Searching \ for '[OT] New Digital Audio specs? SDMI? MP3?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/audio.htm?key=audio
Search entire site for: 'New Digital Audio specs? SDMI? MP3?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] New Digital Audio specs? SDMI? MP3?'
1999\08\31@085812 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
Just received from Texas Instruments,
what a heck is this SDMI specification?
anybody knows something about it?


DSP Solutions:
--------------
SANYO Announces First SDMI-Compliant Secure, Portable Digital Music
Player Based on Liquid Audio Software and Texas Instruments Digital
Signal Processors

REDWOOD CITY, CA. (August 23, 1999) -- Liquid Audio, Inc.
(Nasdaq: LQID) and Texas Instruments (NYSE:TXN) today
announced that SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. will deliver a
secure, portable digital music player based on Liquid
Audio software and TI's programmable Digital Signal
Processors (DSPs). The new portable device will meet the
newly-released Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI)
guidelines for portable consumer devices, and playback
secure digital music files that are downloaded from the
Internet via a PC onto flash memory cards. SANYO is also
developing a full line of consumer audio products for the
digital delivery and playback of music in Liquid Audio
formats that ranges from portable stereos and players for
automobiles to Kiosk terminals.

1999\08\31@225914 by Thomas Brandon

flavicon
picon face
SDMI is a supposedly secure Digital Music format based on MP3. I am not sure
of technical details but I gather it'll be a key encoded file system. i.e.
Every MP3 Player has it's own key, when you buy a track in SDMI format it is
encoded for your key only, hence it is a one file for one player sort of a
deal. The actual encoding is still MP3 I gather they're basically PGPing the
MP3 file.

Not sure if it's taking off, winamp supports it. I heard that the record
labels that came up with it were trying to force diamond (and others) to
support it as well AND to allow a system whereby MP3 support could be
disabled either at a set date or when it recieves a certain signal (whioch
you'd get when downloading tracks to it I assume). Don't know where that
went, last I heard most people in the scene were still ROFL.

Tom.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wagner Lipnharski <spam_OUTwagnerlTakeThisOuTspamEARTHLINK.NET>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: [OT] New Digital Audio specs? SDMI? MP3?


> Just received from Texas Instruments,
> what a heck is this SDMI specification?
> anybody knows something about it?

1999\08\31@233756 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Both SDMI and Liquid Audio have been cracked(that's what I read on
Slashdot), so it's definitely not "Secure"

-Bob

At 01:00 PM 9/1/99 +1000, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}


'[OT] New Digital Audio specs? SDMI? MP3?'
1999\09\01@003222 by Thomas Brandon
flavicon
picon face
Ahhh yes, this was to be expected. However I gather this would still only
solve half the problem (from the crackers point of view). They would be able
to write a program for a PC (generic Personal Computer not IBM PC) to get
the MP3 from the SDMI file. However, you would need to modify your Hardware
player to crack SDMI encoding (which should be very hard with off the shelf
chips) or convert SDMI->MP3 (or another unsecure format) to play on your
player. Thus a SDMI only player would need to be modified to play SDMI's and
I imagine the hardware would be designed so it would be hard to crack the
decoding and still have it able to download music from standard sources.
i.e. the SDMI 'vending machines' would also use the encoding chip to verify
nthe device was unmodified. And more importantly impossible to crack in a
non obvious way.

So, I don't see that this especially effects SDMI's security itself. In
terms of the fact that once SDMI (or it's replacement) is the only method of
getting new music it will be exceedingly hard to pirate music as you would
have to modify all your hardware players as they would only support SDMI. As
for making music secure in the present I fail to see that is possible. As
long as music is released on CD, preventing copying is impossible. However,
if all elctronic music distribution is via SDMI or the like it'll make
pirating electronically distributed music just that little bit harder. And
when EMD is the only way...

I mean no one can argue software piracy prevention techniques are foolproof
(they thought CDs'd stop piracy - yeah right) but they still have a use.

Tom.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Blick <EraseMEbblickspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTSABER.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] New Digital Audio specs? SDMI? MP3?


> Both SDMI and Liquid Audio have been cracked(that's what I read on
> Slashdot), so it's definitely not "Secure"
>
> -Bob

1999\09\01@003620 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 20:36 31/08/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Both SDMI and Liquid Audio have been cracked(that's what I read on
>Slashdot), so it's definitely not "Secure"
>
>-Bob
>
<Snip>

Give people with too much time on thier hands any hint that they may have
to pay for something that they can freely obtain now, and someone will
crack it. Pitty that they based it on MP3, else it may have had some chance
(ROFL (Lots!))

Dennis



{Quote hidden}

1999\09\01@090158 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>As
>long as music is released on CD, preventing copying is impossible.
However,
>if all elctronic music distribution is via SDMI or the like it'll make
>pirating electronically distributed music just that little bit harder. And
>when EMD is the only way...
>
>I mean no one can argue software piracy prevention techniques are
foolproof
>(they thought CDs'd stop piracy - yeah right) but they still have a use.



As long as music is heard using ears copying will be impossible to prevent.
IF the sound quality is every bit as good with the security scheme as
without it then it will be possible to re-encode at the analog level with
so close to no quality loss as to make it irrelevant. This makes it
slightly harder to make a copy which replicates the original structure
physically (exact track placement on media etc) but if the idea is mainly
to make listenable music, do we care. Control information is another issue
and that is still potentially secure.

If you CAN'T copy at near 100% quality level then why not? The only
argument that I can think of is that the re-recording equipment analog to
digital process is not as good as that used originally.I would find it hard
(but not impossible) to believe that currently available amateur codecs
were not far better than the ability of the ear/brain to resolve.

Someone will no doubt educate me :-)



Russell McMahon

1999\09\01@093100 by nickr

flavicon
face
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:37:52 +1200, you wrote:

>
>If you CAN'T copy at near 100% quality level then why not? The only
>argument that I can think of is that the re-recording equipment analog to
>digital process is not as good as that used originally.I would find it hard
>(but not impossible) to believe that currently available amateur codecs
>were not far better than the ability of the ear/brain to resolve.
>
>Someone will no doubt educate me :-)
>

I have a small project studio; while we tend to create CDs these days, about
5 years ago we usually mastered to DAT.  I borrowed a 2nd dat player (and
remember these players are > 5 yrs old) and analog bounced some
commercial material to compare the difference.  I was careful with the levels,
and myself, friends (some in the business, some not) and family couldn't hear
the difference after 5 bounces.  No way are you going to be able to hear after
one (in my humble opinion).  They were reasonable quality, well maintained
decks, of course.

/Nick

1999\09\01@105704 by hgraf

picon face
> SDMI is a supposedly secure Digital Music format based on MP3. I
> am not sure
> of technical details but I gather it'll be a key encoded file system. i.e.
> Every MP3 Player has it's own key, when you buy a track in SDMI
> format it is
> encoded for your key only, hence it is a one file for one player sort of a
> deal. The actual encoding is still MP3 I gather they're basically
> PGPing the
> MP3 file.
>
> Not sure if it's taking off, winamp supports it. I heard that the record
> labels that came up with it were trying to force diamond (and others) to
> support it as well AND to allow a system whereby MP3 support could be
> disabled either at a set date or when it recieves a certain signal (whioch
> you'd get when downloading tracks to it I assume). Don't know where that
> went, last I heard most people in the scene were still ROFL.

    You know, all this secure music stuff always makes me laugh because so
far there is one universal solution to beating it: use a sound driver that
writes the raw data to your hard drive. I have seen one of these drivers
(haven't used it) and I would suspect that writing one would not be that
difficult. True you would need alot of HD space for this sort of idea, but
most people have that already. Am I wrong in this idea? Has this method been
guarded against somehow? Just curious, TTYL

1999\09\01@122544 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

... some chinese proverb;  "Show me a rock, I will show you a way to get
over it".

... some friend's proverb; "The same human inteligence that creates a
way to lock a door, is also used to unlock it".

I heard that some FM radio "live shows" just use thousands of digitized
musics stored in hard disks, so when a phone caller request a music, it
is a matter of 4 seconds to start to play it. The big part of this 4
seconds is to type few keys to locate the song in the computer selection
database. I can see much less space to store and organize all those
thousands of CD's they should have in the studio, and much less cost to
keep the song library.
An actual 20GB hard disk can store aprox 2800 MP3 compressed songs.  I
really don't know if what we are hearing in FM is a real 44ksps CD
quality or MP3 decompression. I can be getting old and my hearing can be
malfunctioning, but I can't notice so much difference (CD x MP3) in
quality when listening a CD playing at my (good) computer sound
speakers, or the same music after MP3 compression.

Wall Mart (and some other stores) use a system in the electronic/sound
department, that you just pass any CD UPC-A label under a scanner
installed in a sound device (with earphones) and it plays a piece of few
songs from that particular CD... I can't see a way to do that other than
digitized songs stored in hard disk (MP3 or other).

Technology will always be used to make human life easier or better (as
much as possible), and by the same reason it also makes some people lose
money.  This people will always try to protect their interest, sometimes
without any success.  For example, fight to keep alive VHS tape system
is a lost battle, what about 3.5 diskettes?, what about Telex or Fax
machines?  In just 3 years I reduced my fax usage from 10 to 20 a day to
absolute zero!

The age of "selling songs" just born when it was clear that it was
difficult to copy those old vinyl disks, with the adventure of the
cassete tape it suffered a big shake, since everyone could copy a song,
but even so it made M.Jackson millionaire, along of many others.

I don't care to listen to free MP3 music if it carries some text of
advertisement banners at my computer screen during the playback. This is
the new tendencies of the Internet products, and Internet is showing
lots of new tendencies of what would be our technology tomorrow's life.

After a long discussion with a customer that wanted to create a
information website (about laws) where the visitor needs to pay for a
one-day access, we decided the site should be free, and the revenue will
come from selling banner space for lawyers and related companies to
advertise.  When you buy a newspaper for $1.00 you are poorly paying the
half of the recycled paper costs. All the people involved, equipment,
space, distribution, and everything else is being paid by the
advertisements.

1999\09\02@200454 by Thomas Brandon

flavicon
picon face
DACs most sound cards (e.g. anything by Creative) are notoriously bad. If
you can do anything to avoid going through your soundard (or CD-ROM) DAC,
do. I never use a DAC when making MP3's. I always rip straight from the CD
digitally. If you want proof come round to my house and listen to me turn my
PC on. At about the time my Windows startup screen comes up I start hearing
my hard disk chugging away through my SB Live. Fantastic isolation they have
there. Thankfully it is only for certain periods not continuous. I have no
idea what the drivers are doing but it ain't right.

As to the quality of MP3's they are distinguishable from the original at
bitrates of 128 and below. My friend and I have conducted blindfold tests
and are both (him more so due to 'musical' ears) able to detect a
difference. Deciding whioch is better is a little harder but my friend was
pretty good at picking the 128k MP3. Too much swishiness. 160 is getting
really hard as the cutoff increases a bit and stereo seperation is greatly
improved. Now when it comes to VBR at top qualities (i.e. it uses 320 if it
thinks it'll help) the difference is certainly negligible. But this is the
nature of MP3's psychoacoustical encoding. You put just enough inbfo so it
sounds the same.

And yes, I do know that making digital copies is illegal but I diagree
strongly with this law. I do NOT pirate music. I have 6Gb of digitally
ripped MP3's but I own EVERY single second of that music (apart from the
scratched seconds) on CD. No one would accuse me of piracy for making a copy
of a software CD, that's a backup. So why complain when people make backups
of their music. My musical data is just as valuable (if not more so) to me
as my other digital data so why should I protect it any less.

Tom.
From: Russell McMahon <KILLspamapptechKILLspamspamCLEAR.NET.NZ>
Subject: Re: [OT] New Digital Audio specs? SDMI? MP3?
> If you CAN'T copy at near 100% quality level then why not? The only
> argument that I can think of is that the re-recording equipment analog to
> digital process is not as good as that used originally.I would find it
hard
> (but not impossible) to believe that currently available amateur codecs
> were not far better than the ability of the ear/brain to resolve.

1999\09\03@153300 by ranguelo

flavicon
face
Hi !

Wagner Lipnharski wrote:
>
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> >
> > > SDMI is a supposedly secure Digital Music format based on MP3. I
> > > am not sure
...
> >      You know, all this secure music stuff always makes me laugh because so
> > far there is one universal solution to beating it: use a sound driver that
> > writes the raw data to your hard drive. I have seen one of these drivers
> > (haven't used it) and I would suspect that writing one would not be that
> > difficult. True you would need alot of HD space for this sort of idea, but
> > most people have that already. Am I wrong in this idea? Has this method been
> > guarded against somehow? Just curious, TTYL
>

I am not sure if it is true for that particular encoding system, but
usually
they also include a watermark: A serial number unique for every customer
encoded in non-audiable frequencies.
So you can crack the encoding and produce a free format sound file or
even
record the music on your tape deck, but they can still tell you who has
bought that copy.


> ... some chinese proverb;  "Show me a rock, I will show you a way to get
> over it".
>
> ... some friend's proverb; "The same human inteligence that creates a
> way to lock a door, is also used to unlock it".
>

Exactly as there are no non-breakable doors, read-protected Micro-
controllers and chip cards, only time and costs are different.

> I heard that some FM radio "live shows" just use thousands of digitized
> musics stored in hard disks, so when a phone caller request a music, it
> is a matter of 4 seconds to start to play it. The big part of this 4
> seconds is to type few keys to locate the song in the computer selection
> database. I can see much less space to store and organize all those
> thousands of CD's they should have in the studio, and much less cost to
> keep the song library.

I have read an article about german radio stations: most of them are
playing songs from the hard disk and IIRC it was MP3 with 196 kbps.
It was even enough for decoding-cutting-and- re-encoding some times
without noticeable quality losses.

...

> When you buy a newspaper for $1.00 you are poorly paying the
> half of the recycled paper costs. All the people involved, equipment,
> space, distribution, and everything else is being paid by the
> advertisements.

Here in Berlin there is a free Newspaper you can get at the Underground
stations. Completely paid by ads.


Just my 2 cents ...


St.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...