SACD-CD Hybrids -- A Way Out For Us Both? 546
"An interesting feature of the SACD layer is plenty of room for strong digital rights management code.
Here's my proposal: it should should allow artists to get paid, and the citizens to have archived and portable copies of the recording they have purchased. The record companies should produce a superior audio product and get to protect it from serial copying. The CD layer should be freely available for personal copying such as to a computer or portable digital player. These 2 basic concepts are a model that can be applied in the future, when better formats become available. It may also serve as a model for digital visual recordings. Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise: 1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes. 2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.
Personal digital technology has brought a tremendous change to the realtionship between media publishers & consumers. It's time for a new paridigm that will re-define that relationship for modern times."
Oh man... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Use both sides (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Use both sides (Score:3, Informative)
You could only do that if you're willing to bend some of the rules WRT the construction of a CD. The CDDA layer is on one side of the disc, while the SACD layer would be placed somewhere in the middle. If you tried making a "flippy" disc with both CDDA and SACD layers in the middle, either (1) the disc would be too thick to be handled by some CD players (1.2+x mm) or (2) some CD players might be unable to focus on the CDDA layer since it would be too close to the pickup. ("Flippy" discs work for DVD because that standard was developed with double-sided discs in mind...the data layer(s) in a DVD is/are in the middle.)
sounds terrible (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the fundamental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me repeat that: It is IMPOSSIBLE to implement copyright law in software.
Period.
How about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about this? (Score:2)
"Strong copy protection" means, whether fair use is preserved or not, that your computer is not your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about this? (Score:2, Insightful)
So there is an added benefit for consumers, and if you don't think it's worth it, just continue using it as a standard cd.
Re:How about this? (Score:3, Informative)
For example, the RIAA cannot claim that ripping CDs for mp3s is illegal b/c ripping audio tapes is possible, or even endorsed. Likewise, the MPAA cannot claim -- though they have -- that VHS copying is a substitute for DVD copying.
If a work is published, it's subject to unauthorized copying, and that's that. Not all copying is legal or illegal, but it depends on the circumstances and should not be prevented unless it is absolutely certain that legal copying, which includes copying anything once the work falls out of term, even if the source is a copy produced during term, is not impaired.
Simple, Unbreakable Copy Protection (Score:5, Funny)
They could say, "Well, we've got some great new CDs ready to go. But you won't hear them. Trust us, though, they're great."
This would drastically cut down on the crap that inundates the marketplace,
BTW. It would be a win-win solution for everyone: the RIAA wouldn't have to worry about a CD being copied, consumers would be saved from having to listen to crap, and there'd be less choices that pop up when I search on KazaaLite.
Amen (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen. To paraphrase Wendy: "Fuck the industry. Fuck them right in the ear."
NitsujTPU, you're absolutely right. They key here is to offer customers an incentive to BUY - give them something for their money.
Take television and the whole TiVo row. I'm a big fan of Smallville. Now if I can't make it home in time to watch it, you bet your ass TiVo is going to get it. Am I gonna skip commercials? You bet, aside from a few I find genuinely entertaining (e.g. the Mountain Dew commercial with the dude and ram butting heads).
But I digress. After the season is over, a smart studio would put out the whole damned season on DVD in wide-screen and pan-and-scan, chock full of goodies. I'd pay for a really good show, provided it was higher-quality than broadcast and there were some 'extra' goodies. Studios get their 'lost' revenue for commercial skippers and then some. Or take a clue from the UK and video-on-demand technology and let me subscribe to the show commercial-free - and let me record it or burn it without hassling me.
I'm sick of this anti-piracy bullshit. If I buy a CD, vinyl, audio tape, or DVD then I'll watch and listen whereever the hell I please, whenever I please.
I've spent a lot of time carefully ripping my CD collection to get the best sound quality I can. I make mix CDs of my own, and load up my mp3 player. I'm no paying for music twice or thrice, that's for damned sure.
[/rant]
Re:How about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't fool yourself - the entertainment industry is no friend of the consumer, and never has been. Sometimes consumers win (Sony v. Universal), but more often we lose (AHRA, DMCA, etc.).
The Three Types of the SACD Disc (Score:4, Informative)
From the outside, the SACD Hybrid Disc looks like any other 12 cm diameter and 1.2 mm thick optical disc. A closer look reveals that the disc is a bonded combination of two 0.6 mm data carriers: one containing the SACD data, the other the CD data. The reflective coating on the SACD carrier has the optical characteristic to be reflective for the light used in the SACD pick-up (650 nm), but to be transparent for the light used in a CD pick-up (780 nm). To a CD pick-up, the SACD layer is virtually invisible, as a result, the CD layer contained within the SACD Hybrid Disc is fully compatible with the "Red Book" CD standard, and can, therefore, be played on all "Red Book" compliant players.
uh (Score:4, Insightful)
But no, that would make sense.
Re:uh (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes a lot of sense to me--except why have copy protection at all? No one's going to try to get the gigabyte sized lossless high resolution songfile from P2P networks--just sell the high resolution copy to audiophiles, use advertizing to brainwash everyone into thinking they're an audiophile and need the high resolution copy, bang, boom, money made, fair use rights retained, internet freedoms protected, everyone wins except the lawyers.
Re:uh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:uh (Score:4, Insightful)
It's unfortunate, because it makes life unplesant for those of us that really care about the quality of audio we listen to. Yes, 'Audiophiles' are hilarious, but actual audiophiles who aren't spouting second hand opinion have some valid complaints about CDs.
Re:uh (Score:3, Informative)
A regular old cd already produces more sound than the human ear can detect...
This claim is absolutely false.
Go into any recording studio, record an analog source (acoustic guitar or a grand piano, for example) at 16bit/44.1KHz, then at a much higher resolution (say, 24bit/96KHz). Then play those back through a studio monitor sound system.
You can ABSOLUTELY hear the difference. Well, maybe you can't, but some people can.
I can tell the difference just recording vinyl through a DJ Mixer into my sound card... The quality difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 is really staggering, especially in the very high and very low end... Of course, I can't burn a CD at that quality, and dithering the sound back down to 16/44.1 makes the sound worse than just recording it at 16/44.1 in the first place.
But the point is, there IS a difference, and it's noticeable.
Re:uh (Score:3)
I can tell the difference between a 128K mp3 and a 256K mp3. I can tell the difference between a 256K mp3 and a CD. I can tell the difference between CD and vinyl. I can tell the difference between a CD and a CD that's been spun over a demagnitizer just prior to playing. I can tell the difference between my CD player and my father's DAT player. And I don't claim to be an audiophile.
Of course the study has never been done. Enough people already see CDs as a step backward in audio quality from vinyl that the need for increased quality doesn't need to be proven. Was there a double-blind study done to show people could tell the difference between VHS and DVD? Why bother? Obviously we can do better. We can do better than DVD, so hopefully you won't be decrying the need for any future advancements in video quality.
Re:uh (Score:2)
As long as I can use my speakers, I can make a copy.
Exactly. The "problem" isn't the ease of making the first copy, it's the ease of making additional copies and distributing them around the globe. I think the Eminem CD appearing before the CD was even released to the public proved that.
The only way technology could help is if it used audio watermarks to track the copy to the original purchaser. Even then you're going to have to use damn good watermarking technology, cause once it's off, it's off.
Re:uh (Score:4, Insightful)
And they sure as hell shouldn't have the right to buy legislation that uses the government's monopoly on force to maintain their revenue stream.
Markets change, and the revenue stream that company's gain from those markets changes.
The canonical example would be if the buggy whip manufacturers bought a law that required you to buy a new whip with every new car. It would maintain the revenue stream for the buggy whip manufacturing companys, but would it make any sense?
Re:uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Not having an alternate suggestion doesn't mean that one has to pretend that the current model isn't seriously flawed. Just because I don't know how to build a warp drive doesn't mean that it's not worth pointing out that somebody's scheme to do it by strapping JATOs to an old 57 Chevy probably won't do the trick.
Coming up with a workable business model is their business -- or should be, if they want to continue making money. The universe doesn't owe them any revenue stream, equal to their current one or not.
And these companies are not making the art. They're just delivering it.
Re:uh (Score:3, Informative)
If there were a magic 'instant return on investment' business plan, the Record Industry wouldn't have waited until MP3s got popular to switch to it.
They could make just about any business model profitably if they'd try it. There are two reasons they aren't, though:
1.) They assume that the consumer will not pay for anything. We are all thieves, therefore they cannot provide anything 'free'.
2.) They'll have to price themselves fairly, vs. screwing the consumer at every turn.
The RIAA is in a unique position because it's settled nicely into a virtual monopoly without getting much attention from the government. Mp3s are causing them to have to behave competitively, but they dun wanna cos they dun wanna lose their margins.
Pity. I expect that what'll happen is a new, internet friendly organization will come along and dethrone the RIAA. They may not make such ridiculous profits, but I imagine they'll easily make a comfortable living as long as they come up with a business model that considers our needs.
"$2 per MP3, or $7 for the whole album"
Re:uh (Score:3, Interesting)
People still want to go to concerts. Artists will likely make nowhere near what they currently are, but so what? It's just simple supply and demand. Currently the demand is over-inflated because of market manipulation, and technical limitations.
Now the technical limitations are gone, and people are realising the market manipulation. Basically their current revenue streams will likely diminish like the Tech stock market. And just like the Tech market, the good stuff will still be around, closer to what it really is worth. And in the end, the artists themselves will probably end up making more out of the deal.
Result... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Result... (Score:4, Insightful)
Me, I'll continue to support artists who don't use distributors who cripple their music, and go see those I like live.
Re:Result... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Result... (Score:2)
Me, I'll continue to support artists who are naked, petrified, and covered in hot grits.
;-)
Re:Result... (Score:2, Insightful)
That makes no sense what-so-ever. The first layer of SACD is redbook compatible. The second layer requires a SACD player with a blue laser. Requiring a different laser is not copy protection. It is the evolution of the technology.
haha (Score:5, Funny)
This is a great move. That way the only pirated copies will be crappy third generation digital copies or worse.
Re:haha (Score:2)
wishful thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, this is a technological solution to a moral, social, and legal problem, and I don't think it's going to do much to fix the problem. The problems are that individuals don't consider intellectual property to be actual property, that corperations are willing to do anything to protect their profits (including acting first and thinking later, and encroaching upon the rights of innocent consumers), and that legislaters are largely in the pockets of big business.
Re:wishful thinking (Score:2)
Exactly.
Technological solutions can't ever really fix problems that aren't technological in nature. At best, they can slow or mask the problem. At worst, they piss off a whole lot of technologically inclined people who proceed to make mincemeat of said solution, regardless of penalty.
The recording industry has a huge mess on its hands. They've irritated the consumer to the point where even the well-meaning consumer won't pay $17.99 a CD to see only $.08 go to the artist. No amount of copy protection is going to change that.
Re:wishful thinking (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:wishful thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole concept of intellectual property is just an example of telling people a lie often enough that they begin to believe it. Legal fictions aside, once you have shared an idea with someone else, it ceases to be yours.
Re:wishful thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not a bug, that's a feature. A song is not the same type of thing as a guitar, and the sooner we stop lumping them both under the rubric of "property", the sooner we can start thinking clearly about better policy.
No Doubt? (Score:3, Funny)
Now No Doubt is jumping on the RIAA bandwagon TOO??
Sheesh, and I really liked their music. Guess it's boycott time.
Fair Compromise (Score:3, Interesting)
That's strange... (Score:2, Funny)
that is protection? (Score:4, Insightful)
SO, the CD version is completely copiable, meaning it can be ripped into MP3 or whatever format you wish, but there is another "protected" version of the song that is "higher quality" and can only be copied once? What is to stop people from taking the CD layer and ripping it to whatever high-quality format they want? And what happens when the "high quality only copy once" scheme is broken? How does having things exactly as they are now offer the artist/RIAA anymore protection than uncopyprotected CDs?
Re:that is protection? (Score:2, Insightful)
Taking a CD-quality PCM rip and up-sampling to a higher-quality format won't introduce the bits that have already been lost. I think the hybrid CD/SACD solution is the best compromise for audiophiles and casual listenered alike.
Re:that is protection? (Score:2)
That just described how a 1-bit DAC on a CD player works. For the data itself to be encoded like that would be silly - for exactly the same quality, you'd need a 2^16*44100=2890137600 bits/sec data rate (without counting the parity/recovery bits).
Did I say silly? Oops, I meant nigh-impossible.
Re:that is protection? (Score:2)
Re:that is protection? (Score:2)
That's okay... (Score:5, Funny)
Sony is way ahead of you. (Score:4, Funny)
Waste of time (Score:2)
It got us special piracy taxes [gnu.org].
Way to go. Lets see history repeating!
Bullshit! (Score:2)
And, besides, any DRM scheme WILL BE CRACKED eventually. But unlike a house lock-picker set, once the digital tool is out, it will be instantly all over the known universe, sending DRM scheme designers back to their drawing boards...
Won't fly with the Big fish (Score:2)
This makes sense? (Score:4, Insightful)
How, exactly, does this help anyone? IP is property or it is not. This is like saying it is illegal for someone to punch you, but only if they do it where it really hurts.
Or, conversely, like saying we are selling you something, but you only own the broken version.
This strikes me as a solution that is sure to just piss everyone off, as opposed to some of the people.
the problem with DRM... (Score:2, Insightful)
take macrovision encoding for example. (i think its macrovision i'm talking about, either way, whatever they use on DVD's)
if you try to run your DVD player through your VCR (for instance, if you don't have enough inputs on your TV, and you just want to use the pass-through on the VCR) at this point you either have to go buy an aux box for your TV, or if you have an older TV, you have to buy an RF modulator.
the part that sucks is that all of this inconvenience doesn't give you, the consumer, anything. in no way does macrovision encoding help you. at all.
this "one copy for archival purposes" doesn't cut it. what happens if you accidentally break your backup? what happens if you lose the original? can you magically make another archival copy to replace the lost one, or are you fucked?
i like high quality audio and all, but i also like being able to make copies of whatever i want, whenever i want.
-c
EVERBODY REMEMBER (Score:5, Funny)
How will this prevent copying? (Score:2)
Which is what computers and CD duplicators can already read, so they'll still be able to read them and copy them.
But there are restrictions on the higher quality data. Yet they're trying to stop people who trade 96k MP3's. Huh?
Um, it's Red Book complient? (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand the industry's position in all this, but I would think they employed a few people with enough wits to know that copy restricting an audio product is never gonna work.
And as far as the added capabilities go, who's gonna buy new hardware? We STILL haven't standardize DVD burners yet. I don't need any new media formats, I already have enough obsolete junk in my house.
Re:Um, it's Red Book complient? (Score:2)
the layer with drm is a higher quality recording that will be usable only in drives made for sacd. this layer sounds better than current cds do, so this is the incentive to get the drm-encumbered sacd.
does that straighten it out?
Re:Um, it's Red Book complient? (Score:2)
So I get the industry's idea, protect the better quality, but if the quality increase is going to be negligable, who cares?
Just another encryption scheme... (Score:2)
Old news about an existing standard... (Score:2)
Mind you, those players and discs are still way to expensive for me.
Beware TPB
Why is quality tied to fair use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why is quality tied to fair use? (Score:2)
No help for copy protection woes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care what code you put on the SACD, or what rights management comes with the software: until we get a consistency of governance, with the same clear law implemented uniformly, protecting both fair use, individual rights, and copyright law (what's left of it after Eldred Vs. Ashcroft [eldred.cc] all of this is just screwing around: people will hack around it, of course, and it'll be DeCSS all over again.
That's not progress, or a solution.
I have SACD (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as an FYI, a CD's sampling rate is 44.1Khz (44,100 samples per second), SACD by comparison is 1.2Mhz (1,200,000 samples per second) talk about some serious data, this thing looks almost exactly like an analog wave!
Analog waves (Score:4, Informative)
The SACD just records the pulses from the SD modulator to disc, which is responsible for the huge number of samples.
So instead of being 44.1 kHz*16 or 24 bits per sample, it is 1.2 MHz at one bit per sample. Therefore, it looks *less* like an analog wave than a CD recording. Essentially, Sony regards counting the pulses as a very effective but slightly lossy compression method that they wish to eschew. BTW I can barely tell the difference. Even a good MP3 is good enough for me.
Re:I have SACD (Score:3, Insightful)
SACD offers only incremental benefits over CD for consumers. The main attraction is its difficult to copy since SACD is not a PCM format. Instead its a bit stream format, which means all those cool things like DSP volume control and modulation, etc is impossible with SACD.
SACD is just another cash grab, don't buy into it.
I have SACD, too. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone can polish a turd... and SACD is a turd polisher.
I'm not sure what you mean by "above 44Khz". The absolute limit of CD audio is 22KHz as shown by the sampling theorem that basically states that the sampling rate must be a minimum of twice the maximum frequency sampled. Besides, the goal of high fidelity audio is the faithful reproduction of the original sound. In the frequency domain, that translates into flat response between 20Hz and 20KHz with a smooth rolloff above and below. CD audio does not do that.
A huge problem that plagues CD audio (from the audiophile point of view) is the "brick wall" filter that is employed at 20KHz. This low pass filter is so sharp that it can cause some pretty nasty artifacts if it's implemented improperly (for which you should read "cheaply").
Your point about "mixers, microphones, and other equipment" would be well taken except that Sony's Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording system doesn't allow for post-recording mixing at all. So, what you record is what you get. Obviously, then, the quality of the recording stream should be correspondingly high. I think that you'd be quite surprised at just how high the standards for DSD recording equipment are.
A significant advantage of SACD over CD is that because of the 1 bit sampling and the dithering that follows, quantization noise is moved way up in the spectrum, well beyond the range of audibility. Further, the noise floor of SACD is substantially lower than that of 16 bit CD. The frustrating part of CD audio is that although it should provide a theoretical 16 bit dynamic range, due to quantization and other digital artifacts, even the best players are limited to perhaps 12 or 13 bits. Sure, you might dismiss that as a mere detail, but it is quite audible.
I've got a Sony SACD player. I've also got a nice Rega turntable and a Musical Fidelity CD player. A well cared for LP certainly outperforms a CD and is on a par with the SACD player. Obviously it's difficult to keep an LP in excellent condition over time, which is why I have a very large CD collection. But, quite frankly, the 30 or so SACDs that I have most definitely sound better than the CDs that they replaced...and I'm no golden-eared audiophile.
I'll certainly agree that my speakers won't reproduce anything above 30KHz, but that's not the point of SACD. The point is that the dynamic range is substantially greater and the digital artifacts that are the domain of multibit sampling (and relatively low sampling rates) are essentially eliminated. Frequency response is not the issue here.
I suppose that the case of SACD being a "turd polisher" could be made if you wanted to stick one in your average boom box and claim superior sound. But then again, I guess you could say that in that regard, CD is just a turd polisher compared to cassettes.
-h-
Re:I have SACD, too. (Score:4, Informative)
cjs
Don't be so optimistic (Score:2)
The media giants are under no obligation to produce media that is copyable. The only reason thay haven't used a closed version so far is that (thankfully) the market presented a better alternative, which consumers naturally flocked to. Also thankfully, Sony vs. Betamax permitted such alternatives to be legal, much to the ire of meida conglomerates, even though they still made mountains of cash.
But the Supreme Court's decision is not protection from new technology that disallows fair-use copying. With the advent of the DMCA, and the conglomeration of the RIAA and MPAA, a single new format is poised to emerge which will literally be "forced" upon consumers. It is only a matter of time.
One can only hope consumers *really* boycott this, but I don't see apathetic losers who won't even vote for the presidency of their country giving a rat's ass.
---------rhad the informed cynic
NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
These idiots keep trying to replace the wheel with a more and more complex regular polygon.
And contrary to Dante, the lowest level of Hell is reserved for audiophiles and wine connoisseurs.
The quality of recorded music is not determined by how accurately it reproduces the sound at the microphone. It's determined by how well it reproduces the experience of the concert hall. And that has more to do with the primitive nature of all point source microphones and speaker systems. Where is the advanced research in that field? The music industry has the same level of openness to change as most dentists, i.e, zero.
Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
DRM adds cost, while removing consumer-perceived value.
How about this: use the law to deal with legal problems, and quit trying to pollute the electronics and computing industries with this DRM 'solution'. The problem of data that can be copied infinitely is something that the law and economics are just going to have to deal with eventually - and, for god's sake - in a better manner than just crippling/regulating all of the devices.
The 'way out' for the music industry is to stop lobbying and give the public what they want. Which includes the ability to duplicate their recordings in an open format. Always has, always will.
High Quality? (Score:2)
Right. Hillary Rosen and Bill Gates in the same room might bring together a critical mass of ego + arrogance, cause a thermal-nuclearesque meltdown, explode and take out the whole lot. Saaaayyyy.....
1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes.
HOW??? AI? Hunh? How is a file supposed to know it's copy unless you tell it? Even then, it might not accept that it's a copy (Like Christine "I AM NOT A BRITTNEY CLONE!" Aguli-whatsherface) And just WHO is this artist that puts out high quality stuff?
2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.
Soooo, we can trade Brittney and N'Stync "songs" all we want, but not (insert artist of actual value here)? Can we have it the other way, please - bandwidth is valuable, and Kaaza is hurting my link that does productive stuff.
Soko
There is no such thing as reasonable UHT. (Score:5, Interesting)
I get troubled when I read stuff like this from well meaning people who talk about the possibility of reasonable UHT because it implies an acceptance of something that, if wish to remain free, we can never ever accept: that our hardware and software should be telling us what we can and cannot do.
UHT is evil even when you agree with what it does, and even when it serves a clear utilitarian service. Good UHT is as much contradiction in terms as good dictatorship and just like with dictatorship the intention does not matter.
As we move further into the information age, we will grow more and more dependent on our computers as part of our lives, and as part of ourselves. We use them to communicate, to speak, and to be heard, and in many ways they must be seen as extentions of ourselves into cyberspace. In that context, we must recognize the immense power that the programs we run exercise over ourselves, and the incredible danger that is posed if those programs ultimately serve not to enable us but to control us.
Just like your lawyer cannot turn you in for the good of society, and your doctor cannot kill you to save two others, programmers and programs must act primarily in the interest of you, the user, and not society. Nobody should ever be compelled to run a program that acts against them, be it "reasonable" or not!
Re:There is no such thing as reasonable UHT. (Score:3, Funny)
Sony are hypocrites - here's the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also a shame to see the RIAA trying to charge more for what is effectively the same material. Even if it's being offered at a higher digital resolution, it shouldn't cost them that much more to provide it -- besides which, does the average music listener really want to pay more for higher quality?
Hell, the quality of CD music sounds just fine for my heavy-metal-abused ears anyway - all those extra bits (and the money I'd pay for them) would just be wasted.
And here's an interesting article [aardvark.co.nz] which provides some rather nice evidence to support allegations that Sony is being hypocritical in respect to CD ripping and downloading music from the Net.
No Better Sound Than CD quality? (Score:4, Insightful)
The determining factor is the quality of audio recorded in the studio. There are many factors involved, and to make a long story short, the recording studio is the bottleneck -- they contribute a minimal level of noise to the recording -- not the CD.
Re:No Better Sound Than CD quality? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can attest that the format sounds absolutely stunning. I have a pretty good system, but certainly not anywhere near the "$10,000 pair of speakers" a poster above mentioned as a requirement to hear the difference.
You are right about the studio, and I would add that the skill and technology used in mastering make even more difference. CD promised that the format would be "transparent" - that the limiting factor would be the recording and the mastering. I think SACD delivers on that promise.
Re:No Better Sound Than CD quality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a bit of an audiophile, I've tested both the SACD as well as the DVDA [DVD-Audio] and I must admit, I like the DVDA version better. On paper, the specs for DVDA are also much better. Check it out here [techtronics.com]. There is a DVDA FAQ here [dvdfile.com]
I highly suggest that you check out some of the recordings.... *much* better than standard CD!
.
Re:No Better Sound Than CD quality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Much better than a *standard* CD, maybe, but that's probably because the music samples on any new format are deliberately done very carefully so that they will sound impressive. If SACD or DVDA became the new standard, do you think the average quality would remain the same?
As another post said, the CD format is already good enough to perfectly reproduce any sound the average human can hear.
Sometimes I wish it was required for people to take a signal processing class before buying a stereo.
Re:No Better Sound Than CD quality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or possibly like an average consumer?
That's the point - I don't mind if audiophiles or whatever you want to call them will endlessly pursue the perfect sound, but they're in the minority. Quite a small minority.
And the only reason CDs won out is because they sound better after many listenings, not because they sound better.
Wrong, they won because they sound better. On the average Joe's equipment. I used to get very frustrated at the noise, clicks, pops, cracks, rumbles and rustles of LPs. Since switching to CD, I've almost never noticed such a problem. Also, as a vinyl loving friend of mine used to be fond of saying: "CDs are 15% convenience."
Sure if you buy a Linn Axis Nutter Bastard or whatever, you might be able to get LPs to sound better than CDs (although I'm in the cynics' camp here), but you won't get the average consumer to spend £500+ on a turntable. Aint gonna happen. Therefore CDs sound better, on the average consumer's equipment, to the average consumer. And surely that's one of the main goals of a mass market consumer format.
And, IIRC, that's why DVD Audio never splashed onto the scene, because when they did consumer listening tests, something like 9/10 people said "Huh? I can't tell the difference."
That's the inertia that a new format has to fight, rightly or wrongly.
Tim
forget it kid (Score:4, Insightful)
Who will buy this? Let's look at these one at a time.
better sound
Nobody (except audiophiles who spend $10K on a set of speakers) cares about sound quality enough to switch formats. Nobody. MP3 sounds much worse than CD - and it's the standard we all use! (Except ogg fans, who are in their own special circle of reality.) So this will not lead to adoption.
strong copyright security
It will be cracked ... and nobody but nobody will buy any new equipment to play these, because nobody will accept the loss of the ability to play, rip, etc. on PCs.
reasonable fair-use rights
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Since current fair use rights include the ability to rip, mix, burn, and use MP3s for whatever we damn well please, and any copy protection scheme at all will take these away, I don't see any way that people will buy this.
So: 0 for 3. Failure. Next!
The sad truth about fair use rights (Score:2)
In the end copy protection is MOOT at best (Score:2, Interesting)
What exactly are they trying to prove?
Uma cabaca, un arane, un pedaco de pau!
Yes, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
CD's were designed to sound perfect. They are 16-bits...the human ear and only tell differences up to 13 or 14 bits. Of course the industry would like you to believe that a 'better' format exists, it does not. Recording studios actually worry about picking up the sound of air moving in a recording booth.
CD's could be made more durable, hold more music, or support more channels of sound, but the quality of sound is already perfect.
And let's face it...people don't want to think about copy-protection when they but a product.
-Matt
Why this won't work... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. RIAA doesn't care if the artists get paid...RIAA only cares that the production companies get paid...how the musicians fare is their problem.2. RIAA doesn't believe you have this right. If you want the music on more than one machine or in more than one format, buy it again.3. Less than 10% of the music buying population want or care about higher quality audio...you can't tell the difference over the road noise anyway...4. If it can be read, it can be copied...plain and simple. Copy CONTROL (protection is a prophylactic) does not work. Music will continue to be pirated by the same percentage of listeners who pirate it today.5. So music production companies will actually LOWER the sound quality of this layer to something worse than cassette tapes, effectively eliminating its use.6. Chances of getting all of those groups to agree is somewhere around
And #9, the main reason it won't work: MP3 is the new format. All the other attempts at introducing new formats are pointless. People like MP3s, MP3s are the new way. Audio players now support MP3s, car sterios are already supporting MP3s. The music industry, or RIAA, cannot change this. If they want to jump on the bandwagon, fine. If they want to push it over and knock everyone else off, they are too late.
But, as Dennis Miller might say: "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
Digital output (Score:2, Interesting)
New tech... (Score:4, Funny)
It may even rival the success of Digital Audio Tape.
-
How to build an SACD ripper... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if the diagram is correct (i.e. the data is cheesecloth encoded, and the protection lies in the fact that the encoding layer is semi-reflective, the only thing you'de need to do to build an evil, satan-worshipping CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE would be to mark or "paint" the CD on the reverse side so that it can be sensed in a reader, and read the disc in two passes. Something like a a clean mylar sheet shaped like a flat donut, used for each side. Once youve got the data, simply a matter of doing the math, and whammo, youve got both the "new" high-resolution side and the "old" normal audio side. Looks like we'll have a "frying pan" for our burners soon.
Don't they think about this crap beforehand?
better sound = Bullcrap (Score:3, Interesting)
the superior sound will go away, as it costs a ton of money to record and master a cd correctly.. that's why they dont do it now.
Nothing is reasonable anymore (Score:2)
Copyrights are not property. They are a state-enforced monopoly and thus in order to be moral they have to have a limited scope and duration. This is one area where IMO where one individual's "good" cannot be put on even the same level with the sum total of all individuals' rights. Copyrighted goods can only exist with state-intervention into the market place. That intervention violates a lot of people's natural rights. They give them up with the expectation they will gain something useful and have property rights of some kind. The current system absolutely does none of that in any way, shape or form. Consumers don't own the software they buy, have no right to duplicate music or movies they buy for friends with their own materials and many scientific pursuits are now outlawed.
This format will die quickly... (Score:3, Interesting)
The point, of course, is to make up some excuse for a new format that the recording companies can lock down and make "secure". The one problem they face is that nobody's going to invest in these new players except for the high-end audiophiles. So, unless they are going to try to push players by releasing big name performers exclusively on this new format, this is not going to last long. I don't know about you, but if I was Britney Spears or N'Sync or some other big name performer, there's no way I'd risk my sales to some corporate power play (assuming I still had the rights to my own musical performances).
The only way a new audio format is going to come to be is if the recording industry can figure out a way to make a substantial difference in the listening experience for the new media. It has to provide noticeable differences to the average consumer or it's not going to get past being a niche product for audio geeks.
Personal Experiences With SACD (Score:5, Informative)
The great truth of recorded music is: The life and death of any format is in the software, not the players, not the technology, not the marketing. How much music is there? The biggest problem SACD has is that there's less than, oh about 400 discs available, mostly classical and jazz, and mostly older recordings, at that. One great advantage for SACD is that Sony has begun all mastering in DSD, the one-bit technology behind SACD. That recently-released CD you bought from a Sony label was probably recorded using DSD and downsampled for the CD master.
MP3 and other compressed formats have lots of software available.
One other note: I have a two channel system (i.e., Stereo) but SACD supports a 5.1 channel layer, too. So a fully-loaded hybrid SACD has a 2-channel Red book CD layer, a 2 channel SACD layer, and a 5.1 channel SACD layer. Only the 2 channel SACD is required.1-bit Sigma Delta Modulation (Score:3, Informative)
-Adam
This is pointless . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't new! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
if the recording industry starts using this standard and allows unlimited usage of the (currently) regular cd quality, that is pretty fair.
they also give a reason for buying the drm encumbered discs. higher quality! it's a trade-ff.
we won't be able to copy everything easily forever. at least this still allows the customer to have some fair use.
Re:not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
Which almost no one cares about. Most eople are willing to settle for MP3 quality.
Yes, we will. It's called digital technology and it's not going to go away, even if the government attempts oppressive tactics like the SSSCA. The sooner we realize that the genie is out of the bootle and get past useless copy-protection schemes, the sooner we can move on to figuring out how to get artists paid without a pay-per-copy model.I don't like it. The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
1: Release a hybrid CD-SACD
2: Push SACD hardware, with built in DRM.
3: Eventually drop the CD format as obsolete.
I say this does present a way out-- these hybrids will be initially costly, but as long as the demand exists for redbook hardware, the plan cannot succeed.
The way to win here is to ensure that the demand remain high for redbook only hardware and hardware without DRM.
Re:This is great... (Score:3)
Why buy something that is worse than useless?