Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?

58.252.44.14

Posted on February 28, 2016 at 20:42:07
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
Hi,

Just came across this:

Universal's Audible Watermark

It would seem that ANY track for digital distribution supplied by UMG (said to be around 25% of the whole catalogue of on-line music, including downloads AND streaming) have been watermarked using a technology that is both extremely robust to stripping the watermark AND rather audible.

Worse, is it possible that High-Rez downloads (DSD/24/96 and up) are equally treated?

It is ok to protect IP and to watermark, but much less intrusive technologies exist than the one used here. What is the point of paying a premium if one in 4 tracks is crippled by watermarking that creates badly audible artifacts on 64k MP3?

If so, I suggest anyone subscribing to supposedly "high quality" services or downloads who can find examples complains to the providers and requests a clean copy or money back.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
+1 for ripping one's own CDs and..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 07:39:30
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46196
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

....when I'm 'streaming' over the internet it's not usually for serious listening but mostly background music or in the car via my iPhone.



 

So it looks like the CD is not so dead after all..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 08:08:20
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

and we're back to using the music streaming services as little more than music audition tools as was the case, at least for me, originally when I first subscribed to MOG a few years ago?

Could be.

The author claims that the 2 CD set above is one of the worst offenders (piano is SO hard to record anyway). I plan to stream it tonight on both TIDAL and QOBUZ plus purchase the CD and rip it to the Mac Mini that sits in my main system.

Problem with being an audiophiles is that once you hear a problem in your system, you hear the problem and only the problem every time you listen.

If I can hear the water mark, I'm dead.

CDs?

Not so dead.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Doh!, posted on February 29, 2016 at 08:17:49
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37464
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
I'm perfectly satisfied to use internet/XM sources for background listening and discovering new music. :)

 

I'm sure there will be a DAC out soon to solve this problem............., posted on February 29, 2016 at 09:11:18
Cut-Throat
Audiophile

Posts: 18251
Location: Minneapolis - St.Paul Area
Joined: September 2, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
May 16, 2021
Or at least "Claiming" to Solve it. Maybe for as cheap as $5 Grand.....Bwaaaaaa!



 

CDs are dead, once they are ripped to a Different Storage Device........, posted on February 29, 2016 at 09:14:05
Cut-Throat
Audiophile

Posts: 18251
Location: Minneapolis - St.Paul Area
Joined: September 2, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
May 16, 2021
This is about Streaming Services...



 

What should I listen for? Never heard any glitches that I'm aware of. nt, posted on February 29, 2016 at 09:35:08
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10574
Joined: April 12, 2002
/

 

What's to stop them from watermarking CDs too?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 09:43:23
If their intent is to track how much DRM-free music is making its way onto p2p and upload sides, what would stop them from watermarking CDs?

 

That explains a lot, posted on February 29, 2016 at 09:47:39
I've certainly noticed that Tidal lossless streaming doesn't always sound as good as my own rips. Not to mention Tidal could cease operations at any time. So I mostly use it for browsing/discovery and still buy CDs of stuff I plan to listen to more than once or twice. But I have to wonder whether these watermarks are (or will be) degrading CD sound as well.

 

AND Downloads. Not that I've heard any problems with my Downloads. nt, posted on February 29, 2016 at 10:22:52
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10574
Joined: April 12, 2002
/

 

RE: What's to stop them from watermarking CDs too?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 11:47:46
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Nothing. But they will have a hard time watermarking CDs that have been sitting in your library for many years. :-)
Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 11:50:42
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Has anyone captured a lossless stream into a file and then compared the result with a ripped CD of the same track?

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

The CDs I listen to were recorded in the 90's or earlier..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 11:55:55
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
so there's that.

Most music on TIDAL and QOBUZ is OLD stuff.

QOBUZ lists the new stuff in search but only plays 30 sec. at MP3 as they have not licensed it but will sell you a download.

I mostly uses TIDAL and QOBUZ to listen to old stuff, some no longer in the catalog but available on used CDs.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

That's becase you weren't aware of what to listen for..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 11:56:58
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
NOW YOU ARE DOOMED!!!


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Will do that tonight if I can..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 11:59:33
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
TIDAL and QOBUZ both allow 'local playback' of Lossless FLAC.

Just a matter of finding something from DECCA or DG to stream that I have in my CD collection that I can rip. Using the same computer and DAC, of course.


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Yup, you got THAT right!! nt, posted on February 29, 2016 at 13:32:26
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10574
Joined: April 12, 2002
/

 

Once an audiophile identifies a flaw in his system..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 13:36:17
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
he's screwed and will remain so until he fixes the problem by SPENDING MORE MONEY!




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Possible solution?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 13:41:29
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

Watch this while listening.


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: The CDs I listen to were recorded in the 90's or earlier..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 14:38:41
srl1
Audiophile

Posts: 1337
Location: Florida Panhandle
Joined: September 2, 2003
Tidal is getting much better with new releases. I go through the new release list every week or so on arkivmusic.com and then search Tidal, ClassicsOnlineHD, Apple and Spotify, and the number of hits I get from Tidal is quite impressive. They don't do a good job of letting you know they are there. You have to search for them yourself in most cases.

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 15:14:57
rrob
Audiophile

Posts: 762
Location: Kansas
Joined: February 7, 2010
I use it for discovering new music. Then I buy it on vinyl and record it to 24/96.

 

Nothing that can't be fixed with a Snifter of Cognac...................nt, posted on February 29, 2016 at 15:18:08
Cut-Throat
Audiophile

Posts: 18251
Location: Minneapolis - St.Paul Area
Joined: September 2, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
May 16, 2021
nt



 

Why do you Torment me so...??? Can't you see I'm, posted on February 29, 2016 at 16:39:50
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10574
Joined: April 12, 2002
( Well, YOU fill in the Blank ).

 

A couple 'a' them Sniffers and my trusty Fixin' Hammer, posted on February 29, 2016 at 16:42:59
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10574
Joined: April 12, 2002
Fix anything.
Fix it Good...

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 17:23:43
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
Tony,

My understanding from reading the original article is that this is what the Author did, to isolate the problem.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

Read the article from the original post..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 17:24:58
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
...or perhaps better not.

Universal's Audible Watermark


Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

Nothing, neither HiRez Downloads..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 17:27:00
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
Hi,

The worst issue is that this particular watermarking scheme uses fairly heavy modulation at frequencies where the human hearing is most sensitive.

If currently issued CD's and HR Downloads are equally tainted... My understanding is that is not the case, but I do not know for sure.


Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 18:04:50
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
My issue is not some dubious questionable technology. My issue is whether this specific technology makes it into music that paying customers are obtaining. I want to know so I can black list the record labels and vendors involved.

Before I can get really upset, I want to see direct proof that I can verify that paying customers are being sold doctored files. I've not seen evidence of this as yet, but it would not surprise me, because the "music industry" is not exactly one of the better industries around. Some of the bigger players have been caught with their pants down selling CDs that included actual malware.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on February 29, 2016 at 19:49:23
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
Tony,

If you follow the links in the original article, plus you check what this fluttery noise actually sounds like, you will find many files have this.

Supposedly it is NOT on pressed Disks.

The Culprit are files supplied on line download and streaming services (including iTunes, Apple Music, Spotify, Qbuz and Tidal) by UMG.

Their labels are (core labels only, not sublabels, probably incomplete list):

Decca Records
Mercury Classics
Geffen Interscop
Island Records
Big Machine Label Group
Deutsche Grammophon Records
UMG Nashville
Verve Records
Blue Note Records
Universal Music Classics
Concord Music Group
Verve Music Group

Between these labels, with Blue Note and Verve as well as Decca, Mercury and Geffen we have probably > 50% of the back catalogue in Classical, Jazz and Rock I am personally interested in.

Essentially anything not on the list above is under Sony Music, which I hope have higher moral standards on treating customers. Between these two most of the culturally and historically significant back catalogue is covered!

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: The CDs I listen to were recorded in the 90's or earlier..., posted on February 29, 2016 at 19:55:03
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
I go to Tidal or classicsonlinehd-ll every time I hear of some new release coming out. Also listen to old stuff but these streaming sites have everything. I am not aware of any corruption of sound by watermarking. I don't care. These streaming sites account for 90% of my listening and I have 5000 cds. Seldom listen to them any more
Alan

 

RE: Why do you Torment me so...??? Can't you see I'm, posted on February 29, 2016 at 20:01:55
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
If i'm not listening for something and love the way my system sounds who cares. At some point you have to just sit back and listen and enjoy music although I would think there are a lot of audiophiles who can't do that. Pity. Obviously at some point Uptone audio and Wired for Sound will come out with a de-watermarker eliminators. My guess is $150 plus another cable
Alan

 

RE: "...or perhaps better not.", posted on February 29, 2016 at 20:03:45
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

Indeed, perhaps better not.

Am currently streaming the above, said to be a 'worst offender' on QOBUZ and hear nothing out of sorts so far. That said, I have not listened to the audio links provided in the article so have not 'trained' my senses to detect what it is they are talking about.

As I currently stream about 3-4 hours of music a day from TIDAL, QOBUZ and ClassicsOnlineHD, perhaps it's best to leave sleeping 'spread spectrum watermarks' lie.


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on March 1, 2016 at 09:39:22
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I don't doubt this. I just want to see proof directly, i.e. first hand evidence of tampering. This involves identifying the doctored files, obtaining provenance of these files, obtaining undoctored source files, and carefully documenting the provenance of the files involved. Then, with sufficient evidence, there would be a basis for making what would be serious accusations. This would need to stand up in court.

Sony may be ethical now. If so, it is probably because they were burned with the CD rootkit fiasco.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Agree, but I was mostly commenting on the DGs and Deccas...., posted on March 2, 2016 at 08:37:19
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
which the original post claimed were being water-marked.

So far I have not been able to clearly identify which tracks are water-marked but of the 'old' stuff DECCA, EMI, and DG are all now suspect.

Warner has released a fair amount of stuff on QOBUZ and TIDAL, especially boxed sets.

Wonder if it is suspect as well?

Most of the new releases I stream are from the smaller labels.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on March 2, 2016 at 16:08:31
kh6idf
Audiophile

Posts: 1463
Location: Texas
Joined: May 2, 2001
For those with Spotify, listen to this track. At the 59 second mark, where the male chorus starts, there is very annoying fluttering:

 

RE: Is 25% of the Tidal/Spotify/Qbuz Catalogue tainted by audible watermarking?, posted on March 2, 2016 at 16:26:25
kh6idf
Audiophile

Posts: 1463
Location: Texas
Joined: May 2, 2001
Here is another Spotify track (from the same Decca CD)that has the very annoying digital watermark. Just listen to the whole track, the tremolo effect is widespread.

Decca should be very ashamed to put this crap out under their label!

 

This one?, posted on March 2, 2016 at 16:54:08
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

I no longer subscribe to Spotify buy would like to check it out in TIDAL and QOBUZ?


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

No, this one, posted on March 2, 2016 at 18:06:49
kh6idf
Audiophile

Posts: 1463
Location: Texas
Joined: May 2, 2001

It's this one:

 

I am not sure this would accomplish anything, posted on March 2, 2016 at 18:22:34
tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9159
Joined: July 18, 2000
I am not an expert but it seems to me a watermark would be used to identify a "pirate.". The only way this makes sense to me is to provide a personal code to every subscriber. With a CD nobody keeps track of which individual buys which copy of a CD. So what possible use would there be for watermarks?

 

RE: No, this one, posted on March 2, 2016 at 18:33:03
kh6idf
Audiophile

Posts: 1463
Location: Texas
Joined: May 2, 2001

This one sounds much better, no 'flutter':

 

From the first track...., posted on March 2, 2016 at 18:56:32
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
Cued it up on TIDAL and on the first track you can hear the wobble.

STRANGELY, cued it up on QOBUZ and it's fine.

It was SO obvious on TIDAL even though I wasn't listing for it as yet as I was busy looking for the track number and from the start of the CD on the beginning of the first track you can hear the warbling.

CD is available on Amazon for only a couple bucks used so I'll rip it an see.

But, same CD on QOBUZ has NO WARBLE!!!

Makes NO sense as they must get their feeds from the same source.

Do keep in mind that QOBUZ also sells downloads so maybe they work with differing files.






First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

However the original author claimed..., posted on March 2, 2016 at 19:14:09
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

That the CD above is a huge offender but streaming it on TIDAL and don't hear the same warble as was on the DECCA Faure Requiem.

How come?

Is the author pointing out something else?

Don't have a Spotify account these days so it's still a mystery \.


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: I am not sure this would accomplish anything, posted on March 2, 2016 at 19:54:32
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
The audible watermark exists to alert proprietary equipment that the file or stream contains DRM controlled information. There is low level coding as well that is probably inaudible that goes on to describe the digital rights, e.g. who/what/when a DAC can render the content. A DRM approved device would prevent playing content that has the watermark but which fails to include cryptographically authenticated data authorized by the creator of the watermark.

For this to be an effective system, there are two requirements:
1. It must not be possible to strip out the watermark without doing damage to the sonic content. (This is the reason why the watermark is only at the threshold of audibility, not well below it.)
2. There must be draconic laws in place to make it illegal to reverse engineer or otherwise modify the DRM enforcing code. (This is the role of the DMCA in the US.)

These schemes are a compromise from what the RIAA wanted, which at its full extent would have made high resolution DACs and computer audio equipment subject to licensing and control. For some reason, DRM caught on in the motion picture (video) marketplace and industry, but failed to catch on in the music (audio) marketplace and industry, but this issue is far from being settled, what with streaming services, MQA, etc...

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

There's another version of the same Requiem..., posted on March 3, 2016 at 04:39:12
srl1
Audiophile

Posts: 1337
Location: Florida Panhandle
Joined: September 2, 2003
If you search "Marriner Faure" on Tidal, you get this album, too.





It's the 1995 release (versus the 2012 reissue). It sounds different/better. Please see if your acute ears can hear the same problem on this one. You said you heard the problem at the beginning of the first track as well as the one minute mark on the seventh track. I can't tell if the newer reissue is louder or brighter (or both).

 

RE: However the original author claimed..., posted on March 3, 2016 at 05:00:49
kh6idf
Audiophile

Posts: 1463
Location: Texas
Joined: May 2, 2001
Listening to that on Spotify, I don't hear any warbling either.

 

RE: There's another version of the same Requiem..., posted on March 3, 2016 at 05:06:27
kh6idf
Audiophile

Posts: 1463
Location: Texas
Joined: May 2, 2001
On Spotify, that one sounds better, there may be some flutter during the times that the male chorus is singing alone at a low level but it's harder to tell. I'm listening with earphones but will try again this weekend with my main system.

 

Thanks for your response, but then..., posted on March 3, 2016 at 09:57:04
tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9159
Joined: July 18, 2000
given that in the scheme you elucidate, there must be DRM implementation on the playback side, what do you see as the point of this alleged watermarking?

Certainly, if Apple watermarked an itunes file, denoted it as playable 10 times only, and then all Apple devices counted each play, then stopped playing after 10 plays, this would be working DRM that would use a watermark to identify each play.

But none of my CD players implement DRM. Certainly peer-to-peer networks and other varieties of sharing files do not implement DRM (these are called out as the purpose of the watermark in the original linked article).

So what conceivable use is an audible watermark on streamed files? Any thoughts?

 

RE: Thanks for your response, but then..., posted on March 3, 2016 at 13:41:50
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
It's not clear why a watermarking system would be put in production without the payoff (DRM hardware). There is a paper somewhere that I read a while back that describes the purpose of the watermark, how it interacts with the hidden data. One of the goals would be to close the "analog hole" making analog copies of watermarked files impossible. (This would require DRM enforcing ADCs.)

Perhaps they are just trolling to see how many complaints they get. Someone should provide some open source software that can recognize the watermark and distributed it for free.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Thanks for your response, but then..., posted on March 3, 2016 at 15:36:44
For now, they might just be trying to track how much of the pirated content flowing through P2P sites is sourced from streaming services vs. from CDs, to make a case for requiring DRM. And once they've made that case, the watermark could be used later for implementing the DRM.

 

Same warbling on TIDAL for me..., posted on March 3, 2016 at 20:06:13
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

While QOBUZ is fine. Go figure.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Same warbling on TIDAL for me..., posted on March 8, 2016 at 20:59:24
barondla
Audiophile

Posts: 535
Location: midwest usa
Joined: May 26, 2007
The labels may give Qobuz, Tidal, and others different files of the same album. Do this with enough albums and a picture emerges of the users and companies distributing the music. Scary stuff.
Thanks

 

Page processed in 0.051 seconds.