This came up in the Revolver Remix theard. Depending on wich country you purchase the "Revolver (Super Deluxe)" set from on Qobuz, you will receive one of two possible set of files. You either get a "clean" set of files, OR you receive files that were altered by a watermark signal in the region around 2khz wich can fool you into thinking it's a different (potentially better) master. As a comparision, here is the last track "Rain (Mono)" off the clean master: Spoiler And here is the same track purchased by me on Qobuz from Germany: Spoiler On first glance it looks better, right? But the difference between the two is only this Watermark signal: Spoiler This signal starts 1 second into each track and is further described here: Universal's Audible Watermark What the hell is going on? Universal Music not trusting zhe Germans ? On HDtracks, where this apparently isn't an issue, Germany is blocked from purchasing the set all together. Streaming (Apple Music and such) does not seem to be affected.
Interesting, I didn't think they were still doing it. However your German file isn't bricked and re-leveled.
but that's the thing, if you remove the watermark signal from it, it's the same bricked "clean" master. It's a "fake" more dynamic version. What I mean by that is that there is no other difference apart from this additional small signal band around 2khz. An entirely more dynamic master would show far more differences throughout the frequency spectrum when substracted from the other. It's the brickwalled master + a DRM signal added to it making it look more dynamic as a result. On other tracks from the DRM affected set this is more obvious. They look "almost" brickwalled but have a few peaks shooting above the shelve.
Wow, that's a first for me man. Nice detective work- as for the why -corporate bastards is the only thing I can think of
Yeah, seems like some countries are labeled "un-trustworthy" by UMC. Germany being one of them. User @Ernold has received a clean master when he purchased the set on Qobuz. User @multi.flacs.project has mentioned that these watermarked files will apparently sometimes get replaced after a certain amount of time has passed post-release.
Yeah, I could sort of understand watermarking if it actually accomplished some meaningful goal. If you gave each copy sold from Qobuz, HDtracks, etc. a unique watermark and kept them in a database, then if the files were being shared online you could identify the source. But apparently it's the same watermark for everyone, which is pointless. And in any case it's ridiculous to promote HD releases as "better than CD quality" when you're actively sabotaging them by adding a watermark in the audible range.
But what purpose would that ultimately have? You couldn't pinpoint the specific User, just whatever shop he/she/it decided to use.
No, I mean literally every single buyer. You'd have to have the sellers (Qobuz, etc.) apply a unique watermark when customers download their files. And then the watermarks would have to be reported to a central database.
Ahh I understand. Yeah that would have made more sense. Not sure how that could be implemented though.
I'll post my waveform when I can get myself sorted to start uploading photos to these random image hosting sites (why can't you do it directly here?). I have noticed from looking at user's locations (and I think other things in the past, if memory serves) that Germany seems to keep coming up as a region where these sorts of watermarks etc get applied. Weird. Can't think of any rational reason for it. I find it annoying that companies will do these things but don't have the guts to be transparent about it - but, of course, still have the guts to ask consumers for plenty of their hard-earned cash.
A) That doesn't explain why some people hear the watermarking very clearly and others not at all and B) how on earth would that system be implemented?! You're proposing a fresh watermark, a unique watermark, for every time an individual purchases something from Qobuz, etc - with popular downloads, like The Beatles, that's quickly going to become VERY complicated, surely?
Imgur is a good site. Just drag and drop the image onto it and copy the image url once it’s uploaded.
This stuff is all happening on computers. It's all software. Ultimately anything that someone wants to be done in that environment can be done. How I could see it working is that the record company or some third party developer creates a program that can generate a unique watermark for every purchase (or just every customer), apply that watermark to a copy of each file before the customer downloads it (this is trivial, it's just making a copy of the file and then mixing another waveform into it), stores the watermark in a local database, and uploads new watermarks to a central database controlled by the record company or the software developer. Every retail seller (Qobuz, etc.) would be given a copy of this software and it would be a contractual requirement to use it as part of the sales/downloading process. There would also be a way to query for a particular watermark that is found in files circulating online. None of this is difficult. Even the unique IDs are trivial -- there's a thing called a UUID (universally unique identifier) that is widely used in software anytime a unique identifier is needed for almost any purpose. So, if they really wanted to use watermarks to track down the people responsible for pirated music, that would be one way to do it. My suspicion is that they are actually doing something like what I'm describing here, because the alternative would be idiotic beyond belief. Then again, this is the music industry we're talking about. As to why some people can hear watermarks and others not, well, not everyone's hearing is equally sensitive or equally well-trained. If you don't know what to listen for, or if you aren't a critical listener who will be inclined to notice subtle differences, then you might not notice a watermark.
The official reason given in the past is trying to keep server space down. Imagine if all our memes were on here right next to lengthy screeds Imgur is a well-tested and commonly used image host.
Exactly. That was the point I made in the main thread. There's no use to them. They're not going to identify any individual user who uploads to a sharing site.
This watermark is also present on the Let it Be (Super Deluxe) Set i bought off Qobuz last year! A friend from the UK send me a copy of one of the tracks from his purchase on HDtracks in private. And it's the same story! boost the compromised file by exactly 0.2dB and invert it from the clean one and you receive the watermark signal starting 1 second into the track. The clean master on top, the german qobuz bought file from me below: Spoiler and the watermark signal within isolated: Spoiler You know Universal, Folks from Germany (and who knows where this also applies) spend quite some money for these Super Deluxe "Hi-Res" set...
With any luck this thread will blow up to the size of the digital MFSL vinyl thread quickly… this is absolutely crazy.
I'm surprised they are picking on Germany here, as it's not a country I would associate with file sharing shenanigans. Russia? China? For sure, but not EU countries.
Hopefully. I can highly recommend reading into (and also the comments) here: Universal's Audible Watermark This has been a thing for many years but kinda buried. Classical music seems notorious for it. What's really news is the "regional selection." by UMC. Don't know if that was allready a thing for the Let it Be Super Deluxe set or not. Someone who also bought that of qobuz can maybe provide some insight. Is your waveform "cut" razor sharp = no watermark ? One theory I have is that this watermark is only supposed to be a thing for streaming services in order to prevent people from just ripping the streams and sharing them. But doesn't explain the location difference either.
I read through that and found it very interesting, although I was unable to detect any of the watermarks in the samples posted in the article. It could be because they're beyond the frequency people my age can discern, or because I have a head cold ATM.
The signal is within audible range by design as to being very hard to remove without artifacts. around 2khz.
