can't distinguish between the brushwork and the hiss, even though they are a good 10 dB apart. The poster had a low end Sony as well.
it ranges from 70-90dB (!!!) depending on the material for critical listening, and also whether i am reviewing or not. but typically lower than higherfor background listening of course it is much lower
i don't know where you got the impression that my listening levels are higher than yours - i have never stated that, all i said was i tried matching the level to the level you quoted in your post.
anyway the point is that the hiss is clearly audible on my system even when the material is played at 60-70dB SPL - maybe even lower than that. i certainly don't have to crank it to 80dB like you do just to hear it.
I filter out hiss until it becomes objectionable. However, I can't hear hiss recorded at -70 dB when playing at 60 dB on any system.
.
nt
As soon as my stereo is re-assembled (I just moved), I will listen for this. I may just hook up my preamp for a headphone session first.
nt
the most likely conclusion to this test will be that one party says he hears something bad on an SACD and the other party says he doesn't. I have seen this type of thing happen in the same room with two people listening to exactly the same material. Disagreeing about what they are hearing. So across the world, with different systems, is agreement likely? Not at all. There will never be one right answer to these kind of questions anyway.
Furthermore, even if there is limited dynamic range in SACD relative to CD and DVD-A above 10 kHz, it would be easy to get around this through careful engineering.
I have the DVD A and it sounds much more 'natural'.
The recording was done with ambisonics technology and at home I'm sitting IN the audience. The applaus completely surrounds me and handclaps are right next to me. The vibes sound much more convincing.With the sacd it's more in a circle auround me at a larger distance.
I doesn't sound convincing.
Thanks Frank,I find your posts very clear and factual.
Did you find other notable differences in the surround mixes?
(These are just subjective impressions on my end of other records, to see if they match yours.)- Some sounds being above listening position or above you in DVD-A, but not in SACD (circle effect, but nothing really above ear level)
- Surround effects in SACD being slightly "non-focused" (I don't mean a fuzzy image, very detailed but no firm point where elements are located, things floating around in a very nice, but slightly eerie way, impression that people are not "grounded" to the floor...)
(I hope this makes sense)Thanks for your comments
Best
Eric,FGTH - Rage Hard -The Sonic Collection
Track 5 - Welcome to the Pleasuredome, first 90 seconds.
Sounds coming from every direction, most certainly from above my head in some cases (birds, sound of something which goes around the room and above my head).I understand that you're talking about DVD-A and SACD versions of the same music, but if the FGTH SACD can have the effects you're missing from some other SACDs (Frantic by Brian Ferry, I guess), wouldn't it mean that it is possible to mix an SACD with 'above your head' effects?
My surround speakers are at ear level, some 1.5 meters behind the listening position (sofa).
Hi
I need to get a copy of that FGHT (ZTT lost my order), and check it out. I also have some 'up and above' effects in the Beck Sea Change (most obviously at the end of Track 1), but it is usually a very precise element, not the impression of a sonic 'ceiling' or 'roof' that you have above you during a track. I find many DVD-A tracks give you that impression (the same you have at a live concert, when sometimes you can't help raise your head to see where a sound came from). I almost never have that impression in SACDs.
Perhaps it's all in the mix, or my brain getting old :)Frank's answer below is also interesting ("more airy, less substance").
Best
I agree with your subjective impressions. More airy but less substance to sum it all up.The mix on the Bucky Pizarelli DVDA disc is a 4.0 mc config and the sacd is mixed to 5.1 mc.
Since both are derived from a ambisonics B recording I don't see much difference in the actual mix.
Your English is obviously more concise :)Best
You're really hung up on the Verance thing, aren't you? Funny, it doesn't get much play here - and the people on this board actually listen to DVD-As.
nt
Before anyone answers, I am not talking about copyright issues or someone's ability or inability to hear watermarks: do you think it's in the best interest of the artist to alter or add to that artist's original intent (that intent being the creation of music)?
n
I can imagine that some artist want better copy protection.Watermarks can also be used to log airtime for royalty revenues going into artist pockets.
Musicode broadcast tracking.But Frank, I want to ask you, and this isn't some kind of jibe: Do you really feel that the watermarking is completely transparent?
And if not, moreso than "DSD artifacts"?
No it's not completely transparant.
Listen to a studio master on a studio system and compare it with the system using at home there is also a sonic difference.
As soon as you put elecronics in the music's path transparancy suffers. How much the signal suffers from the watermark I just can't tell. My guess is that it's minor.Personally I have heard some 'DSD artifacts' at various demo's. Transients rich sounds didn't sound 'correct' to me.
I never have recognized the effects of watermarking on a DVD Audio disc. But I do believe that I can recognize it in a direct comparison with the original sound. Why bother if I can't recognize it in practise? So far for me it's less of a problem than the dsd problems I did hear.I don't like the watermarking concept but at least it's optional.
Nobody forces independed audiophile labels to use it if they don't want to.DSD noise isn't optional and it doesn't go away and I fear a lot of recordings suffer already from it before anyone realizes that dsd could be a big mistake to be used for new recordings.
24bit 192kHz multitrack recorders are a better option.
If people like the sound of dsd the conversion to dsd can be done in the player and a filter can be used with different noise shaping characteristics to tailor the sound.
What's different from some of the mastering practises used to 'enhance' the listening experience?
In my opinion, if the artist is OK with a suggested enhancement or requests the enhancement, then it becomes part of his/her creation.Watermarking, however, is NOT an enhancement -- it's a degradation, whether or not the artist wants it or it is forced upon him/her. All the semantics in the world can't change that -- it's still a degradation, regardless of how large or small that degradation is.
I thought we wanted the highest resolution and most accurate preservation of the artist's creation that is available to consumers. Did I miss something? Why are you so intent on arguing against this? Please point out one instance where I have argued "against" the DVD-A format.
Would be my answer. It will give the artist the best option in collecting royalties and preventing copying. If recorders which act upon the embedded instructions in the watermark become commonplace in the future.You suggest that the watermark is limiting artists creativity and music making. I have a surpise for you: it does not.
To me watermarking is less objectionable than severe dynamic range compression and intended digital clipping often used to 'enhance' the listening experience.
I don't like it but can live with it. It doesn't prevent me from enjoying music.
"Please point out one instance where I have argued "against" the DVD-A format. "
Why should I ? If you re read my question you will see that I didn't accuse you of arguing against the DVD Audio format.
I'm being serious. However, I disagree with your reasons.Whether or not you see watermarking as audibly affecting the music is not the same as "dynamic range commpression and intended digital clipping". Both of the latter are tools of the engineer/band for getting a sound that he/they want or creating a desired effect.
I am not a fan of dynamic range compression and I really don't see digital clipping as an "artistic" effect that I like to hear. Digital clipping is all too obvious and unenjoyable to the ear. Compression can be an artist's tool to get a certain sound that he/she desires, but unfortunately it's almost universaly used to "dumb down" the recording so that the music sounds acceptable on more common systems (boomboxes and rack systems), rather than high-end components.
> > > It will give the artist the best option in collecting royalties and preventing copying. If recorders which act upon the embedded instructions in the watermark become commonplace in the future. < < <
As far as detecting the watermark via consumer recorders, I don't see the hardware manufacturers giving this a high priority. I believe they will have to be forced to do such a thing -- the labels are not going to be able to do it without legal backup (as in getting another law passed). And just what can anyone do about the millions and millions of recording devices already available? Do you think that they will cease to exist in this envisioned 1984-like state?
As far as financial issues, I believe the majority of artists will tell you that their biggest concerns are with the labels that "represent" them. How many "old" musicians are flat broke. They sold millions and millions of albums, but got back chump change. In the '40s, '50s and '60s, there were no massmarket tape decks, CD burners or Napsters. The labels ripped them off. Today, it's pretty much the same way. Only now, the labels have gotten smart(er) and try to throw off the trail by claiming that tape recorders, CD burners, Napster et al, pirates and the Easter Bunny just make it too hard for them to turn a profit. Who suffers? The artist. And me. And you. So, you might want to rethink that idea if you believe that watermarking a recording is going to help the artist. The labels won't let that happen. They don't see themselves as there to help the artists: they see themselves as there to "help themselves".
I don't like the watermark myself but realize it's not so bad in practise. In fact only in direct comparison with unmarked material it's recognizeable. Michi can't tell the setting used by Warner by just listening to the Warner discs. So how audible is it really?****As far as detecting the watermark via consumer recorders, I don't see the hardware manufacturers giving this a high priority. I believe they will have to be forced to do such a thing -- the labels are not going to be able to do it without legal backup (as in getting another law passed). And just what can anyone do about the millions and millions of recording devices already available? Do you think that they will cease to exist in this envisioned 1984-like state? ****
They will simply get no license from the DVD Forum to produce a recorder without copy control. And if they do they get in trouble with the already existing laws.
Recorders for consumers will come to market because without the ability to record or expectations of hackability a new format will most likely fail in the mass market.As for the millions if devices out there only a handfull are able to record multichannel content. How many people are using cassette recorders these days to record music? Most consumer decks have a lifetime of little over a 1000 hours. It's about the future and not about old equipment that is dissappearing anyway.
****As far as financial issues, I believe the majority of artists will tell you that their biggest concerns are with the labels that "represent" them. How many "old" musicians are flat broke. They sold millions and millions of albums, but got back chump change. In the '40s, '50s and '60s, there were no massmarket tape decks, CD burners or Napsters. The labels ripped them off. Today, it's pretty much the same way. Only now, the labels have gotten smart(er) and try to throw off the trail by claiming that tape recorders, CD burners, Napster et al, pirates and the Easter Bunny just make it too hard for them to turn a profit. Who suffers? The artist. And me. And you. So, you might want to rethink that idea if you believe that watermarking a recording is going to help the artist. The labels won't let that happen. They don't see themselves as there to help the artists: they see themselves as there to "help themselves".****
Not al recordabels are thieves. It's a bit over the top to claim this for all of them.
Copyright theft has happened and it is still happening
Getting a disc produced, marketed and distributed costs serious money and only about 1 in 10 discs are a succes that pulls the cart.
Most artist are not succesfull to begin with. If the succesfull ones end up poor it's often their own fault.Copying is a real issue for record labels and it really is. Almost every disc sold is copied at least one time for a friend or family relation.
At least with DVD Audio an artist has the option to do it all himself with little investment and without watermarking if he doesn't like it.
Otherwise it's back to the monopolized replication facilities.
"If recorders which act upon the embedded instructions in the watermark become commonplace in the future."They won't.
CD players, SACD players, CD burners, DVD burners do not include Verance hardware. And they won't.
This was a dumb idea that backfired. Unless the Verance watermark is common on both hardware and software, it is of little use. It has proven to be, so far, a useless idea, that has been rejected by the very consumers to whom "hi-rez" audio is supposed to sell.
In the latest chip from cirrus the watermark detection is built in.
At this moment it's just not implemented. Perhaps it will be in the future perhaps not. It's too early to tell.The technology is not included in any playback device. The mark is completely embedded in the signal itself.
Philips demonstrated similar technology for sacd already with a demo where a handheld pda with a simple microphone was able to identify an embedded watermark within 3 seconds of playback.
A fact that wasn't highlighted and 'amplified' by the 'audiophile' press.It wasn't a dumb idea. I don't like it either but if it works out it's the best shot at real copy protection.
There are no (consumer) recording devices available yet for copying hirez multichannel content.At this time nobody can tell how it will work out.
"The technology is not included in any playback device. The mark is completely embedded in the signal itself."Absolutely. But unless hardware recognizes this signal and does something with it, it is useless. There are many ideas on how to use a watermark, but they all require hardware support. A recorder, for example, may recognize that it is allowed to make a certain number of copies of this music.
There are already machines that monitor radio airplay of songs. These machines do not use watermarks, they actually identify the waveforms of popular songs. Watermarks are not required for this application, although Verance claims this as an important application.
I cannot predict the future, but I think the whole idea seems to be dying. Verance wants their product in every CD player, cell phone and DVD player. They want to be the worldwide solution to copy protection. I doubt any of this will happen.
The idea of watermarking is a very powerful one, and may be enlisted on the side of the forces of light some day. For instance, you may need a watermark to verify that a message came from a certain party, that a photo hasn't been doctored, etc..Recognizing a waveform is not sufficient to establish "property of..". Personally, I agree with you that the market will likely resist deliberate crippling of recording devices - but if you can extend copyrights to seventy years after the death of the artist, who knows what you can get through Congress?
this has nothing much to do with audio watermarking, but as a photographer you may enjoy this. The link contains 2 pictures of an arctic hare, before and after a picture of an airplane is hidden within it. At first, the pictures look only very slightly different. But the more you look....draw your own conclusions whether these type of differences are important or not.
How long do I have to look for differences between the arctic pictures?I'm sure that if you did not know beforehand which picture was watermarked you couldn't tell which one had the mark applied.
You would be pretty amazed if the picture from the plane was extracted from the watermarked arctic picture.
The picture from the plane suffers noticably but that's the embedded 'watermark'. Still recognizeable after extraction.
Other then a very slight redshift it's hard to tell which arctic picture is the unmarked original.
Amazing technology.
no need to argue. I agree it is amazing.
and watermarking is a subset of this general field. Like any other technology, it can be used for good or evil. Terrorists can embed messages within seemingly innocuous photographs. The CIA can do the same. Certify authenticity, as you say, just as the watermark is used in money. However, this watermark does not affect in any way the usage of the money. What I object to in principle, and I'm not the only one, is a watermark that is embedded directly in audio content, not in a phone call, where the audio quality is a secondary concern, but in a supposedly "hi-rez" format where audio quality is the primary selling point. I still say this is dumb. Verance does not say it is inaudible. I have no personal experience with it, so I don't know, but I object in principle. If a machine can hear it, I strongly suspect at least some human beings can also hear it. Especially because it is supposed to be robust enough to survive ripping to MP3 and broadcasting on AM radio. So watermarking as a generic idea, sure it can have its benefits. It is this specific implementation that seems like a bad idea to me.
A machine can do 100 mph, can you run that fast?In principle you can object. But what's the use if you can't hear it in a practical situation? I'm sure the difference in marked and unmarked content isn't as big as the sonic difference between let's say different sacd player models.
If you obey your principles you can't buy a disc from Sony or any other record company who chose to 'protect' their redbooks.
Let's boycot them all and buy a guitar.
and I would not buy a copy protected disk from Sony if I knew about it. Or from anyone else. But I would buy other things from Sony if they are not copy protected. I am not trying to generally condemn any company or encourage any boycotts.
The idea that electronic watermarking is simply morally wrong is puerile. Whether this watermarking is truly in the interest of the artist is arguable, but it would be patronizing to assume that we know better than they do. Whether the watermark is impinging on the buyer's rights is a complex issue. The current implementation may be imperfect, but the actual sonic degradation is hard to detect. You can't contribute to this debate by posing a "fool's dilemma". Why should we answer yes or no?
How can you make such a comparison? The signature of an artist on his/her painting adds value by connecting the work with the artist. It is a bond between the artist and his/her creation. Are you saying a degradation of his/her work -- a copy protection watermark -- should be a "musician's" signature?That is sad.
Digital manipulation is so sophisticated now that it is hardly necessary to shoot an original image. Most photographers would welcome the ability to embed an indelible watermark in digital copies of their images which would survive through any digital manipulation. A vanishingly small visual distortion would be a small price to pay.
a photographer AND a musician -- I would never desecrate my work as an artist.Watermarking in audio -- the deliberate poisoning of an artist's work by his "representative" OR by the artist himself -- is unacceptable in a medium that calls itself high resolution. If a recording is watermarked, it is no longer high resolution.
I will not be treated like the dog of an undeserving master. The more people eat their scraps, the longer it will be before we're able to sit at the table where we belong.
Good enough, when better/the best is available, is unacceptable. Regardless of what one calls shit, it's still shit. I have enough "sense" to tell the difference. Not everyone else does -- or cares.
Artists do sign their paintings. This takes up one small part of the canvas.Watermarking is spread throughout the entire recording.
It would be as though an art dealer decides to apply a tint to each painting depending on who painted it. Van Goghs could be painted over with a red tint, Rembrandts with a green tint. So that a machine could recognize the artist. No matter how light a tint, how "invisible" it was claimed to be, I think the art world would have quite a few problems with this scheme.
However, if recording artists have a real problem with Verance, they know who to talk to. Can you point to any comment from a recording artist on this?
haven't heard any comments, but I do know that many recording artists consider theft of their work to be a big problem and I'm sure many of them support any solution that promises to put an end to this. And to add an unsupported generalization, they don't seem all that interested in the audiophile characteristics of what they put out. An audio watermark, possibly audible to a small market of fanatics, if it stops piracy, I doubt they'd care. The problem is it is not stopping piracy, it is not being used for anything, and it cannot be unless it is widely adopted. Which I think is extraordinarily unlikely.
What came first?
NT
...and it turns out she agreed with you! : )
this one could get really ugly.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: