Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: "Scary" news for audiophiles? (Read 4621 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

http://www.dataplay.com

http://www.dataplay.com/jsp_files/en/news/index.jsp

The most informative (single) article is probably this one, although it takes a lot more reading to really get the big picture:

http://www.bcbr.com/display.phtml?VI=P2110...on=News&Page=33

Apparently the record companies are gonna try & transition away from the CD, to *this* crap.  Encoded at 192kbps (which they're predictably calling "CD quality") using lord-knows-what proprietary codec and (of course) heavy DRM.

Thank goodness I don't go for much newer music anymore.

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

Reply #1 –
> "Our technology works on the source code and it cloaks that source code so > that the hacker can't find out what's going on," said Cloakware's Steve
> Langford.

Sorry, but that sounds like total nonsense to me. ;-)

How can they even think a 192kbit lossy format can replace Audio CD? Hehe, very funny.

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

Reply #2 –
Cloaking source code? So it does compile everytime it runs? ROTFL!!!

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

Reply #4 –
Quote
Originally posted by fewtch
P.S... don't forget that the "cracking" of CSS was entirely accidental.


Yes, but the encryption is weak, to comply with the American cryptography exporting laws. (48bits, IIRC)

So, nothing that a good round of cryptoanalysis wouldn't break.

Regards;

Roberto.

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

Reply #5 –
Encryption doesn't concern me so much as the possibility (from what I can determine, not that likely but not remote either) that this format could eventually supplant the compact disc.

The "average listener" won't mind some lossy codec at 192kbps, they probably wouldn't notice any difference between that and a CD.  But what about the rest of us?

Believe me, the record companies won't mind sacrificing sound quality in order to get "control" back of their copyrights, as long as the large majority of CD buyers don't mind.

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

Reply #6 –
Have they lost their wits :confused:

I can't see the advantage of using this over Sony's Minidisc, the minidisc is even erasable and unprotected.... so what's the point in this new format ?

Multimedia ? Look at CD-I ! You don't know what it is ? It was the same thing on CD, and people were so indifferent about having the three pictures of the sleeve viewed on TV at a lower quality, and the text of the sleeve visible on computer, that nobody remember the name itself of that born dead standard.

I don't understand... how do they expect it to overcome both SACD, DVD, and MP3 players, while it doesn't even offers what minidisc already offers ?

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Originally posted by Pio2001
Have they lost their wits :confused: 

I can't see the advantage of using this over Sony's Minidisc, the minidisc is even erasable and unprotected.... so what's the point in this new format ?

Strong copy protection, a feeling of total control... what else could a record company executive ever want?
Quote
I don't understand... how do they expect it to overcome both SACD, DVD, and MP3 players, while it doesn't even offers what minidisc already offers ?

Marketing, marketing, marketing.  Plus, I'm sure they're counting on the "gee whiz" factor of a disc the size of a U.S. quarter.

I think it probably won't overtake the other formats, but anything's possible if somebody throws enough money at it.
 

"Scary" news for audiophiles?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Originally posted by fewtch
anything's possible if somebody throws enough money at it.


I won't :rant: