Re: [LAU] Looking for Audio Watermarking Advice & Tools

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Al Thompson <althompson58(a)gmail.com> wrote: Al, I have a huge amount of respect for your technical knowledge but offhand remarks like this require some countering in an online forum. Its true that low bit rate psycho-acoustic lossy compression does remove some "good" information. But my impression is that at "appropriate" bit rates, an overwhelming majority of humans cannot differentiate between an mp3 and the original recorded audio. I'm not entirely clear what "appropriate" means, but I believe that its hard for most people to differentiate (in a double blind test) at 128kbps, very hard at 192kbps and essentially impossible at rates above 256kbps. Should I update my understanding of this? i'm relatively skeptical of any claims for audio steganography that can survive arbitrary psycho-acoustic compression. in addition, random permutations of the least significant bits of a PCM encoding will almost certainly eliminate or at least reduce the confidence level associated with the presence or absence of the watermark), in a way that will be inaudible to more or less anyone.