Audible watermarking on UMG streams and downloads

[Jwg1749]

This isn't exactly news; it's been out there for a while. But I haven't noticed any discussion of it here. (I did a search for 'watermark' and nothing relevant came up.)

It seems that Universal Music Group (UMG) has been using watermarking on the files it sells to streaming and download services, and that unlike much watermarking, this is actually audible. Not only is it audible, it's offensively so. It's particularly noticeable on classical music (as you'd expect, since classical music is generally very well recorded and mastered) and especially piano and vocal music.

The watermarking can be heard in the form of a very rapid oscillation of volume. Some people have described it as being like hearing a piano from behind a waterfall.

It's likely that this audible watermarking affects all UMG music available on the main streaming services (Spotify, Tidal, Deezer, Qobuz) and downloaded files (although it's been suggested that files downloaded direct from UMG aren't affected). It doesn;t affect CDs.

This first came to prominence back in 2012, thanks to Matt Montag, an engineer at Spotify. He's posted some interesting material, including a blind test (you all know how much I like blind tests!) comparing watermarked and non-watermarked files. Some people have scored full marks on the test, which suggests the effects of the watermarking really are pretty horrid.

This raises very serious questions about the quality of streamed and downloaded files. Tidal, Qobuz and Deezer claim to offer CD-quality streaming and downloads. In fact, the UMG material (which makes up around 25% of all material on these sites: UMG is huge!) isn't CD quality at all. It's been horribly degraded by UMG. If you've bought UMG downloads, in all likelihood the files you've bought have been nastily hobbled.

This should be a major scandal. Compared to a choice between two mains cables, this is actually really important.

[PhilP]

It's something that I've been aware of for a while and I've often wondered whether that's why some recordings sound so bad when streaming from Qobuz...

I haven't noticed poor quality on any files that I've bought and downloaded from Qobuz but they have all been Hi-res. Maybe the watermarks are not applied to them?

Scarily, all these labels might be affected:

http://www.universalmusic.com/labels/

[Jwg1749]

It's something that I've been aware of for a while and I've often wondered whether that's why some recordings sound so bad when streaming from Qobuz...

I haven't noticed poor quality on any files that I've bought and downloaded from Qobuz but they have all been Hi-res. Maybe the watermarks are not applied to them?

Scarily, all these labels might be affected:

http://www.universalmusic.com/labels/

There's a useful online listening test here.

[Antoine]

I guess they want us all to go back to downloading CD rips.

Compared to a choice between two mains cables, this is actually really important.

Is this really necessary? It's a useless comparison, but that's besides the point.

[Jwg1749]

I guess they want us all to go back to downloading CD rips.

Compared to a choice between two mains cables, this is actually really important.

Is this really necessary? It's a useless comparison, but that's besides the point.

The point was to provide some context. The sonic degradation caused by watermarking is obvious; the question of its audibility is uncontentious. Plenty of people who don't have particularly high-end systems and wouldn't dream of buying aftermarket kit like mains cables are able to hear the effect clearly and reliably. That, to me at least, is an indication of how serious the issue is.

Someone nicely described it thus: UMG are taking a gourmet meal, created by their artists, and peeing all over it to ensure it's traceable; you might not always be able to taste the pee, but once you know it's there ...

[Antoine]

It was a condescending, patronising remark. But I don't want to argue it any further. The rest of your message is clear as a bell, it's shocking the way this industry seems think it's OK to do anything like this to music. It makes it clear that for them it's just a product and about money, it shows no love, no passion at all.

[Jwg1749]

It was a condescending, patronising remark. But I don't want to argue it any further. The rest of your message is clear as a bell, it's shocking the way this industry seems think it's OK to do anything like this to music. It makes it clear that for them it's just a product and about money, it shows no love, no passion at all.

I had no intention to patronize anyone. As you can see, I had a good reason for making the point.

I'm afraid this sort of thing -- the industry taking its customers for a ride -- is rife. We're constantly being sold sub-standard products or products that don't do what's claimed for them.