The technology can be used for other purposes besides watermarking to prevent illegal music sharing, though I am sure the main usage of it will be just that. What I was implying before is that a lot of technology can be applied in many different ways, so we may see other applications for this being used. To satrianez, while I understand your disdain for the waste of “brilliant brain cells”, lol, the development of this technology was for free and was probably not intended to directly combat “piracy”. Like I said, there are alternative uses, though now it has been licensed, which can be seen as good or bad, depending on ones outlook. Yeah, and btw, I have my own questions about just how this works, and we’ll just have to wait and see. One thing to note though, these IDs that would be inserted into the audio stream, thinking rationally, I would suspect one could remove them if they had two identical copies except for a separate ID in each and you performed some sort of perfect mixing of the streams. But, it is much more difficult to obtain two perfect SEPERATE ID’ed copies of a piece of music, especially if you are the one “high up” with access to even one copy. And I don’t think filesharing these days would be the place to go to find high enough quality samples to do this. How would one even know if what one has are ID’ed, or are even different ID’ed materials?
44.1KHz isn’t the limit of the human ear. Or that would defeat the purpose of the super audio CD. but with the cost of equipment when that standard came out and the storage space of a CD it was just a decision they made to use 44.1KHz
The limit of the human ear is definitely 20KHz. 2KHZ was used as margin for analog filters which gives a sampling frequency of 44KHz. The purpose of the SACD is, amongst other things, oversampling. Oversampling increases the signal-to-noise ratio and greatly simplifies the design of filters.
umm…watermarke eh? Can’t be separated from the normal music waveform? Is this guy for real? Is he talking about Science Fiction of Fact?! I have yet to see a protection that has not been broken using ASSEMBLY. I guess being a computer engineer u do have certain…flexibility. Hello new watermark technology. Goodbye new watermark technology – u have been sliced and diced by your big brother: ASSEMBLY!!! :4
Maybe it works on the separation between the left and right audio channels? that way it wouldn’t specifically be audible.
“…It is embeded into the audio itself, does not affect the quality,…” = IMPOSSIBLE
i suppose if you minor (inaudible to humans) variations between the two stereo channels you could imbed a data stream…
Correct me if I’m wrong here – but if this guy uses ASSEMBLY to create this watermark technology and u can use the same language to decipher it. If he uses C++ or another third-generation language – then it’s even easier! On the side note: if you embeded something within da audio stream itself then u can use something like BSST (Bit Sampling Separation Technique) to go down to the encoded bits and separated the “working” bits from the “stationary” bits. The stationary ones r da ones that can be deleted "without affecting the quality of audio. If I remember correctly, there r already a few audio tools on da market which allows BSST. If BSST does not work then there’s always ASSEMBLY…and a bit of time! Some engineers would probably cracked this watermark technology once it’s officially deployed! :8