 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: question posted by Joe Murphy Jr on January 28, 2003 at 11:49:11:
What's different from some of the mastering practises used to 'enhance' the listening experience?Frank
Follow Ups:
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.
I believe it was "yes" or "no". Your turn...
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.Frank
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.Frank
"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.
It will disappear.
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.
Frank
"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.
Frank
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.
Frank
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?Frank
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
