25 Oct
2011
25 Oct
'11
4 a.m.
On 10/24/2011 05:34 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:50:00AM -0400, Al Thompson
wrote:
I understand the concept, and have played with some stego on graphics
files. I remember that it worked best with "busy" pictures, because the
"distortion" was harder to spot. I just wonder about how much it would
affect the quality of an audio file. It just seems like our material
takes such dreadful abuse being converted into .mp3 files, that it can't
take much more and still be even reasonably listenable. MP3s take away
a lot of "good" information. How much "bad" information can we add?
Also, what is going to be the result of, not only converting to .MP3s of
varying bit rates, but also of normalizing it, or perhaps adding a fade-out?
--
---
My website is down. I had a motherboard failure on that computer!! (ugh)
http://lateralforce.no-ip.org
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
I've never been interested in doing this, but
I can't believe that you
can hide date in an audio file and it NOT cause some
distortion/artifacts, and still play in a standard MP3/WAV audio program.
Hiding
data in WAV files or similar is fairly simple. It's a bit
more difficult in lossy formats but still not rocket science.
But a watermark needs more than hiding:
* It should survive a change of format.
* It must not be easily removable unless you have
privileged information.
And that can be quite hard.