this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
424 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59452 readers
3811 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like a bad journalist hasn't understood the explanation. A spectrogram contains all the same data as was originally encoded. I guess all it means is that the watermark is applied in the frequency domain.
Also this isn't new by any stretch... Aphex Twin would like a word
Well, encoding stuff in the spectrogram isn't new, sure. But encoding stuff into an audio file that is inaudible but robust to incidental modifications to the file is much harder. Aphex Twin's stuff is audible!
I would like to know what it is that makes it so robust. The article explains very little. Is it in the high frequencies? Higher than the human ear can hear? Compression will effect that plus that’s going to piss dogs off. Could be something with the phasing too. Filters and effects might be able to get rid of the water mark
I don't know what frequencies are annoying for dogs but I'm guessing it's above 24kHz so no sound file or sound system is going to be able to store or produce it anyway.
There will certainly be some way to get rid of the watermark. But it might nevertheless persist through common filters.