recordplay
Joined: 13/09/05
Posts: 259
Loc: Devon, UK
|
Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
#989912 - 27/05/12 09:35 PM
|
|
|
Hiya, Right after seeing and hearing quite a bit about it over the past few
months I want a piece of the action. I want to imprint high frequencies that
are inaudible but can show up on a spectral analyzer as an image i.e. my record label
copyright control message. Is there any methods or free software out there that
can help me with this that you have seen or know anyone that uses this idea? Are you aware of this method of watermarking? Photosounder are doing
something similar http://photosounder.com/Interested to hear your thoughts
on this either way?
-------------------- Pinkpenny Records | Twitter
|
BJG145
Joined: 06/08/05
Posts: 2163
Loc: Norwich UK
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989915 - 27/05/12 10:02 PM
|
|
|
Quote recordplay:
I want to
imprint high frequencies that are inaudible but can show up on a spectral analyzer
Does that mean you could get rid of
the watermark just by running the track through a low-pass filter...?
Sounds
like a bit of a gimmick to me. How many copyright infringers are likely to discover these
watermarks through spectral analysis, or would care about them if they did...?
|
recordplay
Joined: 13/09/05
Posts: 259
Loc: Devon, UK
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989917 - 27/05/12 10:18 PM
|
|
|
Hmmm yeah I guess your right. Erased with a filter the second you release it. But I'm
sure hardly anyone would do that? What other methods are there? So your music can be
traced?
-------------------- Pinkpenny Records | Twitter
|
ken long
Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 4277
Loc: The Orient, East London
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989922 - 28/05/12 12:21 AM
|
|
|
|
I have to say I agree. Not many people would check. Or know what they were looking at
(cause let's face it, it is only visible at hose kinds of frequencies). I'd say a tone at
19kHz would be perceptible on a spectrum analyser and inaudible to 99% of the population
I don't think you need anything other than a basic audio editor with a tone generator.
--------------------
I'm All Ears.
|
ezza
Joined: 19/11/04
Posts: 299
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989937 - 28/05/12 07:39 AM
|
|
|
|
James Perrett
Joined: 10/09/01
Posts: 9660
Loc: The wilds of Hampshire
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989960 - 28/05/12 09:21 AM
|
|
|
Around 10-15 years ago the big record companies wasted loads of money trying to find a
system that worked. They never managed it and I doubt that anyone can create a system that
will survive the multiple lossy codecs that most music seems to pass through these days
unless it is glaringly obvious. James.
-------------------- JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net
|
feline1
active member
Joined: 23/06/03
Posts: 3652
Loc: Brighton, UK
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989964 - 28/05/12 09:32 AM
|
|
|
Sampling at 44.1kHz automatically excludes most "inaudible frequencies" (i.e. above 20kHz)
from the soundfile! (Although as noted above, most of us oldsters can't hear above 16kHz
anyways...
-------------------- ~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~
|
Richie Royale
Joined: 12/09/06
Posts: 3370
Loc: Bristol, England.
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989967 - 28/05/12 09:38 AM
|
|
|
|
The Red Bladder
Joined: 05/06/07
Posts: 2072
Loc: . ...
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: recordplay]
#989976 - 28/05/12 10:08 AM
|
|
|
Quote recordplay:
I want to
imprint high frequencies that are inaudible but can show up on a spectral analyzer as an
image i.e. my record label copyright control message.
As James pointed out, this has been tried again and again and
again. And has always failed, because -
All home hi-fi systems, radios,
radio stations, TV sets and just about anything else in between filters off everything
above 20kHz and below 20Hz, to prevent nasty side-effects and RF interference. Radio and
TV filters at an even lower frequency.
Also a high pitched whistle causes
distortion in the higher frequencies below it. Any one trying to use a old ProTools rig
(001 and 888) will remember the digital harshness that so many people complained about.
This was a AD clocking fault that caused a relatively quiet high pitched whistle that then
'beat' with sibilants and cymbals to sound like distortion.
Millions was
wasted by CBS in particular (if my memory serves me rightly) trying to develop a
copy-killer, despite being told by several engineers and scientists that the laws of
physics apply to record companies as well as the rest of us.
Politicians
still refuse to believe that the laws of physics apply to them as well and waste our money
in all sorts of idiotic schemes doomed to failure, but that is another story!
|
chris...
active member
Joined: 12/03/03
Posts: 4152
Loc: Glasgow
|
Re: Hidden inaudible frequencies for watermarked audio files - Sound to image
[Re: James Perrett]
#990017 - 28/05/12 01:34 PM
|
|
|
Quote James Perrett:
Around 10-15
years ago the big record companies wasted loads of money trying to find a system that
worked.
Google found this
article on Copycode.
"The National Bureau Of Standards in the USA have
recently produced a fat report on the deficiencies and the stupidities of the system; it
observes that the supposedly "inaudible" Copycode "notch" is, in fact, completely obvious
and intrusive, [and] that Copycode can be easily [be] by-passed"
I have a
feeling there may have been more recent attempts at this sort of thing - not sure how
successful.
|
Previous
Topics
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
