Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
If it affects in any way the music, then I oppose it. If it keeps me from making my own copies for backupwho says CDs/DVDs are indestructible?then I oppose it. Otherwise, I just don't care.
With SDMI on the horizon, supposedly inaudible watermarking may end up in quite a bit of the digital audio we listen to. Is this a problem for you?
In Mr. Willis' balanced report on his test listening of the watermark technology, he mentioned that one of the developers could detect the watermark 100% of the time. Don't you think that audiophiles will learn how to do that? How annoying will it be to sit in front of $10,000+ of stereo and notice that on your recordings?
The record companies are going to do whatever it takes to stop piracy of their music. I, being a consumer, have absolutely no choice in the matter, except to not purchase the aforementioned items. I do feel a little left out, because I think it is a must to be able to make a duplicate of a particular CD. I do quite a bit of traveling and like to take along a copied CD, as I have had to replace roughly 75-100 discs that have been ruined by or stolen from my car.
I do not think for a second that watermarking will stop the pirates. These people are clever enough to make a living honestly, but choose to be dishonest. And they will be clever enough to get around watermarking. Watermarking will only hurt the honest consumer, with possible decreased fidelity and increased cost. It is foolish. But then, if the record companies were only half as clever as the pirates, they would not have to worry about this at all. Their marketing of bad-sounding, overpriced CDs should be their main focus.
Ugh. Another committee decision on what is "perceptually insignificant. Look at a Trinitron-tubed computer monitor one third of the height from both the top and bottom. See the thin horizontal line at each location. Try a white/light background. Irritating, isn't it? Ha ha ha. Bet many of you did not see it till it was pointed out, but now it is impossible to ignore. Some kind of audible artifact will be discovered . . . but, hey, look at the upside: great for elevator "music."
These people who ruin the music for us golden ears should have hat pins driven thru their eardrums. Hopefully, audio reviewers (with golden ears & a conscience) will let us know how audible this watermark sounds & recommend we boycott the record companies.
people listen up dont fall for the hype I sell high and low end audio and video for a living wait until you can listen to the players and then wait until prices are within reach and when its all said and done go back and listen to your dts audio discs and see how much money you just waisted
It's just so stupid because we know that the big pirates have pressing plants in funny countries and that this will not affect them one little bit. If they really wanted to kill piracy, they could make the prices reasonable and put more effort into stopping these commercially pirated discs from being made.
Presumably, the "watermark" is embedded in the data themselves, which would mean the only way it could possibly be "useful" is if it is inaudible. But, if inaudible, it must require "high resolution" to hear it. Which, in turn, must mean "the only way" for it to be useful is if the raw data are externally available. I.e., the 24/96 data must be available for an outboard DAC. Which, I gather, is strongly opposed by the very folks pushing the watermarking. Kinda curious . . .
They haven't proved that they (the record industry) can tell the truth in the past, so why should I believe them now? Record sound quality has always been job #1,000,000 to them, and now they want us to believe that watermarking will be inaudible, HA!!! Sorry, but for all the price-gouging they've done in the past, as Marie Antoinette once said, "Let them eat cake."