Slashdot Mirror
Super Audio CDs Rolling Your Way
donutello writes "Slate is running an article about the Rolling Stones Remastered series discs having two layers: CD and SACD. The article contains some interesting information about how Sony is sneakily distributing SACD players without the buyers noticing it. This FAQ provides some information about SACDs. Don't expect to be able to play or reproduce these on your computer anytime soon. The SACD format contains a physical watermark on the disc. SACD players will only play discs with valid watermarks. Music watermarks had two opponents: The audiophiles who didn't like their music distorted and people who didn't like the watermarks preventing copying of the music. With the physical watermarks, they have found a way to appease the former while still stopping the latter thus causing a break in the ranks of the opposition."
... for a new better cd format
sorry but cd's work jsut fine and i dont see this catching on as a replacement for old cd's
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
If sacd becomes widespread, undoubtedly they'll make sacd-rom. When that happens, either they won't play, or they'll play right on to "pirates'" harddrives.
/. crew will find a way around it, or cry bloody murder (or both), a la CSS. If they don't make sacdrom, *I'll* cry bloody murder, because the only optical reader I have is connected to my 2nd IDE channel (and besides, audio-out --> line-in fixes that issue no problem)
If they make drivers that prevent that, then the
Phillips, which developed the CD standard, collaborated with Sony in developing SACD. Sony appears to be trying to avoid repeating the Betamax mistake by licensing the technology.
I'm not happy about the watermarking, and won't buy them at first, but I think it has a good chance of catching on, since the transition path is virtually transparent, and costs nearly identical.
The audio quality of SACD is significantly better than traditional CDs, even on typical home audio systems.
The players still have analog outputs. I suspect mp3s ripped in real time will sound pretty decent.
Someone has tested the quality of CD layer on two-layer media, and noticed that it was noticeably worse than a single layer CD. Much higher error rate.
My undestanding of SACD is that it does not have a watermark but rather some encoding scheme which prevents it from being decoded. This is DVD-A which has a watermark.
Both formats may be marginally better than CD (there are mix opinions on this matter). Seems like that the properly mastered CD sounds just fine. Rolling Stones recordings certainly need new remastering, incidently I got rid of my CD Rolling Stones because coudln't stand the sound ('brittle highs'), but once again, that was not a CD limitation per se, but very bad mastering. Even so, I'm not going to jump into the SACD bandwagon because both SACD and DVD-A are mostly a gimmick and its real purpose is to introduce a built-in copy protection you can't defeat.
If I want to make a backup copy of my music, I can buy a copy on CD since I'm not going to be able to make a copy of a SACD myself anytime soon.
SACDs supposedly play in regular CD players as a regular CD, and are only 'fully featured' in SACD players.
How long will it be I wonder before you can't buy a 'regular' CD?
If the only way to purchase a digital copy (can you even buy cassettes any more?) of an artist's work is on SACD, and to most consumers it's the same difference, I would venture not long.
Ah yes... but if your SACD player doesn't play anything but original SACD's (no SACD-R), then you won't be able to play your copy as an SACD. Sure, you'll be able to burn it to CD... but you won't want that "harsh" CD sound any more, you will be hooked on SACD.
I'm not saying it will work, but that's the plan.
-Renard
The music industry is an oligopoly. A handful of players control the market. I'm not really concerned about Sony's offering, per se. But if AOL/TimeWarner, et. al. start using the same technology, there isn't really much chance that "some other" company will come along and seize the opportunity, because there are no other companies.
Plus, if an artist is under Sony distribution, the only alternative means of distribution is P2P, which is under increasing attack both legal and technological, from the RIAA.
This ain't a free market, boyo.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I have a SACD player, cost me $139 and also plays CD's and DVD's. The SACD sound quality is a lot better than CD, even my more expensive CD player does not sound as good as the $139 Sony playing SACD. You need a pretty good system to hear all that SACD is capable of, but I'm glad I can get this level of quality sound. There is still a CD layer, and this works just like a regular CD. The SACD sound can be copied via analog methods, but it won't sound quite as good. And if you copy the CD layer you get CD quality sound, which is fine for making MP3's. So those of us who want a really high quality medium get that, and I for one am not at all upset that I can't copy it. I'm just glad to have the opportunity to purchase something of this quality. If I really want a copy to play in the car I can just copy the CD layer and that perfecly good enough. I think the rumors that the CD layer is somehow degraded compared to a normal CD are bogus. On my system the CD layer sounds as good as any other CD. It's just that the SACD layer sounds even better.
>Thank you for the very informative post. I'd give it a +5 if I could.
.)
>EVERY "vinyl is better" fanatic should read this.
Thanks! Glad you found it to be of some use.
Actually, I can think of several reasons for preferring the "sound" of vinyl, but none of them have to do with its superior *fidelity*:
* The dynamic range is compressed, sometimes pretty severely at certain frequencies. This can make it easier to hear certain soft details that might be obscure on a CD, particularly if your hearing isn't perfect (and most Americans have pretty poor hearing, due to all the loud noises we're exposed to during our lifetimes, particularly amplified music). For example, I've heard vinyl lovers say they've been able to hear the air conditioning in a concert hall from a quality, virgin vinyl pressing on a high-end turntable. While such feats are possible with CDs (if you crank the volume during a quiet passage - CD's 90dB dynamic range makes it possible to hear all sorts of otherwise inaudible background noise if you crank the volume high enough), it's simply impossible with vinyl's 60dB of dynamic range (max) unless the material was compressed before being mastered. (Well, I suppose if the concert hall had an amazingly noisy air conditioning system . . .
* The music is typically heavily equalized by the mastering engineer. Not only do these guys compensate for the limits of the vinyl format (for example, eliminating any loud low bass that could pop the mastering cutter right out of its groove - not to mention your poor stylus), they frequently "sweeten" the sound to suit their own tastes.
* The high end hiss, high-frequency clicks and pops and high-frequency harmonics generated by the stylus and pickup as they vibrate enhance the perceived high-midrange and treble response. While the hiss and clicks can be annoying when the music is soft, when it's loud the music pretty well drowns them out as distinct entities, and your ear perceives them as part of the high-end of the music. Harmonics also increase as the music grows louder, further enhancing the apparent high-end. I suspect this accounts for why many vinyl enthusiasts say CDs sound "flat" to them. They do!
You can demonstrate this effect for yourself - generate or record some white noise extending out to at least 20kHz, then filter everything below about 5000 Hz by around 20dB. Finally, mix this in with some audio recorded off of CD (make it a CD that you own, in order to avoid the wrath of the RIAA!). Experiment with the levels until you find you can no longer hear the hiss as a distinct component of the overall sound during the louder passages of the song. Finally, compare the original to the "hissy" version. You'll find that the original sounds dull in comparison, with a flat high end. This is one of the reasons why audio cassettes sounded so flat when you used Dolby noise reduction. People thought the Dolby killed the high frequency response of the tapes. While Dolby did dull the high end a little bit, that wasn't responsible for most of the perceived reduction. All that hiss on cassettes made it sound like there was more high frequency signal recorded on the tape than was actually present, and when that noise was squashed, the sound was very dull compared to a cassette without noise reduction. Of course, the loud hiss was so annoying in the softer passages, most people were willing to put up with the perceived high frequency reduction in trade for effective hiss mitigation.
Unfortunately for certain overly-enthusiastic vinyl lovers, CDs sound more like the original master tapes than vinyl, and that's the true meaning of fidelity. Folks may prefer the sound of a low-fidelity medium for any number of reasons, and that's their business. But trying to pass off a medium with inherently poor fidelity as somehow superior to a higher-fidelity medium is just wrong.
I don't think you caught on to what I'm saying.
The point that was made is what happens if SACD becomes the only format available. What if you still care about your fair use rights?
My point is that people will turn to illegal copies. And once they begin to do that on a regular basis - once the illegal copy is providing them something they want that the legitimate product can not... those same people will no longer bother buying a legitimate copy.
The difference between that possible future and today is that todays media, the CD, is still a (more or less) fully capable product. It still tends to be of greater quality with the added bonus of a nice printed CD, cover, lyrics, artwork, etc. And again - if I buy a legitimate CD, I can still use it to make a copy for the car or burn MP3s for my home jukebox or portible player.
OK, so it's all very well that you can now use SACD with more accurate signal reproduction, or even DVD-A (isn't that a term used in porn movies? So I've heard) if you want better quality.
Whose ears are actually good enough to listen to 24-bit audio and tell the difference between that and 16-bit anyway? I have often heard it said that analogue transmission of audio is far worse than digital. I don't entirely agree with that, but supposing it's true - surely the cables between SACD player and amplifier, amplifier and speakers are going to withdraw a lot of the benefits of the more accurate signal?
Yes, we can only hear about 20-bit accuracy. The point of the additional accuracy is, therefore, questionable. The difference in quality it will make is miniscule. The LSB on 16-bit audio represents a variation of 0.0015% in the output signal. The LSB on 24-bit audio represents a variation of 0.000006% of the output signal. Can you hear that final bit? Does it make all the difference? Er, no.
Those who say that the MP3 format is too lossy for them might be interested to know that audiophiles can't actually hear the difference between 256kbps MP3 and the original CD recording. Those who think they need still more quality should perhaps check out the MAD plugin which has the ability to decode mp3s to 24-bit, recreating bits that weren't even there in order to improve quality.
As regards introducing watermarks as a kind of copy protection - well, that's just reducing the quality of the audio, which defeats the point of what you were trying to achieve in the first place.
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
I've been "into" home audio as a hobby since I fixed my uncle's broken Magnavox turntable when I was 5. That same uncle had a friend when I was in high school who was a big audiophile - he was invited by Rockford Fosgate to go to the 1985 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and I got to tag along. It was like being a kid in a candy store (literally, I suppose!). I used to look at catalogs and visit the local audiophile shops whenever I got a chance. I even subscribed to the late, lamented Stereo Review for over half a decade - longer than I've ever subscribed to any other magazine - and graduated from college with a degree in broadcasting (though I now perform business intelligence work - no oxymoron jokes, please).
My own stereo system is very modest, though. I'm far more interested in bang for the buck, and am far too cheap to blow more than $500 on any single piece of equipment (I'd have to win the lottery first). I've seen so-called audiophiles spend thousands on crap I wouldn't donate to the Salvation Army. Ultimately, it's about the music for me - not the technology. And I have no need to show off with my money, unlike a lot of rich idiots out there who must have 2" peckers.
My knowledge isn't so impressive - I know just enough to find more detailed information on the Internet (a legacy of my business intelligence background I suppose - dig through the database for more relevant information). For example, I knew the microphone the Beatles used is still in heavy use today for vocal recording, but couldn't remember its name. Once I tracked its name down, it was easy to get the specs on it, and confirm a couple of hunches I had, based on my past experience shopping for a microphone - namely, that mics with anything like a usable frequency response out to 20kHz are rare as hen's teeth and hellishly expensive, and that the most commonly-used studio mics are physically incapable of recording the vinyl-fanatics' much-cited "ultrasonic information".
The Internet can be a great tool for debunking junk science, marketing spin and urban myths, if you're willing to expend a little effort. Unfortunately, it can also be a great tool for spreading them, with little effort . . .
"Anti-counterfeiting Amendments of 2002 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit trafficking in an "illicit authentication feature." Defines that term to mean an authentication feature that: (1) without the authorization of the respective copyright owner, has been tampered with or altered so as to facilitate the reproduction or distribution of a phono-record, a copy of a computer program, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging, in violation of the rights of the copyright owner; (2) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the respective copyright owner; or (3) appears to be genuine but is not."
That is a piece of crap legislation but it does NOT prevent anyone from independently producing information in any format they desire and and distributing it by any method they wish. Noone has even attempted to suggest that this could be prevented because it would be such a clear and undeniable violation of the First Amendment. Okay, Some will say yeah, but they'll use this to make non-protected formats illegal. Not according to the language of that bill: They still can't make Ogg, say, illegal: just tools designed to strip DRM-processed files to open formats, or distributing copyrighted files that have been stripped of their DRM information.
And this is the other side of the coin. Just as any artist has the right to release their information any way they want (due to free speech and their copyrights on original works), the publishing giants have the right to release their garbage in any screwed up format they want - and the idea that the constitution in any way shape or form gives you some "fair use" right to do anything you want with that information may be the way it "should" be but it ain't the way it IS. If you read the fair use provisions in copyright law (I wonder how many
By all means, fight the power, yeah yeah yeah - watch how you vote, write a letter to your reps. You might even consider unclenching that "omigod if I don't vote for corporate-sponsored candidate X the horror of candidate Y, that ultraliberal tax-n-spend gun-hating tree-hugging/super-conservative religious right corporate-pandering gun-crazy wacko (choose one) in office" knee jerk reaction. You might even ask yourself how likely it is that their are only two possible approaches to solving the world's problems - and that the "side" you have picked of the two options you've been given is the one right, true, correct side, and all them other dips is just crazy stupid deluded fools with no sense. You might wonder what would happen if a whole lot of us started voting for people who don't get their political positions by constantly begging corporations and wealthy individuals for support.
But remember their is another (not mutually exclusive) alternative, which is simply to not support the publishing industry's products and to instead seek out artists that do not artificially impair the versatility of their product or encumber it with information and costly extra production steps that have no other purpose than to remind you that they think of you as a thief first, a customer second.
Think about it.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Sony and Phillips already get fees for every CD sold. Does that stop you from making CDs of your garage band music? Of course not.
Sure, right now the SACD recording process is probably pretty expensive, and there are only 2 machines in the world that can stamp out the hybrid SACD/CD discs, but it won't stay that way. Sony and Phillips must make it cheap to produce SACDs or else it will go the way of mini-disks.
Frankly, I think this is the "right" way for Sony to try and improve security on the music. Its not a law. Its not a digital water mark or cactus crap that reduces the music fidelity. The format offers something extra, but doesn't allow you to copy it. I don't see any difference between this and DVD-pre-deCSS. All the people who buy DVDs but don't copy them will see this as pretty much the same kind of thing. Yes, we won't have the technological means to make a our fair use backup, but I can't backup my LP's either.
If the artists get together and quit the record labels, cutting out the middle men, and start selling ogg vorbis tracks, well that would be really cool, but if the record companies are going to control music distribution, then they might as well give us better sound. I don't see technological measures to stop fair use as being more morally wrong than file sharing.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.