Slashdot Mirror
New Audio Disc Formats and Copyrights
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."
Hah!
The last time their "advanced technology" was foiled by a felt tip pen! I hope they have something better.
Wait... I hope they dont!
Gee, a little of RTFA might help you here.
... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
It's just a matter of time till someone mods their SACD player.
-Why take life seriously?? You're not gonna get out alive anway! - Red Skelton
"None of the dozens of DVD-Audio and SACD discs examined at Virgin Megastore in San Francisco mentioned the underlying copy-protection scheme in their outer packaging."
Game over. Would you like to try another game of pick the disc without copy-protection ?
The RIAA is currently, and has been for quite a while, working on a new foolproof copy protection mechanism. With this system, no one will want to even try to bypass the copy protection mechanism and rip the CD, it will be futile and useless to even try.
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!
SACD, meet DivX. DivX, meet SACD.
My
Limekiller
Just what I've been waiting for, the Betamax of audio technology.
Whenever I hear anyone mention DVD-A, I laugh to myself and think about the movie Orgasmo.
...used to be named the "Arizona Sound Society", but no one would take them seriously.
<rimshot>
*ducks and runs*
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
It's much easier to mod me down than to post an intelligent reply.
What, are you trying to make a case for it or something?
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.