format wars and copy protection -- boo!
Mar 8, 2006 at 2:07 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 21

chuao

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Posts
30
Likes
0
This is kind of opinionated and maybe in the wrong forum, but I'm in kind of a mood and I feel like ranting.

Like, why is it that DVD-A and SACD have the strongest copy protection yet known to man? I'm really upset because I'd love to build a DA converter for SACD and just about any decent DAC chip you get these days can do 24/96 but neither DVD-A nor SACD lets you copy the files to a computer so you can upload them to a little DAC board...I'd have to buy a SACD player and a DVD-A player just to put a low-jitter clock module in, as if I could afford several thousand dollars worth of gear to potentially destroy.

Now, I don't believe for a second that it has anything to do with protecting the profits of DVD-A and SACD sales, because they're both multi-gigabyte formats...how many people would want to download all that for one CD's worth of music when the MP3 is 150 MB? and who, having payed for one of those players would be interested in saving $5 or $10 by getting a pirated disc? It's first of all about establishing precedent in the market and the courts, intimidating everyone (like, I know it's illegal to even discuss HOW one MIGHT go about extracting unencrypted SACD or DVD-A data so I won't even ask about that here) but if you read the sticky on the sources forum, it it almost implies it's not even allowed to discuss the legality of the law banning the discussion of how to extract data illegally, and that's just going too far. It's literally a first ammendment issue.

The way I see it, these laws are just allowing the music business to go right on making stupid idiotic business decisions that will cost society money (cuz their lost profits are lost taxes) and worse, do priceless damage stifling culture. For instance, if they made even the slightest effort to convince people that good sound really is worthwhile, and used the advance of technology for at least a little improvement in quality in the mass market (no SACD and DVD-A do not count) then they would probably win over a bunch of people. Then, they'd say "I don't want to download this mp3, because it sounds bad and I want the full-resolution thing."

But instead they beef up the copy protection on thier non-durable delicate little discs, so even if you just want to back it up you can't, and when the transport in that $2000 player you bought breaks you have to pay them another $500 to replace it until they run out of stock, and then you're just going to have to sit on top of your $5000 pile of junk (that's one SACD player and one DVD-A and a new transport for both) and cry over your $1000s worth of SACDs and DVD-A's that you'll never hear again.

So, anyway, that's my rant. I'm just going to have to make some sort of binaural recording hat and my own AD converter and start bootlegging the LA philharmonic.
 
Mar 9, 2006 at 3:54 AM Post #2 of 21

Garbz

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
3,573
Likes
12
Welcome to the DCMA and some of the biggest issues in the audio industry atm. Excuse me while I run off and give my vinyl collection a hug
580smile.gif
 
Mar 9, 2006 at 8:24 AM Post #3 of 21

mono

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Posts
1,412
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by chuao
Now, I don't believe for a second that it has anything to do with protecting the profits of DVD-A and SACD sales, because they're both multi-gigabyte formats...how many people would want to download all that for one CD's worth of music when the MP3 is 150 MB? and who, having payed for one of those players would be interested in saving $5 or $10 by getting a pirated disc?



Believe it, an underlying greed can explain a lot of senseless acts to gain control in a market. They don't have to individually estimate which portions of what content will be pirated if they can just lock down everything possible.

Maybe a better question is, if someone where looking to pirate the content, who WOULD download a 150MB MP3 if they could get a much higher quality version? Remember that downloading is not like picking fruit, there's no individual labor per byte, it's automated. Even if someone didn't want several GB, it's the same situation as with ripping CD to a computer (legally of course), that you don't want to compress it into MP3 so bad it's degraded, not when you have the better version alternative unless it's for a specific reason like putting on an MP3 player and even then, have you heard some of the 128kb MP3s distributed online in the past? Yuck, I'd have to build a special low-fi headamp just to blur the artifacts enough to enjoy it (and drink something strong).
 
Mar 9, 2006 at 9:52 AM Post #4 of 21

DaKi][er

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Posts
845
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by mono
have you heard some of the 128kb MP3s distributed online in the past? Yuck, I'd have to build a special low-fi headamp just to blur the artifacts enough to enjoy it (and drink something strong).


Most average people wouldn't even blink an eye when served with 128kbps mp3 and you could probably get away with even less for some, most average joe's don't care and wouldn't think twice about it
 
Mar 9, 2006 at 12:25 PM Post #5 of 21

Garbz

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
3,573
Likes
12
And on the topic of quality vs size a mate of mine just finished bragging about downloading the HDTV version of Terminator 2. All 6.3gb of it. So your logic just went splat against the car windscreen
basshead.gif


These days people would download anything.
 
Mar 10, 2006 at 12:12 PM Post #6 of 21

chuao

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Posts
30
Likes
0
Quote:

nd on the topic of quality vs size a mate of mine just finished bragging about downloading the HDTV version of Terminator 2. All 6.3gb of it. So your logic just went splat against the car windscreen


not exactly, there's no 150 mb alternative to an entire movie. and the quality difference between a 700 MB transcoded DVD rip and a 6.3 GB version is very, very obvious. the difference between a 192 mp3 and 24/96 wav is much more subtle, for most purposes. the quality of video monitors is also much more standardized than audio equipment, at least as far as the parameters you need to notice the artifacts in compressed video (which are indeed glaring if you watch a couple of times.)

anyway, SACD and DVD-A music barely even costs more than CD...it's totally clear that these companies do not intend to make money selling high-quality recordings, they want to make money selling the players. so, the way they're using the fear of piracy to manipulate legislation is a perfect example of (illegal) collusion corrupting the free market. and a perfect example of how Congress is failing the American people.
 
Mar 10, 2006 at 6:19 PM Post #7 of 21

mono

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Posts
1,412
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by chuao
not exactly, there's no 150 mb alternative to an entire movie. and the quality difference between a 700 MB transcoded DVD rip and a 6.3 GB version is very, very obvious. the difference between a 192 mp3 and 24/96 wav is much more subtle, for most purposes. the quality of video monitors is also much more standardized than audio equipment, at least as far as the parameters you need to notice the artifacts in compressed video (which are indeed glaring if you watch a couple of times.)


You might be surprised, old (or more recent low-end) CRT monitors have horrific quality, my LCD can easily show video artifacts a spare CRT doesn't. On the CRT, a DVD ripped down to ~ 1400MB MPEG4 is barely if any lower perceived video quality on the CRT. If I were critically examining it up close I'd probably see some differences but who watches that close and critically?
 
Mar 10, 2006 at 7:54 PM Post #8 of 21

rickcr42

Are YOU talkin' to me?
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
13,874
Likes
14
Quote:

Maybe a better question is, if someone where looking to pirate the content, who WOULD download a 150MB MP3 if they could get a much higher quality version?


unforunately a lot and only for the reason that they can.I actually know a person that told me last week he was down to 20M on his hard drive which was very surprising to me sing he has a few hundred GB available and the computer is just over two months old so i just HAD TO ask how this was possible.that i have gone for years and never even hit the 50% mark of storage with any computer I ever owned
confused.gif


His response was that he had been downloading bootleg movies.Every movie he could get his creep hands on he downloaded so again I had a quesion

"so you watched them and still have them on the hard drive ?"

To which "No.I have not watched any of them but if i want to i have them"

So again me " Then What are you doing with all those movies taking up all that space if you have no pressing need to watch them ?"

D*ck weed's response "Well because they are FREE is why !"


Nuff said right there
rolleyes.gif


not about the movies or even if they were good enough to watch but because they were there and easy for the taking.Many folks are compulsive "takers" and if it is not nailed down will sneak away with that thing even if the thing is question is not something they will ever need and likely will just take up garage space
very_evil_smiley.gif






BTW-Wrong forum and a mod most likely will move this to the lounge area eventually but ONLY if you guys keep it clean and have your say without getting stupid.In that case this thread would go away never to be seen by "non moderator" human eyes again ever
tongue.gif
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 3:13 AM Post #9 of 21

Garbz

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
3,573
Likes
12
Lol reminds me of having a DVD-rip of Sin City. That said I watched 15 min of it then said stuff it i'll wait till it's out in the movies. A guy at a lan said oh man i heard you have a copy of sin city.
me: Yeah i do.
Him: Can can can I get it? Afterall why go see a movie in the cinema if you can download it from the net.
me: D***head.

Idiots like that are the reason the MPAA and RIAA are going nuts. It's one thing to download a crap movie not worth seeing, it's quite another not to see any movie because you can download a copy of the net.
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 5:59 AM Post #10 of 21

bhjazz

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
1,513
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42
So again me " Then What are you doing with all those movies taking up all that space if you have no pressing need to watch them ?"

D*ck weed's response "Well because they are FREE is why !"



Wow. If the MPAA knew that most of the stuff which is downloaded is never viewed, I guess they wouldn't be so pissed off...

So back on topic, chuao: your idea of necessity of a backup copy is ridiculous. Nobody with a sizeable vinyl collection would ever come up with that notion, nor would they care. The only reason anybody needs access to the actual data is if they want to share it out. If you have trouble losing copies of your own CDs, then you've got bigger fish to fry. Yes, I've had close friends have their cars broken into and stuff stolen, but insurance covers that anyway.

No, the real problem is that people want access to the data. It seems that nobody cares about the music anymore, they just want the raw bits. I agree that the music industry has really dropped some dreck on us the last few years, but if that's the case, then don't buy it. Cherish your old stuff and vote with your wallet. I have Steely Dan's Aja from 1977 on vinyl and CD and listen to it regularly.

As for the players, I urge you to shop around. There are good players available that do not cost $2K. I bought into it pretty early, and should have waited for the universal players because there are quite a few DVDAs that I would like to own now. Unfortunately, nobody in the industry cares if the consumer has to buy more than one player. Not their problem. Idiotic.

You seem to be more worried about the copy protection and not at all concerned with the fact that you would already own a copy of the music. Forget it. Buy a universal player, grab a few SACDs and a few DVDAs and enjoy the music. Isn't that what it's all about?
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 6:09 AM Post #11 of 21

rickcr42

Are YOU talkin' to me?
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
13,874
Likes
14
Quote:

Wow. If the MPAA knew that most of the stuff which is downloaded is never viewed, I guess they wouldn't be so pissed off...


Real class response.you should be proud.......
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 7:42 AM Post #12 of 21

jcx

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Posts
2,371
Likes
368
Headphone listeners and advanced audio diyers do have a need for access to the data:

Digital Processing -

Crossfeed/virtualizers or soon to be available motion tracking hrtf compensation

quite sophisticated room correction and digital crossovers are also entering the diy realm
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 9:43 AM Post #13 of 21

mono

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Posts
1,412
Likes
11
I rip practically all my CDs to a hard drive. Not to MP3 and upload for piracy/sharing/whatever, rather that it is a transportable medium I could use to listen away from home, from any computer (I have shedloads) in the home, or put on an MP3 player. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to want to start out with the highest quality original possible to then optimally convert to the most usable per scenario.
I don't have an SACD player or discs but if I did, I'd be looking at how to hack it to override the copy protection, not to share them with others but rather I am not a big fan of playing around with feeding discs into anything and a changer still lacks most of the versatility I've enjoyed for years.
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 10:50 AM Post #14 of 21

Ferbose

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Posts
1,822
Likes
19
SACD has a very advanced anti-ripping system.
There is a segment of analog signal in the beginning that can only be read by SACD transports.
I believe to rip SACD you need to intercept the digital stream or get some very special hardware.
I wonder if SACD or DVD-A had allowed digital out in the first place, would they be more popular and profitable today?
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 3:21 PM Post #15 of 21

Alf

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Posts
256
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose
SACD has a very advanced anti-ripping system.
There is a segment of analog signal in the beginning that can only be read by SACD transports.
I believe to rip SACD you need to intercept the digital stream or get some very special hardware.
I wonder if SACD or DVD-A had allowed digital out in the first place, would they be more popular and profitable today?




I believe that any protected (and not hacked) format is bound to fail.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top