Subject:Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Posted by: sk
Date:9/29/2002 11:53:16 AM
Just some food for thought here. After trying - unsuccessfully, for the most part - to get the exact same type of sound from a number of burned CD's that I can get on industry-standard pressed CD's, I began to wonder if there didn't already exist a sort of natural, built in 'copyright protection' with regard to the process of copying audio CD's (for personal use only, so it's legal, of course ;-). And after having thought about it for a while, especially after reading some of the warnings on those 'finalizing' software plug-ins, like Waves' Ultramaximizer, which states that NO OTHER audio manipulation/process should take place after using it, that most of the industry-produced CD's probably DO already have some sort of finalized process that they undergo. And maybe that's why when I try to get back the original sound of the pressed CD, that somehow gets 'flattened' in the burning process, it doesn't work, because the songs have already been 'finalized'. If that is in fact true, or even close to what's really going on, then for anybody who really wants to reproduce burned/ripped CD's that are of the same quality as the pressed CD's, there's always going to be a gap. And for me, at times anyway, it's been enough of a gap to bother me, and to motivate me to just go out and buy a 'real', pressed CD, because the burning/editing process just leaves too much to be desired, no matter how many programs I run it through. Obviously, that doesn't work as far as making my own personal music compilations. But I kept noticing that no matter how I tried to rip them, songs from Fleetwood Mac, for example, never quite sounded the same after being ripped and burned as they did on the original CD's. I figured that it was because they had undergone some sort of finalizing/digital manipulation process. And that's when it dawned on me that, in that sense, for anybody who really wants the best quality audio-wise, there already appears to be a built-in copyright protection in place. I was just wondering what anybody else thought about this. sk |
Subject:RE: Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/29/2002 12:30:53 PM
I think you're thinking too hard, and are gonna hurt yourself if you keep up this paranoia behavior. Do you get the feeling that somebody's always watching you? Do you not subscribe to cable TV, because you believe this is the governments way to spy on your life inside your personal living space? To ease your paranoia behavior, I'll inform you, that I own a copy of the Sony/Phillips "Redbook" CD standard. This manual is usually available to Hardware/Software developers, but is a confidential document. Basically it outlines every specification of the CD. Be it mechanical dimentions and what kind of data can be stored and what the proper format is, along with sub-code and copywright protection data. Basically, if it isn't in the "redbook" spec book...then it doesn't exist. And you're paranoia is outlined nowhere in the redbook specifications. Use any standard CDr software and create a "CD Image" of a pressed CD and burn that to a CDR. The sound should be identical. If it isn't, I would suspect your cdrom of having a higher "error correction" rate while trying to read the original data or your CDR burner of creating high error rates during the write process. This should be the only sonic difference their should be between the 2, if high errors are introduced into the CDR that you are copying to. Also, remember even the pressed CD's had started off as a CDR final, where a glass master was created, before getting pressed. The finalizing process of CD's that they are referring to is "Mastering", which every commercially released CD has been through, to make it sound better. Once it has been mastered then running that audio through a waves ultramaximizer plugin is more of a destructive procees. You are over processing the audio and adding distortion at that point. |
Subject:RE: Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Reply by: sk
Date:9/29/2002 12:46:29 PM
Well, Red, I know you know your stuff, but I want to address your comments citing my so-called 'paranoia'. I did, after all, say 'natural' built in copyright protection. I obviously do not believe that there is any sinister plot involved here. What I was referring to really only comes into play when I attempt to make CD compilations, not exact copies of an entire CD. It's at that point that I try my best to achieve as uniform a volume level as I can, so that some songs don't drop off while others jump out and trash your speakers (not to mentions your ears) over the course of the entire CD. I prefer to avoid the term 'normalize', because I almost never normalize up; I always try to find the lowest volume to serve as the common denominator, and bring all the songs down in volume to that level, usually around -22db, (RMS, not peak) +/-, rather than the -10db to -16db range or higher, where a lot of commercial music seems to be set. It's at that point that any attempt to adjust even only the volume starts major headaches. But, according to what you've said, it would appear that most programs, including Sound Forge and/or any of the plug-ins available for it, are going to hit that 'overkill' zone on almost any commercially produced CD, making them (the audio editing programs) only really relevant for raw, 'garage band' type of music, or vinyl/tape restoration that has not (yet) been digitally finalized. sk |
Subject:RE: Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:9/30/2002 9:31:50 AM
Ahhh...I see your problem now. Well, I guess there is kind of a natural copy protection then. It's built into music being "different". If all music sounded the same, and was recorded and mastered by the same engineers, then there would be no problem putting compilation CD's together. But the fact is, is that music is different, and are EQed differently, and compressed at different levels, therefore making one louder than the other. I wouldn't expect to take a Frank Sanatra song and put it on the same CD as a Dr. Dre CD and expect them to sound like they belong on the same CD. Frank's music is less compressed to give it a lot of dynamics, where Dr. Dre's music is brick walled compressed to give it the in your face loudness. Even compilation CD's of various artists are RE-MASTERED to make them sound like the songs belong on the same CD. Even Greatest hits CD's by the same artist are re-mastered, because the mastering techniques have varied and probably different mastering engineers where used. Re-mastering doesn't mean that you just run it through a waves ultra-maximizer and all the songs will sound the same and be at the same level. There's lesser degrees of mastering that is done to make all these songs sound similar. First off is EQing them, and then maybe adding some multi-band compression to the ones that have been lesser compressed...and leaving the highly compressed songs alone. Once again, if there was a "1 button" mastering machine that all songs where run through, then YES....then maybe compilation CD tracks would all be at the same level and sound similar and "US" mastering engineers would be out of a job, because our use of our ears and aquired artistic processing would not be needed.......but there isn't!!! and peoples variance in taste of music and mastering will always superscede a 1 button mastering tool. |
Subject:RE: Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Reply by: sk
Date:9/30/2002 11:11:24 PM
I think the point I was trying to make, or the question I was trying to ask, is this: Is it even possible to re-master a song or cd that has already been 'finalized' as part of the professional, commercial mastering process. It dawned on me that maybe part of the problem I was running into while making CD compilations was related to that. Even the warnings on Ultramaximizer state that NO other processes - even EQ - should be attempted after using it to finalize a song. I can only assume that, while it doesn't state it explicitly on the liner notes, a lot of commercially produced CD's DO use some sort of digital finalization process. And that's really what I was referring to as the 'natural' copy protection. Sort of like the engineers are laughing to themselves, thinking: "Yeah, let those jokers try to re-master this after it's already been finalized. They'll only end up with junk". And you know better than I, Red; but I assume that to really do it right, as far as remastering goes, it would be best to get back to the original tape masters BEFORE all the processing was applied. I don't know how realistic that is in terms of the accessibility of the original masters, but that would seem to be the best way to go. Basically, Red, what is your take on the viability of the average listener being able to edit anything that's already been digitally finalized? sk (And where you got that whole 'paranoid' thing out of what I'd originally posted is still way beyond me. ;-) |
Subject:RE: Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Reply by: Chienworks
Date:10/1/2002 10:03:21 AM
I'm not really sure why you would try to do anything other than adjust volume when making your compilation. If you like the sound of the original CD, then don't mess with it. Adjusting the volume is useful and will have very minimal impact on the digital signal. It will cause every sample to be recalculated, but this should only have a noticeable effect in the quietest sections, and we're talking extremely quiet sections like whispering in the next county as compared to the nuclear explosions of the louder sections. If you're doing anything else to the track, such as any compression, eq, wave hammering, etc., then you are altering the track and it will sound different from the original. It may not necessarily be better or worse, but it will be different from what you've been used to hearing. You may be interpreting this difference as worse because you're not used to it. |
Subject:RE: Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Reply by: sk
Date:10/2/2002 1:52:40 AM
If that were actually the case, c.w., I would agree. But the problem is that even at comparable volume levels, the two cuts just do not sound the same to me in a number of instances. And I have read that burned cd's are not the same as pressed cd's, although Rednroll says that according to the 'standards', they should be. So I'm at somewhat of a loss to explain it. According to EAC (Exact Audio Copy), which I use to rip CD's, I am not registering any errors during the ripping process. I do correct routinely in SF for DC offset, and I do choose to sample the entire song when doing it. I really am not sure what is the reason for the differences in a lot of instances. In others I do understand why, because sometimes I prefer to use Noise Reduction to help eliminate hiss from early analog to digitally converted CD's. Generally, as long as I don't cut too deep into the highs, I get a result that I prefer. And I don't know about anybody else, but for me, one of the joys of being able to edit digitally lies in the ability to tailor the final sound of the music to my individual preferences, which can legitimately be different than yours or the audio engineer or master engineer who designed the cd in the first place. However, if by virtue of the technology involved in producing commercial cd's any editing I'm going to do is only going to totally muck it up, then I have to rethink that whole process. And once again, that was my purpose in posting this thread originally. sk |
Subject:RE: Copyright Protection: Already built in 'naturally'?
Reply by: Rednroll
Date:10/2/2002 9:02:07 AM
SK, You can EQ songs after they have been mastered or "Finalyzed" as you put it to make them match up better on a compilation CD. This is probably the most you could do to it. In doing so you need to do more subtractive EQing to get it where you want the tone to be. Doing addition eqing is risking that you are adding distortion because many of the peaks are already at digital zero and any boasting you are doing will push this into the distortion arena. What you can't and shouldn't do, is use any other wavehammer or L1 or any other compression plugins. That's because this has already been done by the mastering engineer and has been, the majority of the time pushed to the limit. The limit being that you are compressing it to give the song an overall loudness without detroying it's integrity. The only time you may add some of these loudness maximizers is when you're making adjustments to older material, which may not be as loud as today's standards. That's because, mastering engineers didn't have all these special computer plugins or digital hardware finalyzers at that time. So SOME compression may be added to these tracks to bring up their overall level. Also, anytime you do ANY processing to a mastered CD you are adding distortion. Even just Normalyzing will add distortion due to quantization errors of digital audio. Many mastering engineers will not do the normalyzation process if the song is already peaking near 0 dB, just to avoid an additional process. Basically, the more processing you do, the more errors and distortion you add to the audio. So when you do this additional processing you are starting to hear the artifacts of the additional processing. As I said though, mastering is not a one button method, just like neither is mixing. Burning a CD is :-) With Sound Forge you have an arsenal of tools, which doesn't mean that you use all of them just because they're there. You must be able to listen and look at a songs waveform and make a judgement of what additional processing the audio may tolerate before it starts to saturate and fall apart. Making these kinds of judgements only comes with experience. So keep practicing and seeing what works and doesn't work and eventually you'll be able to figure out what you CAN do to the audio. |