New Audio Disc Formats and Copyrights 321
JollyGoodChase writes "CNN has an article on Super Audio CD digital watermarking and the lack of digital outputs on any SACD or DVD-Audio players. Covers dealer responses, tech issues, and consumer options in a good summation of this technology."
Who needs another disk player (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2, Informative)
DVD-A *should* always come with a standard CD layer (usually in Dolby Digital or DTS) and I believe if we were allowed to rip that under fair use, the format would take off.
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2)
not quite sure what you mean here. if it was a cd layer (like hybrid sacd's have) then it would be plain redbook stereo and would play in any cd player (thats the idea behind sony's hybrid discs', except that that afaik, only a few of the sacd's out there actually are hybrid's. most just have the sacd layer and no cd layer).
or do you mean that the dvda disc should have a dvda layer and a dvdv layer, the latter having a dolby digital (for ubiquity) or dts (for bandwidth) track with the same music on?
or do you mean a cd layer with a DTS track encoded on it (like current dts disc's (note, not "dts cd's" as they are not redbook standard, and neither do they label themselves as such)).
I think dvda's should go for the middle option I specified (and indeed, they might for all I know) as thats how they can get ppl to buy their media without needing the new hardware right now
I like sacd in concept more than dvda I have to admit. the format mandates a stereo track in addition to any multichannel track, however, I do think that a cd layer should also be part of the standard so that ppl can buy an sacd without a player, safe in the knowledge that if/when they get an sacd player things will get better.
dave
PS. I also think that cd's album's should come with a free dvd video disc of the artists music vid's. otherwise they'll only go to waste
SACD = AMAZING!!! (Score:5, Informative)
It came with a sampler disc. Had some great blues and jazz tracks as well as some Roger Waters (Pink Floyd). It's so lifelike, realistic, almost gives me goosebumps. But if you are the type that can't tell the difference between 128k MP3 and the CD, then don't even bother.
My point is: (A) The difference is very clear. The high end is so full, cymbals sound like they are right in the room with you. (B) You don't need to have an audiophile level system to hear it (just halfway decent speakers). Of course every bit helps. For reference I have a set of KLH speakers, good but not very expensive.
Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get so hyped on a single record. I'm willing to believe SACD sounds better than a CD, but I'm also certain that having a good sound engineer makes much more difference.
Looking at my CD collection, the symphonic version of the Princess Mononoke soundtrack sounds like shit and forces me to boost the volume to dangerous levels to enjoy it somewhat, while the symphonic version of the Castle in the Sky is simply the best-sounding CD I have ever heard. Same author, same technology, abysmal difference in quality.
Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! or SACD == AMAZING!!! (Score:2)
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:5, Interesting)
The watermarking on a SACD disc is done by varying the physical 'pit' sizes, rather than embed some digital code in the data stream. There is a pattern of varying pit sizes in which the watermark is embedded. A SACD player can discern these slightly different sizes and won't play a SACD unless it has the right watermark. The good thing about doing it this way is the audio content is entirely unaffected by the watermark - it doesn't distort the sound in any way. It does make it much more difficult to copy the SACD layer, though. But most SACD discs are hybrid, meaning there is also a regular CD layer which can be read and copied as usual. Only the higher quality SACD layer is copy protected. For me I am willing to accept the copy protection to get the better sound quality.
Encouraging answer to copy protection? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now isn't this the perfect way to go about copy-protecting music? You see, if I want to encode to MP3 (and I do, I'm an iPod owner) then, as I read your statement, I'd be able to do it. I wouldn't get the best available quality, but so what? I'm compressing it to a lossy format anyway which is only going to get played over a set of headphones.
Is this the compromise we've been looking for? Non-protected mid-range quality which allows us to rip and encode as we choose, followed by a layer of higher-quality music which can't be ripped? I'd be satisfied with that.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:3, Insightful)
The target audience here, for now anyway, is clearly audiophiles and people who want to use their 5-speaker home theater setup for music as well. Unfortunately, they're going to alienate both of these audiences by refusing to add digital output.
Me, I'll stick with vinyl. It's cheap enough that I don't mind paying for the product, sounds better than cd, and has a tactility that can't be argued with.
Scott
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2, Insightful)
Audiophiles do not listen to music in home theater mode.
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2)
they *should* play on normal cd players as the standard mentions putting a cd layer in, alas it only has it as an option, not as required. hell, most of the sony discs only have an sacd layer and therefore a cd player won't even know you've put a disc in.
dave
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2)
You can get CDs to output in 5.1 - sort of - with Pro Logic II, but the difference between that and a true multichannel format is still night and day.
A lot of SACDs are stereo only, but even those are audibly better than CD.
I believe the ultimate goal of these "copy protected" formats will be to send an encrypted signal over ieee1394 - we're starting to see 1394 ports on high-dollar amps, anyway. Neither SACD nor DVD-A will output to a digital connector, although most *do* have those connectors for use with CDs. From what I've read, the equipment manufacturers are claiming that current digital outputs can't meet the badnwidth needs of the multichannel formats, hence the analog 5.1 (six cables) and presumably firewire connectors. This is a stupid thing, but I really want to see a multichannel format move forward, so I'm willing to accept it.
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2)
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2, Informative)
Sony releases another "Beta" format?!?! (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2)
Re:Who needs another disk player (Score:2)
I know nothing of SACD, but responding to your comment: There is no reason for low frequency signals to be separated on the recording medium. They are better separated by an active crossover in the playback path. This allows the crossover frequency to be chosen to match the capabilities of the subwoofer(s) and mains.
i'm going to guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
also, did anyone else notice IBM as one of the companies ultimately behind DVD-audio? Do you think big blue will give linux hackers information on the copy-protection scheme used in DVD-audio as part of their commitement to opensource/free software?
Re:i'm going to guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, do these morons really think that people care about "superior audio quality" when they really only want to rip/download MP3s?
The only time I am interested in SUPERIOR audio quality is when I am going to be listening to a live show (SBD), and when I am doing that, it is either already on CD, SHN, etc, or on tape (Nakamichi).
MP3s are for people that want to download music to enjoy, not to worry about sound quality. Only people who are SERIOUS about sound quality would buy these players, and I am already sure they haven't used MP3s too much.
Why DVDs suck (Score:2, Insightful)
These 2+ minute warnings do nothing to prevent piracy and only serve to annoy people - they're rather like the recently-dumped "are you carrying any bombs" questions at airport check-ins. Technological advances and misguided DRM measures just don't mix. It doesn't help that the entertainment industry is just paranoid of any new technology:
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
- Jack Valenti in 1982, trying to get congress to outlaw the VHR.
Re:Why DVDs suck (Score:4, Informative)
*Some* DVDs have somewhat lengthy FBI warnings, but the idea that you're forced to "watch 2+ minutes" of them is a gross overstatement. 30 seconds, at the most. If you can prove me wrong, I'll give you $20. Obviously, those who modded this post up felt that it was either clever sarcasm, or are simply blind and ignorant.
Yes, you are prevented from skipping the warning on most DVDs, but again, they aren't 120 seconds long. Some major studio DVDs don't even have FBI warnings at all! It depends on the distributor, motion picture, and movie studio.
Re:Why DVDs suck (Score:3, Interesting)
The same thing happens with my Realmagic Hollywood+ program on my windows partition, but happily when I'm in Linux, MPlayer and Xine will let me do whatever I want. Unfortunately, support for my DVD decoder card isn't quite where it needs to be (you can check out the state of affairs at the DXR3 and Hollywood+ driver project page [sourceforge.net]), so the DVD quality is a little off in Linux.
Actually, the example of being unable to skip the FBI warning is a good one to show non-techwise people, who might zone out if you tried to explain the entire CSS encryption and region-coding scheme to them. I watched something with my mom recently, and she definitely noticed when I pointed out how we were being forced to watch the warning screen.
Re:i'm going to guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't count on region coding to go away. The DVD-Video format has been available for five years and so far no major (and very few minor) DVD content producer has recanted them, except for the asian piracy rings. The game companies keep producing new consoles with too, consoles have been doing it for quite a long time.
They're engineered to be copy-proof (Score:5, Funny)
The last time their "advanced technology" was foiled by a felt tip pen! I hope they have something better.
Wait... I hope they dont!
so what... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so what... (Score:2)
Re:Unlikely (Score:2)
Does it sound better than CD-Audio? (Score:5, Insightful)
A format doesn't begin mass market acceptance until the fanatic audiophiles buy into it at the beginning, and those are exactly the types of people who will raise the biggest stink about the copy protection, and the lack of digital audio out.
Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio? (Score:5, Informative)
No. A format doesn't begin mass market acceptance until the big record labels decide to stop accepting buybacks of the old medium. That's how CDs became "mass market": record stores stopped shelving vinyl because the record companies stopped buying back unsold copies. At that point, every vinyl album that didn't move became undigetible inventory, and it didn't make sense to buy many or even any.
Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio? (Score:4, Interesting)
These are exactly the people who won't care about copy protection, because they don't want a lossy copy on their computer. They want these formats for the superior quality, and if you want superior quality, you don't care as much about maiking a lower quality copy. Audiophiles are the ones who still claim the MP3 is a horrible format even though the average person can't tell the difference between cd audio and MP3. They won't care that they can't make a copy of it, because the copy will invariably be of worse quality, and that is exactly what the audiophile doesn't want.
Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio? (Score:2)
They might not want to copy it, but they want to use their fancy [dcsltd.co.uk] high-priced [dodsonaudio.com] DACs [audioreview.com].. which they won't be able to do without digital outputs.
--sean
Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio? (Score:5, Insightful)
these are exactly the kind of people who *will* care about copy protection as it means they can;t reuse their investment in high quality external dac's and means that they have to rely on the bass management capabilities in the player (which are usually fairly basic) and can't use the often much more advanced fine bass control available to the pre/pro.
audiophiles don't give a stuff about mp3's really, but what they do care about is quality of sound and doing things right. a 6 channel analogue out means that they are not maximising the capabilities of their equipment.
here's an example. the player might allow you to set a bass crossover of 80hz, yet you main speakers can go down to 45hz, and at better quality than your sub. your pre/pro will allow you a much finer control of the crossover point but thats irrelevant as you can;t use it.
more importantly I think. one of the coming "big things" is room correction. the biggest influence on sound quality for many people is the room you're listening to the music in. systems by companies such as TacT allow you to measure the frequency characteristics of the room and pre-correct the audio signal for the room before it hits the power amp (and therefore, speaker). this requires a digital copy of the sound to work on and if all you can get from your player is analogue then thats a wasted preamp stage and it means that it's quite likely that a cd could sound far better than an sacd or dvda as the cd signal is being properly processed to sound great in your room, and the sacd/dvda isn't.
thats why audiophiles care
dave
PS. room correction is a pretty small field in consumer electronics now, but I reckon it'll become bigger news in 5-10 years
Meanwhile, over at Evil Inc. (Score:2)
It's war, I say, war damn it! What makes these consumer slimes think that they can have what they want. Consumers exist for the sole purpose of feeding corporate bottom lines an padding my goddamn wallet. If we could do away with dealing with these %$#@ consumers entirely and just collect our money through taxes it would be a better world. Hey-wait a minute ... what are we paying those congressmen for? Get senator Payme Butgoode on the phone - it's time for some new legislation!
Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio? (Score:4, Informative)
I happen to have a DVD-Audio capable DVD player, and to be honest I don't think it's anything special. CDs still have excellent response over the range that's audible to humans, and 96db is a large dynamic range, no matter how you slice it.
In short, speaking as a DVD-Audio owner, I recommend not using DVD-Audio.
Still copyable (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can play it... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can play it, you can record it. You can capture the audio from the source, not nessisarilty with an MP3 ripper, but with a 3rd paty stereo or dolby recorder. It's quite easy for anyone with half a brain.
Just capture the source as a WAV or orther format and you can burn it however you like.
SACD and digital-out (Score:4, Interesting)
SACD output is 2.8Mbit/s. Toslink cannot support this as it's not just the bitrate but its a completely different way of sampling.
For what it's worth SACD is the one truly innovative format, DVD-Audio just pushes up the sample size/sample rate that AudioCD has, is a completely new way to do things. See here for background [sony.com.sg]
Anyway....
There is no(*) receivers that support decoding this into the 120db dynamic range and 100khz frequency range that the format supports. So the solution is to decode to high bandwidth analog outputs and feed each channel in analog format directly to a discrete amplifier.
(*) actually I just saw one the other day, a pioneer, with IEEE-1384 input for SACD/DVDA type formats, now to find a player with this output.
Re:SACD and digital-out (Score:4, Interesting)
I havn't personally heard this combination, but I've been told the sound is incredible.
--Mark
Re:SACD and digital-out (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, that is a clever design! (Score:2)
J.
Au Contraire [sort-of] (Score:3, Informative)
There is no(*) receivers that support decoding this into the 120db dynamic range and 100khz frequency range that the format supports... (*) actually I just saw one the other day, a pioneer, with IEEE-1384 input for SACD/DVDA type formats, now to find a player with this output.
The WSJ had a fascinating piece [wsj.com] [subscribers only] on SACD last year. Some excerpts:
Re:Au Contraire [sort-of] (Score:3, Funny)
First of all, PCM wasn't invented for CDs. It dates back at least to World War II, when the British PM and US President were linked by an encrypted digital phone line. This was covered on Slashdot.
Second, PCM is not an "ingenious electronic fiddle". It is the most obvious, straightforward way of digitally encoding an analog signal. In other words, "sample at a fixed interval and record the intensity as an integer from 0 to N". If the CD creators were looking for a "fiddle" to fit more sound in less space, they could have looked at delta encoding or other schemes that have less quantifiable performance limits than PCM. Of encodings, PCM is least deserving to be called a fiddle.
I don't know where this person got the idea that the "original bandwidth" is 100 KHz. The bandwidth of an accoustic instrument is theoretically infinite, but the upper limit of human hearing is roughly 20 KHz. Kids can hear higher - I think I was tested at 24 KHz when I was young, and middle-aged folks have usually decreased to ~ 15. The bandwidth of the original recording/mastering chain was probably 20 KHz.
He conflates PCM with 16 bit/44.1, and makes it sound like a horrible Procrustean truncation of the signal. This is nonsense. 16 bits allows 96 decibels of dynamic range. It's incredibly unlikely that a home playback setup allows this. Realistically, you might have 50 dB dynamic range between background noise and the level where the neighbors call the police. And if you enjoy listening to stuff above 20k, ask your owner for a new rawhide chew toy. You'll like it more than a SACD.
No digital outputs, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK, Digital watermarks are removed when the music is encoded with Ogg/MP3 , after all these compressions work by removing the sound elements that humans percive poorly.
Maybe, this is just a way of ensuring only 'approved' cd's are playable on this equipment, and therefore protecting their monopoly from the threat of joe blogs distibuting his own music without going through a record company....
Re:No digital outputs, but.... (Score:2)
Decide! (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything they do is bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what are they supposed to do? Start using "pay for play" market strategies more? Blow hundreds of millions of dollars coming up with yet another encryption scheme that two guys at MIT will crack the next Sunday? Or, will they dump their millions into the pockets of unscrupulous politicians and companies like Microsoft, and eradicate the act of personal computing as we know it? My opinion: First, they must lower prices. There is no reason that 90% of the artists out there should be earning more then average Joe. And second, they must implement more intensive pay for play schemes and stop relying on the sale of mass amounts of over priced garbage.With lower prices on complete albums, and the ability for people to pay only for the songs that they like, I think that you could see the music industry sustain the success that they have had in the past (not like they are hurting now, mind you). One would hope at leastthat with the increase in sales, they might stop shelling out billions in their campaign against our freedom.
Re:Everything they do is bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Focus on core value-- Distribution of content
Keep costs down. Profit is fine, but the margins should be thin enough that real piracy isn't viable. Again, focus on core value, and make an efficient, effective distribution system.
Understand the consumer's needs--
Understand that "renting" the content has much lower value to a consumer, and they may very well realize that they don't need what you offer as badly. DRM does actually have some interesting applications, but... it just may be too late with audio. Analog audio out and "good enough" quality really makes the digital issues obsolete. The problem for consumers with any "protection" that is provided is that it limits the effectiveness of the labels free promotion.
Re:Everything they do is bad? (Score:2)
well, to be fair, 90%+ of artists probably earn less than the average joe, 90% of high level music company exec's however... thats a different story (I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...)
dave
No Digital Output? (Score:2, Funny)
Contradictions (Score:3, Insightful)
Further down in the article it even admits that "In a recent Gartner G2 survey, 88 percent of respondents said they believed it legal to make copies of CDs for personal backup use while 77 percent felt they should be able to copy a CD for personal use in another device. "
Regardless, if it can be played, it can be recorded. I'd like to see the look on David Migdal's face when the encryption is broken before the first disk is released...
Re:Contradictions (Score:2)
Not a contradiction. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not the same as "cool with the padlocks", i.e. willing to accept them. "...cool to the virtual padlocks..." means that they are giving the padlocks a so-so reception; they are only slightly interested in the technology because of the padlocks. Think cool as in lukewarm, not cool as in "Cool, man!"
last paragraph, what good is that? (Score:3, Interesting)
How is THAT going to stop people? It simply makes it harder to rip?
With the proper equipment (read - PROPER) you can produce vinyl rips that are BETTER than some CD sources. Naturally the equipment is expensive, and there's always the inevatible static click or pop, but, with good digital procecssing, you can clean it up. I've done several albums off vinyl and burned them to CD with excellent results.
Which remins the question, did the mention vinyl beecause of sound quality, or because some people look at it as lower sound quality than cassette?
Re:last paragraph, what good is that? (Score:2)
Re:last paragraph, what good is that? (Score:2)
Few flaws (Score:5, Interesting)
- Until you can readily get SACD or watever in the music store, you won't find people jumping to sign up. Plus if there is no significant improvement over a regular CD, then people will stick with CDs. What will the price be? Will they cost more than CDs? That will certainly deter people.
- I don't get this watermarking crap. Yes, watermark will not let you make unauthorized SACD (or insert other format here). So that just means that there will be no independent artists which can use this new format. They will be stuck with the old CDs.
- Also, a watermark won't stop someone copying the disc, it will just stop them making a disc with the same content. Look at the Dreamcast. Why would I need the disc anyway when I can play it on my computer, on an iPod, or throw it on a regular CD.
And they can't try and convince me that putting only Analog outputs will stop copying. Analog to digital is no big deal. Some quality will be lost but whatever people will still do this to be able to listen to their disc elsewhere.
If it does fly, it will probably end up with way of the DVD. Great technology, but not fulfilling its purpose (ie the non-copying).
Re:Few flaws (Score:2)
Will they cost as much as CDs? That's already a very prohibitive price.
from the article (Score:2, Funny)
Game over. Would you like to try another game of pick the disc without copy-protection ?
The EFF's response is disappointing (Score:2)
Fred von Lohmann, an intellectual property attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the onus will be on consumers to make sure they're aware of what they're buying.
"Copyright owners are entitled to use whatever formats they want to use," von Lohmann said. "If they really want to protect their content they can go back to vinyl."
What kind of snarky remark is that?! 1) This probably makes the recording industry laugh! "Sure they'll go back to vinyl." 2) I really don't think consumers want to protect their content with -that- amount of sacrifice.
It could simply be CNN's editing, but I would have rather the EFF pointed out something like "consumers will protect their content by continuing to rip from consumer friendly formats."
A new copy protection scheme! (Score:5, Funny)
I was at their secret meeting on a undisclosed island in the pacific[shaped as the head of Hilary Rosen] and I was floored to hear of this new mechanism. They were working on it for many, many years, they were quite visionary. Slowly it is entering the unsuspected consumer's home even now. They call this new scheme JPCM: Just Produce Crap Music.
No one will ever want to rip any CD anymore... Enter the complete DRM system for music!
Old is New Again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Old is New Again (Score:2, Insightful)
err... wtf?
sacd is a music only format with the potential for very high quality. DivX is a video codec...
dave
Re:Old is New Again (Score:2)
Finally (Score:2, Funny)
The betamax of audio technology that works in VHS (Score:2)
That's so that the record company can press media ONCE and have it applicable to both buyers. The other advantage is that if you bought enough of these dual-mode CDs, you'll have a strong desire to get an SACD player. Good work to the marketing teams for this one!
Oh, you can probably still rip the CD audio track, too! Haven't got an SACD disc here yet to try. The same with DVD Audio - most discs include an alternate audio track such as DTS, Dolby Digital or PCM - and you can rip that one straight through digital as it is.
Guess I'm lucky... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Guess I'm lucky... (Score:2)
well, you're not alone. virtually all sacd/dvda player have a digital out, often 2. however when you play an sacd/dvda in the players you'll find the digital out has gone strangely quiet
dave
Can you say... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually... (Score:2, Informative)
MDs have the technology to solve most of the problems of the music industry without branding their customers pirates, potential or otherwise. You could make a copy of your purchased cd on minidisk, with excellent quality and you were prohibited of making copies of the same recording ad nauseum.
Of course, it is much easier to take out all the digital outputs (an extremely stupid move on my opinion) rather than try to solve the actual problem.
Re:Can you say... (Score:2)
Re:Can you say... (Score:2)
I currently own an MZ-R700 (I think that's the model...) and it rocks. My only real gripe is the headphone out is a little low (it doesn't have a truly dedicated "line out" for use with a stereo etc) but other than that, for the occasional work out, or music at work, it's awesome. I would be curious to see what people think of the hard disc based mp3 players in retrospect, because I have thought about purchasing one; I always go back to the minidisc recorder tho, because of the quality I get from it.
Summary of the state of play (Score:5, Informative)
Feels like a slashback - but like many of you I've been following this for a while, I kept my own little list of interesting articles. Until now I've nowhere to put them, so this is as good an opportunity as any:
Terrorism, Copyright, or hacking. Apply whatever label you want to what offends you
It would be funny if it wasn't true:
But there's hope:
Hope you find them interesting reading. I'll go back to lurking 8)
Re:Summary of the state of play (Score:2, Insightful)
Music composer John Cage had an album with a track of nothing, nada, complete silence. It was called "4'33", and was four minutes thirty three seconds long.
Musician Mike Batt created an album which had a track of complete silence, lasting one minute, called "A Minute's Silence". He credited John Cage as co-writer as a "tongue-in-cheek dig" at the whole concept. John Cage's publishers then sued him.
The court case included various hijinx, where defendant/prosecutor tried to prove the compositions as different/the same by having live performances of the work. Mike Batt performed his silent work himself, while John Cage's work was performed by a musician not playing the clarinet.
Although very very silly, Mike Batt lost his case because it was obvious he knew about the prior work. But, in principle, he could have been sued even if he appeared ignorant of John Cage's work. If someone can claim copyright ownership of a stream of zeros on a CD, then there is no hope for the concept of Intellectual Property.
Just Another Marketing challege (Score:2)
- Manufacturers make players with required features, and the ability to the new formats.
- Manufacturers phase out making old style players
- Media Makers phase in their products, lagging slightly the makings, but maybe using a few hits to push adoption of the new format.
Basically you finesse the adoption and push it in over time, ignoring the loud protests of the reasonably few who are in the know.The best example of this is Microsoft with Windows, pushing it's product into market dominance despite obvious flaws, and technically superior competitors with inferior marketing.
Of course, this would require the cooperation of across and industry or two, which would be more difficult to do. But if enforced by fiat of law, etc. then this can be done. Witness the original founding histroy of the creation of the first networks and the very early Internet, where no body wanted to share resources on their comnputers, but were forced to if they wanted to work with the Military and the Pentagon.
The article is fool of shit (Score:3, Informative)
> Yet each format contains digital watermarks
The SACD watermark is actually an analog watermark. The surface of the CD itself is watermarked, not the data, which is pristine.
> Moreover, there are no digital outputs on any SACD or DVD-Audio players now available,
The Accuphase DP-100 transport has a digital output, although it isn't a coaxial or Toslink. The Meridien reference 800 also has a digital output.
Sure, these are high-end players. But if you want low-end digital output, just play the CD layer on the SACD, and get the digital outp of the 16b/44.1khz stream.
> The Audible Difference in Palo Alto, California, is refusing to sell SACD or DVD-Audio players until manufacturers can ship a hybrid unit that plays both formats as well as legacy CDs in the highest quality sound available.
Should've picked a more knowledgable or reputable dealer. The Pioneer DV-AX10 plays both SACD and DVD-A. Even low-end companies like Apex have DVD-A/SACD/MP3/CD players (AD-7701).
- patiwat
When will they use biometrics? (Score:2)
Only way to stop piracy.. key audio/video to indivdual DNA strands, or any other way of uniquely identifying an individual person. If you arent the proper person all you hear is static or see snow..
Yes its a joke. but its what they want.. Total control at the consumer level.
Oh, and im going on record that *I* invented this first.. so if some company out there sees this.. and wants to use it, pay up. This product idea is not released for public use.
Analog "ripping" won't be acceptable (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems like a step backwards: Consumers will need to upgrade PC hardware to end up with a lower quality analog rip of more expensive music media.
Not just a marketing issue but a technical one... (Score:2)
Even so, there is no standard for transmitting the multichannel DVD-audio signal, nor is there any method of sending 24/192khz stereo data to a receiver/preamp other than to have the audio decoded with an external unit (say, the onboard decoder on a DVD/SACD player) and then feed the discreet channels in, one by one, via a whole stack of cables going to your receiver/preamp.
We could use a new digital interconnect standard. I know a lot of people hanging out for a new upgrade to their audiophile-grade system as a result of this.
I should also note that FireWire sounds like an idea here - the Onkyo DS-TX989 and the Integra gear has an option to add a firewire port when they release the upgrade. Some other high end audiophile-grade manufacturers also have a similar plan.
price, quality, durability (Score:2)
1) If the industry is losing so much money to so-called pirates(estimates up to 50%), and this format is meant to stop pirates, then why doesn't the industry price these discs, and other copy protected discs, for less in an effort to encourage sales. If the industry truly loses 50% of it's sales to pirates, the price of a disc could drop 25% and, even including increased cost of the copy protection, the industry would still be making more than it is now.
2)Is the sound quality, without digital outputs, really substantially different from a CD or vinyl record played over analog equipment. Does the lack of digital outputs in fact make these units glorified cd players for the terminally self-deluded.
3) Is the industry going to give free replacement for damaged or lost discs. A long time ago, we customers were fed the myth of durable CD. Pretty soon we realized that although the CD was tough, it was foolish to carry original media with us where it was more easily damaged or stolen, especially as the quality decreased and the reflective layer had a tendency to peel off. So we made tapes and wondered why we paid all that money for CD in the first place when we would have just bought vinyl or tape(which could be dubbed in 10 minutes). Then, one glorious day, the technology allowed us to make a copy CD, thus justifying the price of the original media. With the new formats, we are back to the tape backup, and still have to pay the full amount for the original media. I think we deserve lifetime replacement rights, even if we do not have the original media.
SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule. (Score:3, Informative)
SACD works by taking 2.8 million SINGLE BIT SAMPLES. That means that the same is 1 or 0, friends. It modifies the sample before it. Up or down. When you're talking about an audio waveform, imagine how many bits it will take to do a full wave sweep. SACD simply cannot keep up with PCM audio. This is not like a Linux vs. FreeBSD debate. This is proven, time and time again, through rigorous analysis of DSD.
Audiophiles tend to like the format because it "dumbs down" the sound, since DSD is incapable of reproducing the finer details, it resembles vinyl! A dithered and smoothed audio signal. DSD (SACD) relies HEAVILY on post-filtration.
Linear PCM is the correct progression of digital audio. Each second can yield up to 192,000 samples, each with 24-bits of accuracy. Only one sample is needed to sweep. DVD-Audio supports up to 192khz sampling frequency. SACD cannot sample much above 24khz if I recall. Sony has also purposely DEGRADED the CD track on their SACD hybrid discs to FAVOR SACD. The resolution is chopped down to around 14-bits.
DVD-Audio is a far more accurate future for digital audio. Anybody convinced that DSD/SACD is superior is living in their Clie-induced Sony hallucinatory candy land. Get with the times and get with the program. The future for audio archival will continue to be PCM.
An excellent URL that explains the plain truth about SACD/DSD versus PCM: http://www.iar-80.com/page38.html [iar-80.com]
Arizona Audiophile Society (Score:3, Funny)
<rimshot>
*ducks and runs*
It only takes ONE person... (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for copy protection.
Locks out original home recording (Score:2, Insightful)
Leadbelly, Jimmie Rodgers, Betty Boop, Felix . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
The rediscovery of our archived electronic entertainment history is a bigger challenge to the current entertainment industry than how to protect the latest warmed over reinventions of those old acts. The more I look and listen to the old media, the more astounded I am at how cyclical and repetitive the whole notion of recorded entertainment is.
And to address the topic head on, watching and listeing to those old recordings makes you very aware that quality is extremely relative. When you're really excited about hearing something you'll get up and dance and sing along to something that sounds like hell. The question is how to make people enthusiastic and obviously the entertainment industry if failing to even attempt to address this.
The recorded entertainment industry is like a lover who just didn't get it right one night. The consumer and the industry have been fucking for decades and then something happened and the recording industry says to the consumer --you've changed.
The consumer is like, no way baby. I'm still the same ol' cowboy. You know, let's get it on. But the entertainment industry is pulling this, no it's not the same anymore. You used to care about quality and now you try to get it anywhere you can. It makes me feel so cheap! If you really love me you'd at least spend some money.
And the consumer is like --what? Love you? What are you talking about? Why don't we just fuck like we always did. Nothing changed. It's the same ol deal. You say I changed, but you're the one who changed.
So, they don't fuck no more. But this relationship is special because it's all been recorded. So, the consumer goes back and starts watching the vids from back when things started and the fucking was still good.
Meanwhile, the recording industry joins the church and gets active in conservative politics and slowly starts developing these weird twitches.
Fucked up scenario. I'd hate to be the cop to do a domestic call on a couple like that.
Error-free recording from analog outputs (Score:5, Interesting)
Take an analog player, and remove or bypass the final analog output filter. The output waveform should then show some artifacts from the sampling rate. Split the output, and feed one path through a notch filter for the sampling rate, then into a phase locked loop to recover the clock. Use that clock to control the sampling rate for an A/D with more bits than the D/A in the player. If you can keep the noise level low enough, and can calibrate a correction curve for the player's A/D, you can recover the original.
To calibrate, look for low-frequency waveforms, which will allow you to see all the stairsteps from the D/A.
This assumes classical D/A conversion, and fewer bits than the noise threshold. It's probably possible for 16-bit CD players, but not for 20-24 bits. Telephony only has 8 bits, so 56K modems have an easier job, although they have to compensate for a lousy transmission line.
Whats the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
But I gotta ask, whats the point? Why would I want a new format to play the new noise that is passing for music? Except for compilations, I havent bought any "new" music since 1992.
I'll stick with the Carver CD player I bought in 1988 until it breaks.
Kevin
WHEN WILL THEY LEARN?? (Score:2)
WHEN WILL THESE STUIP LAWYERS LEARN?
SACD will be "safe" (as they call it) as long as it is kept away from computers! Once digital data is inside the computer there's no control on what the user do with it! FACT!!!
What about all this discussion on digital convergence, TV+Stereo+Phone+Computer+Internet+etc all-in-one. Wake up man!
Every copy protection created will be a waste of money and time, no matter what laws can be aproved in US, there's always the rest of the world!
Create any standard they want they all have the same future, just like this dam CSS :oP
I sick of it!
Re:WHEN WILL THEY LEARN?? (Score:2)
That's where the DMCA, CBDTPA/SSSCA, and whatever nonsense they think up comes in. The goal here is convergence, yes, but not into a PC. We want modular components that can be plugged into any hardware and run by any software we dream up. They want a WebTV-Phone that plays discs; a machine that gives you all the normal media capabilities of a computer, but lets you do absolutely nothing that isn't government/RIAA/MPAA approved. Nice thought, isn't it?
I just got to thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
I got to thinking yesterday that we've nearly come full circle with audio technology. Thanks in part to the public's desire to "steal" that which is not theirs, and thanks in part to the greedy record labels who's only focus is to "steal" all they can from the public. I'm not going to go into detail on this, I'm sure you can all figure it out. What I do find rather amusing is a lack of perspective (more often than not, though this doesn't apply to everyone) on both extremes of the debate.
What I really wanted to talk about though, is how the audio industry spent years making conumer and professional audio gear with increasing fidelity and sound quality. Mono went to stereo then surround. The recorded mediums went from records, to 8 tracks, to cassette tapes (1/8"), to CDs. Now we have SACDs and DVD-Audio. The later is simply a much higher resolution PCM format while the former is a totaly new and actually quite exciting DSD format (Direct Stream Digital.) The DSD format is supposedly (though I have never heard an SACD for myself) of such high quality that it does make a noticeable difference. What makes these formats interesting, is that if we can't provide the players with quality digital to analog converters (which can be very expensive) then the whole point of the formats is lost because the system itself can't reproduce the streams properly. A more ideal setup for our increasingly digital-only entertainment systems would be that the signal remained digital up until the speakers, at which point the self-powered speakers could handle the conversion and amplification of the signal. Analog signal degredation (noise, interference, etc. although these can be problems with digital signals too but that's another story) would only occur for a short period of time and would be negligible. It would, in fact, be less expensive to implement such a system than to start the conversion process at the player and attempt to have high-quality, RF shielded analog components, and high quality connections all the way through the system to keep the audio pristine.
In essence, and in the end, we have both side shooting themselves in the proverbial foot. One industry (the record labels, which have several hands and a few feet in the consumer audio industry) are so terrified of ever increasing bandwidth at home, and millions of P2P users, they will stop at nothing to find a way to prevent end users from using their music with the fair rights that owning your own copy of Britney Spears' "So what if they're fake?" entitles you to.
Of course, the really funny thing is. The majority of consumers couldn't give, as Eminem puts it, "two squirts of piss" about SACD and DVD-Audio. Much of the world is happy downloading or compiling their music in MP3 format (yes there are OGG fans out there, and sheep who are hearded into WMA) and the fact remains that MP3 is not and will never be Red Book CD-Audio quality. So if we're happy listening to music in a format that degrades stereo imaging and has increased sibilance and harmonic distortion rather than a format made popular in the late 80s, it's the record companies and consumer audio companies who will loose in the long term because their focus remains on maintaining their empires, and that is one of the wonderful things world history has taught us, those who fail to adapt to the changes of the masses are ultimately overthrown by their own lust for control. That is not to say that the companies can't phase out CDs and DVDs, in order to replace them with formats that are so restrictive one can't even use them. In the end, and like any really good story, the people will prevail. We always do. Although I can't believe I just wasted 30 minutes typing this crap on
end ramble
A hunk of burning FUD. (Score:4, Informative)
First off, there definately are SACD/DVD-A combo players. There's quite a few of them covering the entire spectrum of how much you want to spend on gear. Personally, I think a good purchase would be the Pioneer Elite 47Ai, which also has digital outputs, another thing that article is completely wrong about. The 47Ai has, by quite a few people's accounts including my own, some of the best video output of any DVD-Video player out there, especially at its price point.
Second off, most DVD-Audio discs *can* reach 192Khz for a sampling rate, however, most of them are released at 96Khz. Another thing is that Verance has actually changed their statement of their watermarking from being unperceptable to 'unnoticable'. That's because, well, you can actually hear it! This isn't a faint different, it actually colors the sound a bit from the original. There was a small test conducted by a person who obtained the Verance software and after doing a compare between the source and the watermarked version decided to isolate the difference between the two into a single
Third, SACD can be produced by independant artists if they wish to, there's actually several mastering kits out there ranging from $5k and up that you can save up, snag, take home and master stuff to. Products like SADiE, Pyramix, Sony's own Sonoma, are all available to be purchased by anyone who wishes to produce their own SACDs. Just searching on the web for 'SACD Mastering' brings up a lot of smaller production houses willing to do it for you as well. Slowly, places capable of pressing SACDs are catching up in pace as more plants are opened and the tech gets out there.
Also, claims about SACD not being higher than '24kHz' (when it's really around 100kHz) and the like are also rather bunk. There's a lot of people trying to test DSD by methods meant for PCM, which simply does NOT work because they are two completely alien methods of handling sound from each other with just enough in common that they both can be handled by some of the same processors. A good article found here [stereophile.com] will explain a bit more actually what's going on with DSD. There's been some people claiming that from a 'mathmatical standpoint' SACD is on par with a cassette tape (!), but even your layman doing an A->B between the two could tell you that's not the case. As a friend put it "If it measures bad, but your output is good, then you're measuring wrong".
Lastly, the bit about the CD layers of hybrid discs not sounding as good is also a lot of bunk thrown out by groups like Warner (DVD-Audio's big pusher) whom want to scare a lot of people away. However, one thing to keep in mind, is that SACD hybrid discs are being snuck in without any such labeling as to their hybrid status on the packaging. For example, that brand new set of Rolling Stones remastered stuff in digipak packaging are all SACD hybrids. Vivendi Universal has just begun releasing hybrid discs with the possible intention of switching over to exclusively releasing hybrids in the next year or so.
They don't cost anything more than the actual CD, and since SACD players can be snagged as low as $120 now, it's a bit easier to get into playing the the high-res layer. However, at $120, players I'd consider 'amazing' aren't many, in fact, it'd be just one that was recently discontinued. The Sony SCD-CE775 5-Disc SACD changer is one of the best players I've heard under $200, easily doing Redbook playback comparable to some $1k decks I've heard. Internally the SCD-CD775 is almost exactly the same as Sony's $450 SCD-C222ES SACD player, save its cheaper casing, slightly different power supply and a bit cheaper capacitors. If you really wish to get serious, you can have people like this guy [sacdmods.com] spend some quality time with your SCD-CD775 or a few other models of players and have him upgrade and change a lot of the parts for better sounding playback. However, I doubt that'll appeal to everyone who doesn't own at least a good set of headphones (Sennheiser HD-600s, Sony MDR-CD3000s, Grado RS-1s, Audio Technica ATH-W100s, Etymotic ER-4S, etc.)
Also, most audiophile have been raving about some SACD players and their Redbook playback ability. I don't know about this Arizona group of '53 people' or one particular shop whom wasn't even aware of decks capable of DVD-A and SACD while also providing digital out, but you look for reviews of Sony's 'SCD-XA777ES' player and you'll find many saying it does some of the best CD playback you can possibly buy. Phillips, Denon and others are getting in on players of the same quality at comparable prices.
In short, I've found that article to be rather a lot of FUD, and the reactions of quite a few here to be playing into that quite nicely. Personally I own both a DVD-A and SACD player and titles for both, but I rather prefer SACD after spending a bit of time on each using decent gear (Carver CM-1090 amp, custom amps, Sennheiser HD-600 headphones, etc.) I also own about 350 legitimate CDs and continue to purchase CDs on top of higher-res formats. Am I at all alarmed that my ability for backups of these newer formats are limited? No, not really. I take care of my discs and my need to back them up or play them on my PC (although the new SB Audigy 2 can play back DVD-Audio on PCs) or portable unit is pretty unnessicary. One thing I will say, is that if interest picks up enough, I'm sure a DeCSS-alike will surface and so will another hailstorm of controversy and merry fun that Slashdot readers thrive on.
convenience is king (Score:3, Interesting)
I have over 1400 songs that I ripped myself from legally acquired CD's that reside in an MP3 player slightly larger than my hand. It has changed the way that I listen to music. This convenience has become the singal most important factor in my music listening. I have bought more CD's since I got my MP3 player than in the previous 7 years combined. I'm not going back. I won't go back to vinyl or tapes, and I won't move forward to a new format or copy protected product that won't let me play music the way I want to listen to it. If independant artists are the only ones who release unencumbered music, then I'll buy from them.
By the way, if all RIAA studios switch to copy-protected CDs, does that mean we can repeal the "tax" on blank tapes and blank CD-Rs that "compensates" the major labels for the losses they will no longer be suffering?
Boy, CNN didn't do their research (Score:3, Informative)
DVD-Audio diske sound is audibly superior to any CD I have heard, and not just marginally; in particular the audio stage is much smoother and well-defined because of the presence of a center channel. I am less impressed by the effects of a rear channel - at least with the current state of the art. Audiphiles have long been aware of the 'hole in the middle' in a conventional stereo system - this is gone with these new formats.
As far as copy protection, both SACD and DVD-Audio come with ripable alternative formats - SACD has a CD layer, and DVD-Audio disks have a conventional DVD format audio layer. Since it takes a good deal of stereo equipment to do justice to DVD-Audio I am currently happy with the lesser formats for my other uses - car stereo, PC playback at work, etc.
I do agree with the article's assertion that labelling as to the copyability of DVD's, SACD's etc. is important, and should be required by law. Buyers should be making informed choices. I would also like to see some sort of requirement that fair use rights are protected (one generation copy support, for example) as part of any copyright legislation.
Ultimately of course I expect that any copy protection scheme will be defeated - for example bootleg ROMs for SACD players could quite clearly defeat watermark requirements.
Re:Jargon (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Behold "capitalism"... (Score:2)
The consumer's opinion means nothing now.
Actually.. the 'opinion' part ceases to matter when everyone is convinced we are consumers instead of customers.
Re:Behold "capitalism"... (Score:2)
Step inside the world of an audiophile. (Score:4, Informative)
Audiophiles have gone for this sort of thing. These people don't play CDs with just a high end CD player, you'll find they use what is called a CD "transport" which is a CD player with a digital out. For a nice one, a few grand at least, ranging up to five figures for these things. Then you need to feed this wonderfully accurate string of 0's and 1's into a DAC. Not just the crappy DACs in your receiver of sound card, these DAC units are generally made to match the CD transport and will probably cost somewhere between half and double the cost of the transport itself. Then, with your thousand dollar interconnect cables (a pair of RCA plugs, for example, but you'll find preference towards 'balanced' connectors), they'll connect it to a preamplifier and then into a power amp, which may be a set of monoblocks (one power amp per speaker, sometimes they bi-amp them, too!). Then you've got the speaker cables and speakers and I'll be dammed when they stop paying thousands of dollars for a piece of copper wire. Yes, a well trained ear can hear the difference between speaker wire and it does stand to reason that each wire has its own characteristics and high quality speakers can help those characteristics materialise. Not all audiophiles are this obsessive/rich. You'll find some who spend a moderate amount of money and simply buy what's best in their price range. But deep down inside, we all know they want a pair of Krell reference monoblocks driving each channel (or a large house to entertain guests, whichever turns out to be cheaper).
They'll have a seperate unit for DVDs as well. Sometimes they'll have an entirely different *system*. (I've known audiphiles to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on a stereo system and spend only a few grand on their entire home theatre rig so it all comes down to priorities).
To them, you'll probably find that the analog outputs would suit them fine, assuming the quality of the DACs in the unit are up to scratch. For a new format such as SACD, the attraction is that digital sound encoded in DSD is a lot more freeform than PCM encoded material because you're not 'locked' in to a certain set of frequencies. The result is in a more natural, real sound with greater depth and image. A lot of the purists have avoided digital purely because vinyl 'sounds better'.
Oh, and the audiophiles won't care about copy protection too much. It'll degrade the quality of the recording anyway, no matter what you do.
Re:Better legacy playing (Score:2)
how many dacs do you need? with digital inputs then you need one dac per output channel no matter how many digital sources you've got. a good dac is a way of transforming an old cd player, but good dac's are expensive.
in my system I have a cd player, dvd player, digital radio and midisc player. all of which output in digital. I would rather get a really nice pre/pro with damn good dac's which will with with any digital input, than get a nice dac for each component (which I wouldn't do as I can't afford it).
whereas with sacd/dvda nly outputting in analogue then my investment in dac's suddenly becomes useless as the players refuse to let me use them.
dave