[AudioBear]

I trust your memory but can’t understand the logic of doing that.

 

[jimmers]

Baldr said: ↑
I know, I know.. Streaming is so convenient. Then again, so is McDonald's.

Let me disagree with this statement or, at least, with the analogy.
This sentence seems to imply that, in the audiophile world in particular and in real life in general, convenience always equates to low quality....
Locutus73

"Seems" to be your personal interpretation.
To me it was a (slightly arch) suggestion that convenience might not be the best criterion for obtaining a quality experience

 

[Locutus73]

Going back to watermarking, wouldn’t the best watermarking scheme be inaudible?

In theory, from the end user (our) standpoint yes. To be honest, after all the effort we put in the search of bitperfect transport, I find any alteration of the original audio content irritating, but, generally speaking an inaudible watermarking would be more bearable. If you read all the turmoil is about the “Universal's Audible Watermark”, and the dissatisfaction is about the "Audible" attribute.

So why not make the watermark a specific sequence above 16khz? Just about nobody but dogs could hear the signal. Or am I misunderstanding again?

You are not misunderstanding anything, but you are missing one of the goals of watermarking. Consider that the final goal of watermarking is to make a particular copy of a song traceable by the copyright holder; so, any watermarking scheme must balance between two needs:

1. The watermark must be audible as little as possible
2. The watermark must be persistent as much as possible

So if you embed the watermark in the frequencies over 16KHz or in the less significant bits (under the noise threshold) then you satisfy the point n.1, but not the n.2 because the watermark would be lost with lossy compression algorithms (which cut less audible components of music). Music labels wants to track not only unauthorized distributions of the original watermarked file, but even possible compressed versions or the airing i.e. on analog radio. So, in the end, the watermark will affect the audible content.

Locutus73

 

[Locutus73]

"Seems" to be your personal interpretation.
To me it was a (slightly arch) suggestion that convenience might not be the best criterion for obtaining a quality experience

This is an alternative interpretation I would agree. Quality is the first objective, then convenience. Given the same quality, convenience is convenient

Locutus73

 

[rlow]

Wow, just wow. Thanks for the inform! This explains why even Tidal sounds like ass, and more so on some tracks than others. At least there is hope. I always knew that the best sound by far comes from spinning discs, which makes me really want to civilize and Schiitify the beautiful but plywood ugly CD spinning ugly box in my living room, which is closer to a product than it looks. And that is a promise.

I know, I know.. Streaming is so convenient. Then again, so is McDonald's.

I've said a few times I think Schiit CD transport would be a good idea.

That said, one thing virtually every network streamer/player/renderer does is allow you to stream your OWN music files in a way that is more convenient than flipping CDs (or having an old giant clunky CD changer). There is no reason that I'm aware of that this should be considered a reduction in quality for the sake of convenience, if in fact you are using FLAC or other high quality format.

Looking forward, in addition to streaming services, streaming your own collection of music (whether ripped from CD or purchased from HD Tracks or other music retailer) from your own personal computer/server/NAS is the future that the majority of music/audio enthusiasts will be doing. It's ok if Schiit doesn't want to address this with a specific product for whatever reasons have already been covered, but I feel pretty sure the "network player" will be dominant "source" that will be feeding DACs and amplifiers in the future (could be right right now in fact, I have no stats on this).

 

[Blue Warper]

I trust your memory but can’t understand the logic of doing that.

They just wouldn't want someone to be able to easily get rid of the watermarking. So that's why they're putting their sh... ahem, their stuff into the most sensitive frequency ranges, because, should one try to remove it, one would end up with a disfigured signal, probably worse than the watermarked one. Putting the watermark at 16 KHz and above would allow for an easier job on getting rid of it.

Edit/Addition: Just seen that Locutus73 subsequently made some complementary points on this.

 

[Brubacca]

Huh? Why would you use a lesser DAC than the Gungir Multibit?
A CD transport would do very nice on it.

Convenience for the other members of the house. If I complicate it with multiple source selection and DAC input selection I will get grief.

 

[Left Channel]

If you read all the turmoil is about the “Universal's Audible Watermark”, and the dissatisfaction is about the "Audible" attribute.

Most of the turmoil, but not all. Here's an EFF post quoting a Wired article, from back when all this got started: https://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2008/1/11-0

 

[Left Channel]

Going back to watermarking, wouldn’t the best watermarking scheme be inaudible? So why not make the watermark a specific sequence above 16khz? Just about nobody but dogs could hear the signal. Or am I misunderstanding again?

This Microsoft patent claims they have invented an inaudible scheme. https://www.google.com/patents/US7266697?dq=7,266,697 But If they've succeeded, apparently UMG is not using it.

 

[Ableza]

Watermarking (and internet streaming in general) has nothing to do with providing a quality product. It has to do with providing a PRODUCT to generate a revenue stream, and then maintaining control of that product to protect the revenue stream. This is why I lump MQA into the same boat as that is it's only purpose.

 

[aamefford]

They must really hate us.

No. They don’t care about us at all, except as providers of $$$.

EDIT - looks like @Ableza beat me to the punch.

 

[AudioBear]

I agree with both or the last few posts. They are pathologically determined to screw end users when users aren't even their real problem. No point bothering to elaborate on everything that is wrong in this industry. I buy real disks or download primarily from sources that don't watermark -- many of which are under control of the singers/composers/performers who produce and often own the property. That's one way to avoid watermarks, but you need a special kind of taste in music to go this route. Many of the big names will be watermarked. So be it.

 

[Baldr]

@Locutus73 correctly points out some errors of logic in a recent analogy of mine. I entertain no notions of being 100% right 100% of the time. His logical asseveration stands up and is in particular proper for the sound science threads on other areas of this forum, where others dbeate over who is right and right absolutely.

That said, I stand behind the analogy: Streaming is so convenient. Then again, so is McDonald's. I have always wondered why streamed music had such a varied level of phuctivity about its sound, with the best resembling genital lice to the worst more akin to bubonic plague fleas and rats. I have always preferred the sound of a spinning disc to a stream. This is despite – the inconvenience to maintain a physical library only to then locate, pick, and play a CD. The promise of convenience with online streaming has been a wet dream of sonic performance. I also realize that the prior opinion is just that, and not proven logical fact. And yes, I love analogies.

If all audio hobbyists were attuned to the logic and science of @Locutus73, I would be out of the business of making audio products; the products are to be compared to others and enjoyed, not dissected. I build this stuff because I love to, NOT because I have anything to prove anymore. I should be retired; I do not have to work. I do it for fun. My biggest high is when others love it too.

Nor is this intended to be a excoriation of @Locutus73. I am confident we can recognize our differences and remain cordial. As a new user of HeadFi, he may find many more kindred folks in Sound Science.

 

[winders]

I don’t think all tracks on Tidal are watermarked. Isn’t it only that one label?

 

[D2Girls]

I love coming to this thread and reading baldr's posts. Ps. I am loving my new dac I purchased directly from you a few weeks ago. To say it was short of a revelation is an understatement