Vote

We need to take a stand on this one. This is totally insane. They want us to shell out big bucks for new hardware and software that will ultimately wind up sounding WORSE than CD because they are using watermarking! Inaudible? Yeah, right. Just like "perfect sound forever" or "CD-quality downloads." It's all a pack of lies. These record companies are unbelievable. Right now, I'm seeing CDs with a list price of $19.99. Just stop already! We've been punished for piracy enough. At least don't mess with the actual content. The sad part is that the people this will hurt most (audiophiles; the other dummies just want "surround sound") are exactly the people who are the least involved, on either end, with piracy.

I believe that watermarking will be audible after repeated hearings, and annoying. Why pay top dollar for a recording that is marred in this way? The irony is that someone will figure a way around this protection scheme in any case. If hackers can break into the computers of large companies, they have the skill to break these protection codes.

Why should I pay for a new quote "high quality sound" product when there is a chain saw running outside?

Shows the unparalleled greed of the music industry. I think they had better come back to earth. We can vote only with our dollars. Boycott and be very vocal about it. Hit them where it hurts. Where is our freedom of choice? Greed should not be allowed to win the day.

I don't like the watermarking issue one "bit". If the industry has to come up with something though, I guess that I could live with a barely audible watermark. It sure would beat not having SACD or DVD-Audio at all.

Whatever happened to striving to produce something to the very highest level possible, as a means in its self? The greatest of human achievements were never attained through mediocrity and compromise. We live in a time when most people are more concerned about making the next dollar than putting their finest effort forward. I will never understand this perversion of human achievement.

Any watermark that is engineered, no matter how clever, can be reverse-engineered. The problem is that the Verance guys aren't too clever; they have developed an audible watermark. Any software using this watermark as a means of assuaging the record execs while screwing consumers ought to be boycotted.

I am not paying for distortion not intended by the performers.

True AUDIOPHILE listeners should send a strong message to the music industry. No sound like in the early stage of digital recording... never again! Otherwise we'll stick with our traditional high-end CD-transport and converter(s). (I own myself the fabulous duo DSC Purcell and DCS Elgar). In this case the good news is you save money! P.S. I thought the highly promising SACD technolgy had no to be watermarked.

There is no way this will not effect sound quality and it will only hurt those who are legitimately buying music. The record industry is in this frenzied state of paranoia about piracy yet does not seem to realize that way's to copy music have been around for a hundred years, people who are goingto be likely customers will still purchase it in original unadultered form

will not purchase watermarked material.

The idea of inserting an audible flaw into a recording and then charging money for the now-defective product clearly shows the disdain the record companies and artists who consent to this treatment of their music have for the listening public.

Nothing must impair the quest for "The state of the art"

NO FUCKING WAY!!!!!!

The thing that really annoys me is the lack of hi-rez digital outputs. I am convinced that the way forward is digitally active speakers. Meridian has partially gotten around the problem by keeping the digits within their components and feeding a Meridian proprietary signal to their DSP speakers. But they cannot do this with SACD and may not bother. To encourage more competition and even higher sound-quality standards, the record companies have to allow hi-rez digital outputs. Unfortunately, that is not their main priority. The next bit of equipment required is going to be an illegal digital decoder. Any hackers out there listening?

First of all, I never rush out and buy new technology until it's been in the marketplace a few years and enough software is available. I would also be highly reluctant to invest in anything that would prevent me from transfering among the different media formats for my own personal use, regardless of whether there were audible degradations or not! The only way I will even consider SACD or DVD-Audio is if there was a machine compatible with both formats as well as back-compatible with CD.

There must be a better way to combat piracy, like more realistic pricing, decent packaging, getting the sound right first time. But most of all if people have the money they will spend it on legit music.

Why should I support a new media? The death of vinyl due to Sony's push of cds was bad enough.

It's a stupid idea, like bio-engineered foods—now we're eating buffalo wings and chicken fingers. Do they think the pirates will care? Natural food & natural sound!

Just the fact that I know it's there (plainly audible or not) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth, always having to wonder, Could this be better?

I went high-end to hear the music, not the lawyers' fine print stamped all over it.

Beats the very purpose of high-definition audio!

hmmm.Lets take the highest resolution developed to date and ruin it for PERCEIVED money. Why bother with the artistic value of sound quality in the first place.If they want to watermark mp3's go for it but if they are so stupid as this yhen JA's right BOYCOTT the greedy double talking BASTARDS!!!

LAWYERS . . . !!

Any technology that will degrade sound quality should be banned.

If it will help promote the adoption of SACD by the recording industry and it still sounds better than CD, I say go for it!

I did not spend 30 grand to have my music comprimised after I have already paid honest money for it!

The cost will be added to each disc. Final result? The consumer pays the bill for the company loss (if any) to piracy. Also, no one has ever proven that any pirated copy took money away from anyone! Someone had to buy the original in the first place. How does anyone know who would/would not buy another original? Go on, prove a negative. The industry "estimates" the number of pirated copies on the street and then multiplies that by street price to arrive at their loss numbers. My, that's an accurate assessment—NOT!

It's an idiotic idea that has been proven time and again to be ineffective. If people really want to copy music, they will find a way. Case in point: DeCSS. The idea that sharing music hurts the music industry is dumber than a box of rocks. It's only a vehicle for industry heads (who turn a blind eye to anything other than the bottom line) to justify their fat pricing. They DON'T lose money every time a tune is played and a royalty is not paid! If people like what they hear, they will buy it. And if they don't, they won't. Personally, if I can hear artifacts from watermarking, I will boycott.

There must be another way.