SACD-CD Hybrids -- A Way Out For Us Both?

net_shaman writes: "As reported in Stereophile Magazine online -- There appear to be some serious moves afoot by the recording industry to move en-mass to another compact audio disc format. No doubt frustrated with the utter failure of every attempt to copy protect Compact Discs. But this could be an opportunity for both better sound, strong copyright security and reasonable fair-use rights. The Hybrid Super Audio Compact Disc contains two layers of encoded information; one for standard 'Red Book' Compact Disc, and another for high resolution audio recordings (SACD). Here is a description."

"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."

Comments

not likely

[Anonymous Cowrad]

Everyone loses with this DRM junk.

Even you.

sounds terrible

[tps12]

How does this protect fair use? It is like, "okay, instead of kidnapping your baby, I will kidnap your baby but leave you with this picture of him." Thanks, RIAA, but no thanks.

How about this?

[NitsujTPU]

The industry shouldn't treat its customers like criminals in the first place... They should produce the BEST product available rather than downgrade what they COULD produce in favor of making sure that their will destroy their computers if they try to listen to the cd they bought. Rather than pushing users into a new format, merely so they can be charged AGAIN, they should offer a new format that has an advantage for the customer.

Fair Compromise

[MrCaseyB]

I always thought the best way for the damn labels to justify the high prices and fight mp3 pirating is by offering a better product to the people. SACD is it. After hearing 2 channel SACD, any audiophile will gladly pay $20 or more for such a recording. Let the kids on the internet trade their mp3s, but if you want the uncompressed joy that is high-res audio, you will buy the SACD. This is of course until technology and bandwidth progresses to the point where sharing gig size files as commonly as we share mp3s becomes common place.

Um, it's Red Book complient?

[st0rmshad0w]

Then how exactly is it copy-proof? I have several CD-ROM drives laying around that can be used as stand-alone audio CD players. So if the Red Book complient disc can be read by the Red Book complient CD-ROM drive and fed directly down the audio path I choose, such as into my stereo or (wait for it)right into my sound card, how is this copy proof?

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.

Why is quality tied to fair use?

[kindbud]

I don't understand why quality is tied to fair use. If I own a copy of a copyrighted book, and offer a poor-quality OCR scan of it on a website, I am infringing the copyright on the work, despite the OCR errors that make it a low-fidelity, inexact copy. However if I read my OCR version on my PDA, I haven't infringed a thing. What does fidelity to the original have to do with whether infringement has occurred? I am sure that the digital copies of AOTC that were shot with a haldheld camera are considered to be infringing copies, even though the fidelity is quite poor. Can anyone explain this, even if it is a lame explanation?

No help for copy protection woes...

[vkg]

Repeat after me: there are no technical fixes for social problems, there are no technical fixes for social problems, there are no technical fixes for social problems.

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 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

[jeffy210]

I have an SACD player, and it wouldn't be that hard to copy it, given you have the right tools. Currently, you must use the analog outs on the player (sorry, no digital outs...yet), but all you would really have to do is run it either to a 6-channel input on an audio card (they make some good 8-channel ones for mixing) or switch the SACD to 2-channel mode (it allows you to do that), and record the file to a WAV on your PC. If you wanted the surround version, just run it through a DTS encoder (check out SurCode DTS) and play it on most any DVD player / Reciever that can decode DTS. The quailty won't be *as great* as SACD, but it will be damn good.

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!

Who cares?

[MrHat]

So you want to marginally increase the quality of the recording, and use that as an excuse to tack a bunch of restrictions on to what I can do with the product I bought, on my own equipment, in my own home. Great. Where do I sign up.

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.

There is no such thing as reasonable UHT.

[Hobbex]

(I use UHT == "User Hostile Technology" instead of "DRM" because I refuse to buy into the doublespeak.)

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:wishful thinking

[afidel]

Intellectual Property is so ephemeral that it is only property as long as those you are trying to exchange with consider it your property. The government can make all the laws and copyright extensions it wants, but when it comes down to it if people don't respect your right to controll the idea as property it is no longer your property. If no one is willing to pay you for the right to your recording of a song then for commercial purposes you don't own the song, same with other forms of IP such as trademarks and patents (though since patents can rarely be used illicitly by the commons it is not so vulnerable to this). When a term such as tupperware or other brand names stops being the name of a particular product and becomes the label for an industry then you lose the protection of trademark, this is codified into law, however the same ideas hold for other forms of IP but the law does not reflect the reality of the situation.

In the end copy protection is MOOT at best

[mestreBimba]

the fact that if I play one of these new fangled CDs through a system with digital output I can always just pipe the output (lets say optical) to the input on another system and copy the CD with digital quality.

What exactly are they trying to prove?

Uma cabaca, un arane, un pedaco de pau!

Digital output

[alanak]

I just recently bought a SACD player. I was all excited to test out the new capabilities. So I hooked up my the player with digital output to my reciever. And nothing. Nothing at all. I tried a CD and it worked fine. I poked around then net for a bit to find out why and then I realized that for some reason or nothey they (whoever they are), decided that it would not be a good idea for high-quality digital output. So to prevent theft they have not released a specification for the digital encoding (much like the Redbook Cd uses PCM encoding) for whatever format SACD uses (DSD or DSM or something like that). So I now I have to use analog outputs which seems to totally beat the point of having a high quality CD format.

better sound = Bullcrap

[Lumpy]

sacd's sound fantastic. dont get me wrong, they are incredible.. Listening to them a year ago in best buy was fun... but baing someone that was 18 when CD's hit the market, regular CD's sounded incredible.. and they still do, the ones mastered back in 1986-1987 are phenomonial, I have a supertramp CD that people swear is a SACD today. the problem is that almost ALL music you buy on cd is mastered crappily, they are speed produced and pushed out the door as fast as they physically can. Equipment is not calibrated before every session, and testing is few and far between anymore. THEY DONT CARE about making an album with the lowest noise floor and best use of the dynamic range. SACD's if they become mainstream and replace CD, will become crap, SACD's will start to sound as crappy as today's CD's.

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.

This format will die quickly...

[sterno]

Does the average consumer notice the difference between the current fidelity of a CD versus say a 192Kbps MP3? No. Most don't notice the difference between the CD and 128Kbps MP3's. So does it really make sense to develop a higher fidelity audio format? I mean, sure, audophiles will enjoy it, I'm sure, but as a mass market item for consumers, what's the point?

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.

Re:No Better Sound Than CD quality?

[cporter]

Have you listened to SACD?

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:Here's the fundamental problem

[ichimunki]

Actually, it is possible to implement copyright law in software. The law provides the Fair Use exception to allow citizens certain rights with respect to creative works. The law does not require that works must be distributed in a fashion that allows these exceptions to be exercised. Therefore, if **AA wants to implement a scheme that makes it impossible to copy something under *any* circumstance, they are quite within the law. Maybe no one will buy their stuff, but CDs and DVDs were read-only for a long time and found mass acceptance before widespread write-able CD and DVD media were available... so I think the **AA could easily go this route.

The real problem with DRM is that it will never work. NEVER. Because someone somewhere will either crack it or figure out a way around it-- even if it involves degradation of the signal, many will find that degradation an acceptable alternative to paying. It's just not possible to make both the medium and the player available at retail outlets where cash is an acceptable payment and the transaction anonymous such that the protection scheme isn't fairly vulnerable to attack. I mean, the key is in there somewhere, otherwise you couldn't play the movie/song/whatever back.

Re:uh

[Telastyn]

Why? CDr makers, computer makers, and ultimately people want music. If the music industry stops providing music, either people will pay for the music, or get it from people who will offer the music.

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.

Re:uh

[Toshito]

The CD standard output 20Hz - 20Khz.

True, this is the boundaries of human hearing.

But you forget that the harmonics above 20Khz, wich are cut out from CD, influence the sound we hear.

Also, 16 bits of encoding is pretty lame, and produce a lot of aliasing of the music.

With 24 bits, you get something much more pleasant to the ear, and wit a higher sample rate you have the benefit pf reproducing a lot more harmonics.

For more details you could read this very interesting article:

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?282

This article explain exactly the difference between CD and SACD in term of the benefit of having a higher sample rate.

Re:uh

[nil_null]

The best example of how this can be used is the subwoofer channel. It could sound better than just using a crossover on the user end.

Many musicians will record as many as 8 guitar tracks. Sounds great in stereo, but what kinds of effects would you get if you sent different guitars to 4 speakers? Then there's electronic music. There's so much that can be done.

This is actually something I've thought about doing. Maybe recording an audio-only DVD that incorporates this. Next time I record with my band I'll see what I can do :)

Though I admit, I don't see a lot of artists doing anything like this any time soon. But it may catch on at some point.

can YOU tell 256kbps from CD?

[fortinbras47]

If you can't tell 256kbps from CD, you will NOT be able to tell cd from this new standard.

Convert a 256kbps mp3 (lame codec) to wav and burn the that wav and the original onto a cd. Unless you're an audiophile with incredible equipment, I HIGHLY doubt you will be able to do better than random guessing. (eg. get better than a standard dev away from 50-50.)

Before all you audiophiles flame me, go try it and have a friend test you. (And no looking at which song is which before you test. It's easy as hell to bogusly justify a decision if you know the answer beforehand.) Even on nice equipment, I doubt you will be able to tell a difference.

This is a fairly well documented fact :

This is loose reasoning to be sure, but the differences between cd quality and whatever this new standard is are going to be FAR MORE SUBTLE than the differences between cd and 256 kbps mp3. Selling this new standard based upon "higher quality" will be a complete fallacy even IF YOU ARE an insane audiophile.

Re:can YOU tell 256kbps from CD?

[prismatic]

Actually, research (http://www.r3mix.net) has shown that even audiophiles with high-quality equipment aren't any better than joe-schmoe who is random-guessing which is MP3 and which is original CD, when using LAME-encoded 256kbit MP3s.

So it's not just "unless you are an audiophile ..."
It's everybody, including audiophiles.

But that's not the important part. One of the biggest benefits of SACD isn't higher quality music than regular CDs, actually, is that SACD can encode 5.1 channel surround-sound audio, as opposed to the 2-channel stereo regular CDs can.

The big advantage is that you can hear the cello centered behind you, the bandoneon moving counter-clockwise around you starting at your forward-right, the guitar off to your left moving clockwise around you, and the pianist to your rear-left, all in DVD-quality audio (even though you can't tell its better than CD) while you milonga the night away with a beautiful lady.

Re:uh

[ShoeHead]

What I'd like to see in the next format is a little (or a lot) more redundancy. I've got a couple CD's that are barely playable due to scratches, wear, and tear.

They say you can drill a good sized hole in a CD, and never hear the skip, but I've got a couple CD's with barely visible scratches/smears, and it's really frustrating when they happen to be on the one song you liked from that CD.