Audible watermarking (intentional degradation) in music downloads and streams

[rcarlberg]

I had the understand that was the whole point why everyone went to lossless file technology, because there was something about the encoding of mp3's (at least 2000) that caused that sort of "swishing" effect. I always had the impression that's what i was hearing on that one particular Grateful Dead mp3.

The audio artifacts from poor / low-res compression and/or overzealous noise reduction is not a swishing noise. It's more like bells ringing in the background, or bacon frying through a flanger. I tried to find a YouTube video demonstrating this but didn't find what I was looking for.

[Azol]

By the way, I took the audio test at http://mattmontag.com/audio-listening-test/
Here is my result:

Audio Watermark Listening Test
Results
You scored 12 out of 16 correct.

[Santana - Every Day I Have The Blues] correct
[XXYYXX - Fields] correct
[Shakey Graves - Unlucky Skin] incorrect
[Bored With Four - Powerless Together] correct
[Kettel - Jongebeer] correct
[Debussy - Arabesque] incorrect
[Pink Floyd - The Great Gig In The Sky] correct
[Ravel - Daphnis et Chloe] correct
[Lady Gaga - Just Dance] correct
[Debussy - The Engulfed Cathedral] correct
[Builders - Synthetic Flight] correct
[Electric Light Orchestra - 10538 Overture] correct
[Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit] incorrect
[Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata] correct
[Drake - Take Care] incorrect
[Shirley Bassey - Diamonds Are Forever] correct

So you can see it's easier to detect this watermarking in classical music. I was just using "regular" headphones without bothering to get my HD580.

[undergroundrailroad]

I'm so thankful to the OP for bringing up this watermarking issue. I've heard it before but just thought it was a bit rate issue or some gimpy audio conversion program being used. And yes, I've noticed it most with Universal releases.

I use Rhapsody to listen to music a lot. Especially classical. This watermarking is almost unbearable for me in solo piano music. They don't seem to be doing it to all releases though. In the instance of a recording that's been released multiple times, say something by Vladimir Ashkenazy or another well-known musician, it's easy to listen to different masterings to hear where the watermarking has and has not been done. I think they actually may have let up on the practice somewhat, since I often hear it in original releases but not in remasters.

[Azol]

Now it makes me wonder if that practice of "watermarking" has already been committed to the physical CD releases. I mean, Decca and DGG releases are pretty much what you have on your CD shelves if you are into classical music. And I wonder if someone is going to file a case against this.

[rob martino]

Now it makes me wonder if that practice of "watermarking" has already been committed to the physical CD releases. I mean, Decca and DGG releases are pretty much what you have on your CD shelves if you are into classical music. And I wonder if someone is going to file a case against this.

Fortunately, I don't think that is the case based on several user experiences I've read about. There is a Mozart opera cycle conducted by John Eliot Gardiner on Spotify I was listening to (until the watermarking drove me crazy), when I went to the Deutsche Grammophon website to hear the samples there I didn't hear it (it WAS on the iTunes streaming samples and one test track I purchased). I plan on buying the CDs soon and will report back to confirm.

[GuitarGeek]

At 320, most people won't notice the difference between the MP3 and lossless. But, from what I understand, most people are downloading lower bit rates. Another factor is that the MP3 players and headphones are more forgiving to the lossy than higher-end equipment.

Ah, that's probably why I don't hear the difference. I've always been so busy buying music to listen to, I've never had the money to buy "higher end" stereo equipment. (shrug) Plus I've damaged my hearing from various forms of loud music listening (sitting in front of the stage left PA stack at the Coventry Street Fair one time back in the 80's probably didn't help matters).

At what bitrate does the difference become noticeable? Or is it different for everyone? The Rolling Stones mp3's I got off Amazon were mostly 192, I believe, and those sounded fine to my ears (certainly better than my old Hot Rocks 8 track).

[ronmac]

Ah, that's probably why I don't hear the difference. I've always been so busy buying music to listen to, I've never had the money to buy "higher end" stereo equipment. (shrug) Plus I've damaged my hearing from various forms of loud music listening (sitting in front of the stage left PA stack at the Coventry Street Fair one time back in the 80's probably didn't help matters).

At what bitrate does the difference become noticeable? Or is it different for everyone? The Rolling Stones mp3's I got off Amazon were mostly 192, I believe, and those sounded fine to my ears (certainly better than my old Hot Rocks 8 track).

Actually, I knew I should have edited my reply. I wasn't actually referring to high-end equipment. Really, any decent stereo or car stereo would make the difference noticeable. I have no high-end equipment and, in my car, especially, it's very noticeable when played loud.

YMMV, but I clearly hear the difference at the low 192 rate.

[rob martino]

For me, 256K MP3 and 192K AAC are indistinguishable from a CD (or even SACD) on music studio monitors- a pretty good (but not high-end) setup. There's a lot of psychological and subjective aspects to "sound quality" and personally I think the difference between high bit-rate compressed data and super high resolution music like SACD is quite small in the grand scheme of things (the production stages - recording equipment, mixing, mastering are 98-99% of the sound quality). But I'd say this particular watermarking algorithm easily reduces the quality of some music by at least 20% (to be super scientific about it!), it's that noticeable- and some people are paying a premium price to get a FLAC/high resolution album with that crud on it! So this is definitely an area I think people should be more informed about if they are investing money to support artists and build a quality music collection. The short term solution is (obviously) to buy the CD.

[B D]

I've never even seen I-Tunes, never downloaded anything from any commercial downloading service. Is this watermarking something that's actually going on now, or is it some sort of proposal? It sounds like a low-rent, cheesy chorus effect. Terrible, ridiculous!

Listened on a laptop with generic headphones:
(The ELO sample wouldn't play, so I just had to select A or B to finish the test without hearing it. I'm sure I would have gotten that right too:)

[Santana - Every Day I Have The Blues] correct
[Pink Floyd - The Great Gig In The Sky] correct
[XXYYXX - Fields] correct
[Builders - Synthetic Flight] correct
[Debussy - The Engulfed Cathedral] correct
[Debussy - Arabesque] correct
[Kettel - Jongebeer] correct
[Drake - Take Care] correct
[Shakey Graves - Unlucky Skin] correct
[Ravel - Daphnis et Chloe] correct
[Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit] correct
[Lady Gaga - Just Dance] correct
[Bored With Four - Powerless Together] correct
[Electric Light Orchestra - 10538 Overture] incorrect
[Shirley Bassey - Diamonds Are Forever] correct
[Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata] correct

[Shadow]

Were those watermarked in some way?

[klothos]

Certainly with mp3's, I do notice a sound quality with lower bitrates, say 90 or whatever. I remember back in the early Napster era, I was downloading out of print albums and bootlegs from there. One that I downloaded, I think, was one of the Ozric Tentalces albums, one of the original self released cassette only releases, which I believe was mostly unavailable at the time (this being before the second set of CD reissues).

Anyhow, there were two different versions, I can't remember what the bitrates were (either 60 and 90, or it could have even been 90 and 128), but I did notice the one with the higher bitrate had noticeably better sound quality. I suppose it was like the difference between recording an album onto a cheap low budget, normal bias cassette, and using a good high bias tape like Maxell XL's or whatever.

But this is just common sense: a bit rate just means x-amount of information is passed at any given point. The higher the bitrate, the more data for that point. There is more information and, therefore, better sound quality.

Its similar to sampling:
An audio sample takes an analog source. Another waveform (the "carrier") is overlayed across the source. At every point that the carrier waveform intersects the source waveform, a point is marked with digital data about the source. The higher the carrier waveform, the more source points there are available to work with. So, a 44.1 Khz carrier wave will give more information about a source than a 28Khz carrier will and, therefore, have better audio quality.

BitRates, of course, dont work like that but the point is: finding the minimal amount of the most information to be at the CD quality threshhold. A 44.1 Khz Carrier Wave in audio sampling is considered the minimal carrier wave to make enough source points for CD Quality audio. There are higher rates to be used (48Khz and 96 Khz are two other industry standards) but 44.1 Khz is the minimum

For me, 256K MP3 and 192K AAC are indistinguishable from a CD

128 Bit Rate is considered "CD Quality" on all my audio mastering tools (including Sound Forge) for MP3 the same way 44.1 Khz is considered CD quality for audio sampling and wav files.....For the record: I don't think 128 Bit Rate MP3 is CD quality and I have no idea who came up with that figure and why....Im with you: 256 or higher for MP3

[rob martino]

I've never even seen I-Tunes, never downloaded anything from any commercial downloading service. Is this watermarking something that's actually going on now, or is it some sort of proposal? It sounds like a low-rent, cheesy chorus effect. Terrible, ridiculous!

It's been going on since around 2007 I believe, when it was reported that Universal would be using watermarking after major labels decided to drop DRM copy protection on services like iTunes. Which is why I'm surprised there has been relatively little uproar about it in the music industry, say compared to brickwall limiting.

[Godbluffer]

I'll open my comment with my watermark test score:


"Results
You scored 16 out of 16 correct.
[Electric Light Orchestra - 10538 Overture] correct
[Shakey Graves - Unlucky Skin] correct
[Debussy - Arabesque] correct
[Debussy - The Engulfed Cathedral] correct
[Drake - Take Care] correct
[Lady Gaga - Just Dance] correct
[Kettel - Jongebeer] correct
[Builders - Synthetic Flight] correct
[Santana - Every Day I Have The Blues] correct
[Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata] correct
[XXYYXX - Fields] correct
[Pink Floyd - The Great Gig In The Sky] correct
[Ravel - Daphnis et Chloe] correct
[Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit] correct
[Bored With Four - Powerless Together] correct
[Shirley Bassey - Diamonds Are Forever] correct
Thanks for taking the audio watermark listening test!"

I'll continue by first stating that I noticed this phenomenon on - mostly - classical, older catalogue titles from - again, mostly - Universal on Tidal and - to a lesser degree - Spotify. Up until now, I had mistakenly assumed that this was merely some artifact of faulty ripping, but I'm seriously pissed off at finding out that this has been done deliberately, and I think the labels that do this are basically selling defective goods, and should be called out on it. Interestingly enough, though, newer titles - ones you'd expect those labels to want to make more profits from through sales on physical media - are NOT affected by this issue, so it seems like it's the consequence of a policy that has now been abandoned, but which has left streaming listeners with a significant amount of affected recordings those same labels now seem reluctant to replace because so many titles are affected and it would therefore take a painstaking, time-consuming effort to right all the wrongs...

[PeterG]

The more people will learn about this "practice" the better. Spread the word. Or soon you will face audio watermarking during live performances right in the club or concert hall:

Audio Watermarking for Live Performance
http://www.research.ibm.com/trl/proj..._EI03Paper.pdf

WTF!!!! Outrageous!

[JKL2000]

Easy answer, don't buy downloads.

Stick to CDs.

Stick to "illegal" downloads!

[Godbluffer]

I'm in the process of compiling playlists of affected titles on Tidal and on Spotify based on my favorite classical recordings. I can already give away that the Tidal playlist will be *considerably* longer, and it contains many famous recordings.

[Godbluffer]

Well, the end score difference between my two playlists says it all:

Spotify: 6 items (for each item a non-watermarked alternative exists on Spotify, except for Kleiber's Beethoven Symphony No. 7)
Tidal: a whopping 44 watermarked items that range from annoying-sounding to downright horrendous (all titles have been double-checked with Spotify, so if that same title doesn't show up on my Spotify list, you can be sure it sounds fine there)

I listed just one track per album, but when one track is affected, the rest of the album is, too (meaning the 9-CD set of Sir Charles Mackerras' legendary Janacek opera recordings is all screwed up on Tidal, for example).

Here are the lists, for your (dis-)pleasure :

Spotify
Tidal

The good news is that I noticed that a handful of items that I recall with certainty were watermarked before on Tidal have now been corrected, so there seems to be some progress, but I'm afraid I'm going to cancel my Tidal subscription in spite of that minor positive. It just isn't worth the extra dough!

[zombywoof]

This is one of the main reasons why I buy CDs - control over the format you paid for.

[pb2015]

Sadly a lot of John Coltrane's Impulse catalog on Spotify has this issue.

[ronmac]

This is one of the main reasons why I buy CDs - control over the format you paid for.

And, a hard-copy back-up.

[Brad to the Bone]

Audio Watermarking for Live Performance

Proves how far ahead of his time Keith Jarrett was. He's been "watermarking" his performances for 50 years!