Keith and Mike,
I agree. It was a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea to include audible watermarking, when metadata watermarking would have sufficed IMO. Even if (as implemented) it turns out to be completely inaudible, the stigma will always be there.
Yes, the Sharp's have proprietary digital...
Keith,
I don't know on DTS and Capitol. My source at DTS never answered the question.
I have yet to hear copy protection in a recording reputed to have it... maybe my ears are batty, maybe my brain filters it out.
I have no doubts the watermark can be audible, assuming worst case / most...
Keith,
It's the big boys that haven't released too much content with 24/96K -- and they're the ones most likely to block the copy.
The small guys (Chesky and Classic Records) have no issues because they are well aware that a digital copy or two floating around might actually increase sales...
Bob,
No one is discussing how to defeat the COPY_INHIBIT flag. So far I've stated that it wouldn't be impossible for a manufacturer to ignore that flag. How does that even remotely resemble hacking?
Regards,
Eric,
It plays correctly assuming you always use DACs internal to the player.
At issue is the transfer of the 24/96K signal between the player and a receiver (or processor). To always pass a 24/96K signal, you have to find a player which ignores the Copy_Inhibit flag.
Regards,
Mike,
Copy_Inhibit is (I think) the flag that blocks digital transmission of 24/96K, I'd have to study the flags to be sure of its name.
It doesn't matter what YOUR intentions are, the content providers are a bit beyond paranoid. We are now assumed guilty, ie we're going to copy, whether we...
Mike,
Your beef is really with the content providers.
Ignoring the Copy_Inhibit flag is a quick way to get your butt into the courts :frowning:
Most of the newer players will now transfer the 24/96K signal as long as the content provider permits it.
The 24/96K DADs (not DVD-Audio discs)...