A Proposal for a Copy Optimized DVD Audio Format

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Imhotep, Sep 7, 2005.

  1. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    "I'm writing to suggest the community work together to specify a standard
    for the format of DVD Audio discs that will be Free as in Freedom. There
    are a couple of competing standards proposals for DVD Audio discs that have
    the advantage of higher audio fidelity than Compact Discs (sampled at, say,
    24 bits instead of 16) and that can hold more minutes of music, but it's
    quite clear that the companies behind the standardization efforts consider
    copy-protection their first priority."

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/1/25644/72726

    Imhotep
    Imhotep, Sep 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Imhotep

    Unruh Guest

    Imhotep <> writes:

    >"I'm writing to suggest the community work together to specify a standard
    >for the format of DVD Audio discs that will be Free as in Freedom. There
    >are a couple of competing standards proposals for DVD Audio discs that have
    >the advantage of higher audio fidelity than Compact Discs (sampled at, say,
    >24 bits instead of 16) and that can hold more minutes of music, but it's


    Well, just because you sample at 24 bits does not mean anything. 16 bits is
    a 95dB floor, at which point electronics noise becomes a real problem. Ie,
    the chances of actually getting anything for the extra 8 bits is low.
    Now, sampling at a higher rate (88200 say) could well be worthwhile,
    especially in getting rid of aliasing of the signal due to high freq noise.
    (22K shannon freq is a bit too close to the auditory threshold.


    >quite clear that the companies behind the standardization efforts consider
    >copy-protection their first priority."


    Yes, I suspect that is true. They have been burned, but they have a really
    really hard row, since those digital signals have to be delivered to
    something-- speakers, amplifiers, etc. sometime.

    Of course they could just make the audio output so crappy, but then why any
    improvement in the digital signal.




    >http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/1/25644/72726


    >Imhotep
    Unruh, Sep 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On 7 Sep 2005 18:24:32 GMT, Unruh <> wrote:

    >22K shannon freq is a bit too close to the auditory threshold.


    have you ever tested the highest frequency you can actually hear ?



    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Sep 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Imhotep

    Steve Welsh Guest

    >>22K shannon freq is a bit too close to the auditory threshold.

    I agree, 30 or 40K would work a lot better.

    > have you ever tested the highest frequency you can actually hear ?
    > Jim Watt


    Not that simple, Jim. That works fine for pure sine wave tones, but
    unfortunately the human ear plays silly tricks on us. That's why lots of
    church organs have 'acoustic' pipes, or quints. It works by making the
    brain think that it is hearing a tone that actually isn't there. It's
    part of what makes MP3s work.

    The same thing applies at the high frequencies. The 'difference tones'
    of high overtones of most musical instruments are what give them their
    particular 'timbre'. Unfortunately, cutting off the frequencies of
    recordings at 22KHz robs us of the chance for our ears to do their work.
    That's why you can never quite get that 'live music' experience from
    standard CD PCM.

    Totally off the security topic, sorry.

    Cheers,
    Steve
    Steve Welsh, Sep 9, 2005
    #4
  5. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:15:01 +0100, Steve Welsh <>
    wrote:

    >Totally off the security topic, sorry.


    It is, but I have an interest in audio engineering. The highest
    tone I ever heard was 17khz some years ago. As discussions
    about audio perception are subjective its perhaps best left
    alone, although most live music now sounds better as the
    speakers amplifiers and equipment used has improved :)

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Sep 9, 2005
    #5
  6. Imhotep

    Unruh Guest

    Jim Watt <_way> writes:

    >On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:15:01 +0100, Steve Welsh <>
    >wrote:


    >>Totally off the security topic, sorry.


    >It is, but I have an interest in audio engineering. The highest
    >tone I ever heard was 17khz some years ago. As discussions
    >about audio perception are subjective its perhaps best left
    >alone, although most live music now sounds better as the
    >speakers amplifiers and equipment used has improved :)


    Yes, they have. The problem with a low cutoff is that of aliasing. Ie,
    noise etc at a frequency of 28KHz is aliased down to 14KHz by the sampling.
    Also, since you want to get rid of that high freq stuff so that you do not
    get aliasing, you need to put in filters. No filters have a sharp cutoff.
    Thus the filters have to start cutting in at 5 or 10KHz to drive
    the stuff about 22 KHz to a low enough level.

    Ie, the 22KHz is a bit too low.
    Note that children can hear up to about 25KHz. The reason women and kids
    find TVs so annoying is that most are designed by male engineers who are
    completely deaf above about 10KHz, and cannot hear the flyback transformer,
    which on much consumer junk shrieks loudly. Were it 60Hz humm the sets
    would never never have been designed that way, but at 15-17KHz, its "What
    humm?"


    >--
    >Jim Watt
    >http://www.gibnet.com
    Unruh, Sep 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On 9 Sep 2005 15:01:46 GMT, Unruh <> wrote:

    >Note that children can hear up to about 25KHz. The reason women and kids
    >find TVs so annoying is that most are designed by male engineers who are
    >completely deaf above about 10KHz, and cannot hear the flyback transformer,
    >which on much consumer junk shrieks loudly. Were it 60Hz humm the sets
    >would never never have been designed that way, but at 15-17KHz, its "What
    >humm?"


    15.625Khz for European systems. I used to find it annoying but either
    the sets are better designed today or noisy discos and time have taken
    their toll. point taken about the aliasing, but filters are good these
    days. Live concerts from BBC Radio 3 sound very agreeable thanks
    to digital technology, but the footprint does not extend to .ca and
    their website only averages a sample rate of 32kbps in total for
    stereo in Real Audio which is good - but not hifi.

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Sep 9, 2005
    #7
  8. Imhotep

    Unruh Guest

    Jim Watt <_way> writes:

    >On 9 Sep 2005 15:01:46 GMT, Unruh <> wrote:


    >>Note that children can hear up to about 25KHz. The reason women and kids
    >>find TVs so annoying is that most are designed by male engineers who are
    >>completely deaf above about 10KHz, and cannot hear the flyback transformer,
    >>which on much consumer junk shrieks loudly. Were it 60Hz humm the sets
    >>would never never have been designed that way, but at 15-17KHz, its "What
    >>humm?"


    >15.625Khz for European systems. I used to find it annoying but either


    Just ask your wife and kids. It is you.

    >the sets are better designed today or noisy discos and time have taken
    >their toll. point taken about the aliasing, but filters are good these
    >days. Live concerts from BBC Radio 3 sound very agreeable thanks
    >to digital technology, but the footprint does not extend to .ca and
    >their website only averages a sample rate of 32kbps in total for
    >stereo in Real Audio which is good - but not hifi.


    The ear is astonishingly accomodating. Ie it will take really crappy sound
    ( factors of 100 difference in sound levels at verious frequencies and
    horrible frequency bandwidth-- ie most portable radios) and deliver what
    seems to be quite reasonable sound. It is the ear doing most of the work.
    Of course if you compare it to the original, suddenly the deficiencies
    become obvious. The ear is a really really amazing instrument.


    >--
    >Jim Watt
    >http://www.gibnet.com
    Unruh, Sep 10, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    NGO NVIDIA Optimized Driver v1.8426 @ NGOHQ

    Silverstrand, Apr 9, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    658
    Silverstrand
    Apr 9, 2006
  2. pcbutts1

    Re: AOL Optimized PC ???

    pcbutts1, Jul 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    658
    pcbutts1
    Jul 27, 2005
  3. Silverstrand

    NGO NVIDIA Optimized Driver v1.8456 (x32/x64) @ NGOHQ

    Silverstrand, Apr 29, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,018
    Silverstrand
    Apr 29, 2006
  4. Silverstrand

    NGO NVIDIA Optimized Driver v1.8466 @ NGOHQ

    Silverstrand, May 26, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    875
    Silverstrand
    May 26, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    668
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page