I became very cautious buying any music related to Universal so i checked before buying.
Lately i did buy a Frank Sinatra at qobuz that sounds not really good, like worn tape and i still believe it is the tremolo of the watermark Universal uses.
Link: Sinatras "Strangers In The Night" Studio Master (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,89818.msg913427.html#msg913427)
"I still have the Email where qobuz denied any watermarking on its files when i contacted their support"
Unfortunately till today i had no chance to counter check with another release.
Recenty Mr. Mike Oldfield did an overhaul of his 1984 Discovery.
I did buy "To France" as 16/44.1 track at qobuz to check if it is any better sounding as my older CD version.
I was not convinced and had some sparetime to play so i got me the "Studio Master" 24/96 of the same song.
Downsampled with SoX this gives a pretty interesting delta file.
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=111197.0;attach=9504)
If that isn't the Universal watermark in action what is?
I remind on Matt Montags Universal's Audible Watermark (http://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark)
I uploaded a delta sample here: Upload Forum (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=111197.new#new)
Besides that the 44.1 version must have been butchered thru a really weird resampling routine as you can see in the delta.
The hefty pattern in the HF spectrum is not dither but a very early roll-off and aliasing in the qobuz 44.1 version against my SoX resample.
Since i have only these 2 versions i am not to sure in what samplerate file the watermark is?
I guess my reasoning is correct and please tell me if i am wrong.
Still a bit baffled what to think of that all...
Purchasing music should be straight and with best quality in mind. Making it a gamble on purpose is really annoying.
It's a terrible practice. According to the EFF in 2008 (https://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2008/1/11-0) Sony also engages in watermarking.
I will order the new CD version of Discovery today only to have a look what things they do to the different versions :)
It is really absurd how they treat us customers.
People trying to build systems that have noisefloors near the atomic level but the label adds noise only a few dB below the hood to fight the piracy that supposedly makes them starve.
Here in germany we had open discussions about closing www content for child abuse, terror and alike but the consensus was to not block this and fight the sources more in favour of an open net.
Guess who enforces www locks first now? Exactly!
I have some Oldfield. The CDs have pre-emphasis. They are old but maybe they still come that way.
I would not be surprised if Amazon mp3s are watermarked.
I received my CD and i have to say i am confused :-\
No matter what of these 3 versions i create deltas of i see the watermark as leftover.
This means the watermark in each version must be different or simple deltas don't do it.
The CD version has the same frequency response as the 44.1 qobuz download but a lower peak level that in my theory means the watermark was added to the download.
What program can see that? For now I have only 'Spek'. Googling's not helpful.
I wish I could check my Qobuz downloads too.
I am not aware of any program that can detect it directly. A foobar plugin would be nice.
My only idea is these delta files. Not to much feedback here also.
Without multiple files you can only listen for the little vermin breathing inside.
I am not to familar with the sound yet because i have mostly CDs and older music but some people claim over time you learn to hear it and then it is the pest. Maybe worse as any modern lossy codec.
My CD compresses slightly better as the download files btw. another hint to the watermark bonus! In that case both qobuz versions are watermarked.
You get a High Resolution watermark in a Studio Master, yummy!
The hefty roll-off for 44.1 resampling on CD and download is a joke also. Maybe needed to simulate some HiBit superiority.
Edit: When i visit universalmusicclassics i see ECM, DECCA, Deutsche Gramophon and Mercury. Ouch...
DONE!
The To France 1984 Suite version of the Bonus CD and the stereo capture of the bonus DVD of the same song nulls roughly in Audio Diffmaker.
I spent another 1,68€ and got that track from qobuz also qobuz link (http://www.qobuz.com/de-de/album/discovery-mike-oldfield/0060254747781)
The download shows a fat ugly watermark shaped vermin against the DVD and the CD.
I am sure now both versions from qobuz are watermarked. The CDs are clean but badly resampled by technical means. Hard to justify any further purchsases.
Whenever qobuz carefully worded says they don't add watermarks they don't even lie because if the label already delivers it with watermark the wording is right.
In my case i have an Email that is worded "our files are not watermarked"
Whenever qobuz carefully worded says they don't add watermarks they don't even lie because if the label already delivers it with watermark the wording is right.
I thought the whole idea of watermaking was that each individual copy could be uniquely identified. If so then watermarks delivered by label mean nothing. Or at least I don't the any point in it. Unless they want to identify the userbase which is more likely to leak the downloads (by then suspending the reseller)
I thought the whole idea of watermaking was that each individual copy could be uniquely identified. If so then watermarks delivered by label mean nothing. Or at least I don't the any point in it. Unless they want to identify the userbase which is more likely to leak the downloads (by then suspending the reseller)
This, too, puzzles me.
Whenever qobuz carefully worded says they don't add watermarks they don't even lie because if the label already delivers it with watermark the wording is right.
I thought the whole idea of watermaking was that each individual copy could be uniquely identified. If so then watermarks delivered by label mean nothing. Or at least I don't the any point in it. Unless they want to identify the userbase which is more likely to leak the downloads (by then suspending the reseller)
This is technically possible but in practice is not being (widely) used at this point. Or at least that is what the labels claim. What is publicly claimed is that "wholesale" digital files are watermarked to help with the ongoing process of researching the sources and destinations of pirated copies. Tracking is only back to the level of the pressing or stream source but not to an individual purchase. This information will presumably be used to leverage more fees out of some or all retailers, to justify more draconian watermarking in the future, or perhaps to support existing legal actions.
So qobuz gets a mangled master and sells exactly the same mangled file to all its customers. They can claim not to be altering the music they sell in any way. I suppose they might even claim not to know that the files have been watermarked, although it seems a stretch that they would be so naive.
IIRC (and it's a decade since I looked) there are research papers that suggest how to remove such watermarks. There is also a Verance patent which describes how the watermark works (though, again IIRC, what's in the actual product is a small part of the patent, which is much broader).
While I think the discussion of cracking copy protection is against the rules here, I am not sure about these watermarks. The main reason to remove them would be as a kind of audio restoration, to remove the annoying artefact. A detector would be useful for concretely identifying which downloads to avoid, when there's no "clean" CD reference to prove the point.
What do the moderators think? Can we discuss such things?
Cheers,
David.
I doubt it can be removed because even the two watermarks in my sample seems to be totaly different and are seen sharply shaped against each other.
The page of Matt Montag i linked to in my first post goes pretty deep into details already.
He also did a Matlab script to smoth out the effect.
The interesting quote of Montag is "This coding scheme allows blind detection (without access to the original file)"
A simple foobar detector plugin may not be fiction then.
What do the moderators think?
That is above our pay grade. An administrator will have to weigh-in.
As much as I despise the idea that they create an audible degradation, we have not been exactly flexible with TOS9.
Another idea to the watermark conspiracy theory and unfortunately Mr. Oldfield again.
The new 2016 remaster of The Killing Fields soundtrack may be another milestone in how to break it.
In the loudnes database the download version is much louder on some songs as the CD but not all: Loudnes Database (http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Mike+Oldfield&album=killing+fields)
The music of this soundtrack is silent chorus or even solo violin in some places. The songs with very silent peaks are much louder in the download version. I can't verify how valid the entries are.
Can it be these are only made louder to have enough headroom to hide the watermark? How far do they go if it is like that? Changing the relation underneeth the songs and changing the albums original flow only to force the watermark in?
Any volunteer to check it? I won't spend another Cent to verify this and i am still baffled...
I've raised the point to the admins.
We have yet to receive any response, so I humbly suggest that we don't advocate discussion surrounding the circumvention of watermarking.
I am not a lawyer however.
If you're like me, you also don't have a financial stake in the matter.
I guess we don't have to go that far. I still hope with making this thing more public the resellers get enough complaints to stop this nonsense. My intension is trying to avoid any purchase with a watermark in. At least i will ask for a refund for every single track with one i got from qobuz so far.
For this a simple way of detecting is most important.
A detector player plugin won't bypass or modify anything.
I hope we find someone capable of doing it here.
Besides that the 44.1 version must have been butchered thru a really weird resampling routine as you can see in the delta.
Hi Wombat,
Doesn't it look like a lossy file ? This is exactly the kind of lowpass that we can see in mp3. Do these files have any information above 16 kHz ? If they do, they are just from a lossy source. If they don't, we can't tell.
Hello Pio2001! Long time not seen here.
No, mp3 behaves completely different. qobuz did sell me mp3 as lossless before, not these. I should know how a mp3 looks like.
Here is 1 sec. roughly selected at ~45.5 to ~46.5 of my SoX resample against the 44.1 download/CD
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=111197.0;attach=9569;image)
To keep it On Topic and to have a screeny of mp3 here is another "Mike Oldfield at qobuz" pearl.
I purchased a single track in "16bit CD quality" lossless last year and it was 100% mp3. Mike Oldfield - Lakme @ qobuz (http://www.qobuz.com/de-de/album/lakme-mike-oldfield/0060249874975?qref=dpa)
Today i re-downloaded only to see nothing changed.
Isn't it crazy? If this was a story somebody told me i wouldn't believe it :o
How high is the chance i hit a nerve with my few purchases? What else could be found there?
Mr. Mike Oldfield if you can read this please excuse me. None of these posts are meant to discredit any note of your brilliant work!
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=111197.0;attach=9571;image)
Instead of the delta file, can you post some 30 seconds clips from the files you mentioned in this thread as well? So that all of us can examine them.
I bought a "lossless" album from them too when I heard people recommend it. I picked an album I had on CD so I ccould reliably confirm if it's properly lossless. It turned out to be lowpassed and the tracks even had silence between them when the transitions should have been gapless. I didn't know to check for watermarks.
Whenever qobuz carefully worded says they don't add watermarks they don't even lie because if the label already delivers it with watermark the wording is right.
I thought the whole idea of watermaking was that each individual copy could be uniquely identified. If so then watermarks delivered by label mean nothing. Or at least I don't the any point in it. Unless they want to identify the userbase which is more likely to leak the downloads (by then suspending the reseller)
This is technically possible but in practice is not being (widely) used at this point. Or at least that is what the labels claim. What is publicly claimed is that "wholesale" digital files are watermarked to help with the ongoing process of researching the sources and destinations of pirated copies. Tracking is only back to the level of the pressing or stream source but not to an individual purchase. This information will presumably be used to leverage more fees out of some or all retailers, to justify more draconian watermarking in the future, or perhaps to support existing legal actions.
So qobuz gets a mangled master and sells exactly the same mangled file to all its customers. They can claim not to be altering the music they sell in any way. I suppose they might even claim not to know that the files have been watermarked, although it seems a stretch that they would be so naive.
Unique watermark does exist, and it happened to me. I can tell the story here...
Several years ago my sister listened to the radio and knew about a music competition. A pop singer provided his voice without background music and the participants needed to compose and arrange the music for his A cappella. My sister urged me to join the competition. After I submitted my application I got a link of the voice data as show in the screenshot.
I bought a "lossless" album from them too when I heard people recommend it. I picked an album I had on CD so I ccould reliably confirm if it's properly lossless. It turned out to be lowpassed and the tracks even had silence between them when the transitions should have been gapless. I didn't know to check for watermarks.
I think everyone who suspected they have watermarked files should upload some samples. It can arouse public attention and someone with relevant skills can have more data to analyze and eventually some sort of reliable detectors will appear.
I am afraid that watermarking is a pretty universal strategy among music download sellers.
I read the book 'The mp3 story' recently written by a Fraunhofer Institut insider. From that I took that watermarking is the technology which overcame copy protected downloads which mean strong restrictions for playback. Guess that's the price we have to pay.
As long as it's really inaudible (or very very close to) it's an acceptable price to me (especially as I do lossy codec download - iTunes AAC most of the time). For lossless codecs it's a different beast of course.
I bought a "lossless" album from them too when I heard people recommend it. I picked an album I had on CD so I ccould reliably confirm if it's properly lossless. It turned out to be lowpassed and the tracks even had silence between them when the transitions should have been gapless. I didn't know to check for watermarks.
I heard about something similar but not sure it was on qpbuz. The watermarked 24/44.1 Studio Master has broken gaps while the 16/44.1 cd hasn't. I will try to ask if we get it online.
Instead of the delta file, can you post some 30 seconds clips from the files you mentioned in this thread as well? So that all of us can examine them.
I am not 100% sure how legal 30sec samples are.
Here in germany it costs license fees even for 4 beats or as soon a song can be recognized.
We had more than 5 Million sued people for music copyright things here in the last years and this is a big business assisted by our lawgivers.
I am afraid that watermarking is a pretty universal strategy among music download sellers.
I read the book 'The mp3 story' recently written by a Fraunhofer Institut insider. From that I took that watermarking is the technology which overcame copy protected downloads which mean strong restrictions for playback. Guess that's the price we have to pay.
As long as it's really inaudible (or very very close to) it's an acceptable price to me (especially as I do lossy codec download - iTunes AAC most of the time). For lossless codecs it's a different beast of course.
I am afraid i see this completely different. A lossless file should be lossless leave alone something sold me as Studio Master.
Do you really want to look for non watermarked for every purchase? I will always prefer the non watermarked.
Seems like there are albums sold on HDtracks with watermark in where the CD and the qobuz version has none. What version do you prefer?
Imagine the theory about The Killing Fields album is correct and they compressed the hell out of silent parts only to fit the watermark in.
If the seller say it is "lossless" and they embed watermark into it, then it is already not "lossless" by definition. If the watermark is really there and the seller denies, then it is a fraud. Also, if a watermark with personal information is decrypted by some malicious parties (let's say, if someone stole your files and share them in public), the buyer can get troubles including spams, phishing and so on. I think these points are enough for a lawsuit.
Therefore if someone is capable of making a detector and have passion to save the consumers, please help us. The rest of us can do is maybe, to spread the message and arouse public awareness.
... I will always prefer the non watermarked. ...
No doubt, so do I.
But they don't ask us. Sure downloading watermarked 'lossless' music isn't attractive.
What I wonder: if it's true what I think that watermarking is pretty universal anti-piracy strategy: what about CDs? Copy protection is given up here too. Do we have to fear watermarked CD music? Never heard about it, but it would be in line.
Exactly thats why we need a detector plugin :)
Do we have to fear watermarked CD music? Never heard about it, but it would be in line.
If I understand the technology correctly, we can have watermarked vinyls as well.
I still hope the situation is better for CDs or vinyl. I can't imagine they can contain CD- resp. vinyl-individual information. But I don't really know, I guess without individual information watermarking doesn't make sense for the music industry.
Just did some research. On the Fraunhofer page on watermarking (https://www.sit.fraunhofer.de/de/angebote/projekte/wasserzeichen/audio-wasserzeichen/) they are only talking about watermarked CDs when CD production is done with the Rimage CD copy station.
So standard CDs or vinyls should be fine.
Also with individual watermarking the AccurateRip mechanism wouldn't work.
I guess buying physical media from a physical shop is safer in this era, at least personalized watermarks don't work. If you see the screenshot from my previous post, the red text actually means personal data leakage is none of their business and they can even use this as an evidence to sue you for sharing the files. I guess the company treated me as an "artist" rather than a consumer at that point.
Also, in the music industry, if someone tell you it is audible, then it is supposed to be inaudible (like hi-res), and if something is audible (like watermark) they will tell you it is inaudible. I didn't know about audio watermarking until that time, when I saw the word "inaudible" I immediately googled about the watermarking technology and of course, one of the results is from HA.
To keep it On Topic and to have a screeny of mp3 here is another "Mike Oldfield at qobuz" pearl.
I purchased a single track in "16bit CD quality" lossless last year and it was 100% mp3. Mike Oldfield - Lakme @ qobuz (http://www.qobuz.com/de-de/album/lakme-mike-oldfield/0060249874975?qref=dpa)
Today i re-downloaded only to see nothing changed.
For completeness i have a screeny of the real lossless file added. https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111197.msg916593.html#msg916593
I hope somebody has already an idea how to realize the detector plugin. I bet there are more marked files as we think.
To bump that affliction i have another one.
Almost one year before i got the qualified answer from qobuz "our files are not watermarked" i purchased "Ben Howard - I Forget Where We Were" as 24/48, so called Studio Master at them.
Now i was able to do a delta with audio diffmaker to the CD and i see the attached picture.
I have no 3rd source to counter check but i am pretty sure it fits the pattern.
I still hope to motivate some talented person to program us a detector :)
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=111197.0;attach=10045)
If someone else would purchase the same title as you have, and exchange and compare - but who will support such a vendor with a fistful of dollars, "even in the name of science"? ;-)
I am pretty sure the blu-ray version and its 48kHz content is free of the watermark. I for sure won't spend one more cent but when i knew before i never would have bought that download but the blu-ray.
I am sure the watermarks are not personalized but if someone is interested to verify just waste some money and compare.
My qobuz watermarked purchases from this thread for Mike Oldfield - Discovery (Deluxe Edition)
24/96
01-01-Mike_Oldfield-To_France-SMR.flac
Audio MD5 7F281CFE11BC17275D201D39D3680E9F
16/44.1
01-01-Mike_Oldfield-To_France-LLS.flac
Audio MD5 3DCA97C8AE8A57C560E6FC8C20CFCFA8
24/96
01-01-Mike_Oldfield-To_France-SMR.flac
Audio MD5 7F281CFE11BC17275D201D39D3680E9F
I bought the track and the audio MD5 of my track is the same as yours.
Many thanks for your effort! You can be sure now to listen a watermarked file in High Resolution.
Good morning all,
Thanks to the admin to have me activate my account;)
Very interesting this post One thing caught me. How does an audio file scan, can contain the information on the album?
Apart from the title and the name of the file, the rest is stored somewhere (the photo of the album, the year, artist etc)
Is all this information encoded in the audio system?
How does the 'dac' retrieve and manage to display the information of the album?
I would like to raise this mystery
Thk you
That is what is called tagging
In the header of the audio file all kind of information can be stored.
The media player strips all this stuff, decode e.g. MP3 to raw PCM and send PCM to the DAC using a protocol like SPDIF, UAC1/2 etc
And that is definitely not how watermarking works.
Thank you for your answers Like's + +
Good evening to you both ;)
The type of watermark being discussed is data mixed with the audio. Other than potentially annoying people who can hear it, has it actually achieved its purpose in combating illegal distribution?
I did read more than once people talking about watermarks failed and are not in use anymore.
Here is a very recent example of a DECCA release. It is the latest Melody Gardot. DECCA is a part of Universal.
It may be a newer version of the mark with a slightly different, lower in frequency distribution.
Why do they even bother, if the watermarks aren't even identifying down to the individual user who downloaded them? Who cares if someone bought tracks from $site and widely redistributed them? What are they going to do, punish that site?
Why do they even bother, if the watermarks aren't even identifying down to the individual user who downloaded them? Who cares if someone bought tracks from $site and widely redistributed them? What are they going to do, punish that site?
Look at the e-mail address tag and look at the owner tag or whatever else someone forgets to remove... Oh wait, punish the store! My guess is to do research and see where the individuals who are uploading it are buying it from and in what format. Or maybe some record companies are just trolling at this point and watching the reactions from people while sipping coffee from their Reese's coffee cup while saying "excellent" Mr. Burns style?
Why do they even bother, if the watermarks aren't even identifying down to the individual user who downloaded them?
* Research. They would like to know whether files sold are disproportionally more often uploaded than CDs.
* If the end-user
believes it is watermarked to individual level ...
Had to resurrect this thread because qobuz still knows how to treat customers.
Here at the Steve Hofman forums they found the watermark may be region based.
Germany or europe seems to be strong with watermarking.
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/region-based-drm-watermarks-by-universal-music.1159186/
Very interesting is the watermark they added to the 2022 Beatles Revolver Remix. It creates garbage the DR meter interprets as higher DR.
DR7 + Watermark = DR8 :)
What's the point of a fingerprint if everyone's got the same? :P
(Qobuz refused my credit card back then six years ago.)