 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You want more sources? How about:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110809/04114515451/umg-watermarks-audiophile-files-pisses-off-paying-customers.shtml
If you have listened to a few of the offending scores, I think it should be pretty obvious that there is something wrong with the audio.
Perhaps, but the piece you link has lots of ranting, but it's mostly that and more then a bit of guesswork.
but it's short on FACTS.
I'm not saying they are wrong, but this piece dates from mid-2011.
If this is such an issue, there would be a lot more on it then what has been posted thus far.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty lame if true, but they are a client, so I pick all the physical CDs I like anyway. (The office walls of executives are lined with punched-out discs, so they just let me grab whatever.) I hope this wouldn't apply to Deutsche Grammophon CDs - that would definitely suck.
I am very very busy, so I can't investigate technically, but try 4C12bit.exe to see if the files are in fact watermarked; redirect the output to a file so it's saved and can be inspected. Or send me an audio file on the same fsm id on aol, and I'll look at it over the weekend if I can.
Pardon my ignorance but how would you know the difference between a watermark and compression artifact anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 10, 2013 - 11:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jon Lewis
(Member)
|
I've posted about this issue on this board a few times in the past. I'm glad someone gave it its own thread.
This issue was bothering my ears for about 2 years before I stumbled upon those links about 6 months ago. In other words, it was something I had noticed without prompting, and that was really driving me nuts, and for which the linked articles finally provided a plausible explanation.
I first noticed it on numerous MP3 purchases of Deutsche Grammophon, Decca and Philips classical releases, starting in about 2009. Then I noticed it on all MP3s of Disney soundtracks I bought. Then two different Universal soundtrack releases. Then the Geffen download of Chinatown. Then the Steely Dan (MCA) catalog on Spotify.
Always the same defect: the rapid fluttering of volume level on any long tones of certain timbre, especially chorus, cymbal crashes, acoustic guitar, long reverbs, and ESPECIALLY piano.
Then, when I found the research posted on that techdirt message board, and looked up a list of UMG owned labels on Wikipedia, I realized that all the releases on which this audio defect had bothered me were UMG related. Even Disney had a deal with UMG to handle their digital music distribution. I had never experienced this sonic defect listening to EMI or Sony/BMG digital purchases. I had no confirmation bias from the articles linked in this thread; the articles provided a convincing explanation for something I'd already noticed for years, and been extremely vexed by, on my own.
So, as far as I am concerned, the existence of the defect and the attribution of it to UMG releases is a closed case; it's real. Whether it is because of their watermarking process is not totally certain. It IS a confirmed fact that they use watermarking, UMG have stated this. it was actually trumpeted in a press release when they began the practice in (iirc) 2009. The watermarking is ostensibly 'inaudible', per the designers of the technology.
Why isn't there more outcry about it? I have no idea. I think it's a crying shame-- I am a huge classical music fiend and the world's single largest and most important library of classical music recordings is unavailable in listenable MP3 form. Some of UMG's classical holdings are first-time reissues which are ONLY available via digital download, for pete's sake, meaning there is no watermark-free option.
But here's an interesting thing: as of earlier this year, at least on SOME new releases in my experience, UMG seem to have either stopped the practice or tweaked it so as to make it more truly 'inaudible'. When Elfman's OZ score came out, I auditioned it on Spotify, prepared to listen past the watermark distortion in order to see if I liked the music enough to purchase the physical CD. (According to my previous bad experiences, the fluttering distortion would be audible just the same on Spotify as it would from iTunes, Amazon MP3 or eMusic).
Listened to the Elfman Oz all the way through. Loved the music, and the cymbals, choruses etc all sounded perfectly fine. Listened again, closely and with focus on those elements. Same. Bit the bullet and bought the download from eMusic. No problem! Then more recently, the Jurassic Park anniversary edition came out. This also sounded just fine.
As I understand it, UMG supplies lossless source files to the digital vendors like itunes, emusic etc. The vendors then run their own conversions. It has been assumed that the lossless files supplied by UMG to these vendors already had the watermark in them. Now, if correcting this issue would mean RESUPPLYING UNCORRUPTED LOSSLESS FILES of the entire UMG library to all digital vendors, I do not think that is going to happen ever. It would be a tremendous amount of work for someone on their payroll and most importantly it might open them up to liability as it would constitute some form of admission of error or wrongdoing on their part. BUT maybe they have quietly discontinued the practice for new files going forward. Which is something at least! And would be consistent with my experience of how corporations correct issues. A quiet, poker-faced 'running change' as they call it.
But the recorded bodies of work of Alfred Brendel on Philips, Pierre Boulez on DG, Ernest Ansermet on London/Decca, The Coltrane on Impulse, Richard Thompson on Island, The Supremes, Steely Dan, etc etc etc? Maybe when the next rounds of remasters happen and there is occasion to supply new files, but not, I'm guessing, before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I will ask; how do you know it's this watermarking and not just a crappy compression/mastering job? Maybe UMG just has crappy quality control on their digital releases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this juncture I'd like to point out that, regardless of the cause--planned or not, compression or watermarking... there shouldn't be any freaking noise to begin with.
Agreed. I just don't like the grand conspiracy theory of accusation that someone set out to deliberately jack up tracks in the name of piracy protection. It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
