Other cinavia audible

[jetli]

i was reading about your cinavia tool at

http://blog.dvdfab.cn/cinavia-protection.html

i downloaded the 5min audio. i listened to it.
it appears that they have been lying to us, in that,
the changes they introduce to the source for cinavia are distinctly audible.
question 1) am i missing something? is it distinctly audible?

that brings me to question 2+.

if there is that much of a difference to the audio, then if we made a copy
with cinavia in the program material and played it on a player that does NOT
recognize cinavia and it (obviously plays through) then wouldn't that audio
be degraded? does a play that recognizes cinavia and has the ORIGINAL
disk in the machine (obviously plays through) produce different sound?
do those players process that sound back to the original similar to what you are doing?

if they do NOT process the sound, then the ORIGINAL DISK and COPIES
on any machine that will play it, should be the identical when played.
if that's the case then you are changing the sound from what we have now on our ORIGINALS and COPIES to what, YOU think is the ORIGINAL MASTER
was before cinavia was introduced to the released audio.
am i correct?

to summarize, if they have lied to us, and cinavia was distinct audible,
and no players processed to audio back to the original source when outputting, then all the disks (ORIGINALS, COPIES, everywhere are
going to sound different than the new regenerated version from your new tool.

what am i missing here?
jetli

[october262]

more info here - https://www.dvdfab.cn/dvd-blu-ray-cinavia-removal.htm

[jetli]

i said i read all this. can you please comment on my questions.

[signals]

Hi jetli
1) Yes, it is audible to me also.
and 2) yes, the audio passed through would be degraded, which the studios do not warn the consumer about on the outside of the box.

You may remember that for a brief time, many audio CDs were watermarked, but they had to quit when so many customers complained about it. I think that on movies, there is the possibility that they believe the viewer will be distracted to some extent by the fact that the primary medium is visual and the audio (on most titles at least) is secondary.

[MrVideo]

I think that on movies, there is the possibility that they believe the viewer will be distracted to some extent by the fact that the primary medium is visual and the audio (on most titles at least) is secondary.

I disagree. One of the big things about Blu-ray was the support for the highest quality audio possible: LPCM and the highest quality loss-less Dolby Digital and DTS. Now we have ATMOS support.

So, Sony (the major player of Blu-ray), Lionheart and Universal decided to screw up the audio with Cinavia.

There are many home owners that have a great audio setup. More so now than when DVDs came out with DD5.1.

[jetli]

cinavia

ok great response.
so to summarize, every disk, masters or copies, that has cinavia
no matter what player you have,
produces degraded audio and until now. now, using your method only,
maybe others, there has never been a way to reproduce the
original intended audio from any system playing a cinavia disk.

next question ...
how can you be sure that even though your method works and
cinavia (masters > copies) can be made, that the audio is what what initially intended? or correct?

jetli

[signals]

Well, the audio is still altered since what they intended was that you hear the Cinavia audio. They just assumed nobody would notice the degradation. Whether the provided audio is what the creators of it intended is subjective, each individual must decide. The replacement material is tested repeatedly before release to meet high standards. It provides users with a lossless stream with the same 7.1 channels as the original, just with no watermark and minimal changes.

@Mr Video
I am not sure we disagree at all, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. The BDA knowingly allowed this high precision audio the format can provide to be corrupted, and to no purpose, since it has been defeated.