On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:22:24 +0100, Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:57:54 +0100, Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> 
>>>> I'd think that the conversion back and forth would modify an attempt
>>>> like this enough.  Remember that mp3 encoding is lossy, not lossless.
>>> Yes, I know. And to overcome that, just don't make the changes to the
>>> sound THAT small.
>> 
>> The thing is, the watermark, in order to be meaningful, would have to
>> re- encode exactly the same way.  Otherwise, you end up with a
>> scrambled watermark.  So you can maybe tell it was there, but not what
>> it was.
> 
> Redundancy. Error correction codes.

I don't think that helps from the point of converting and then re-
encoding.

Jim

Post a reply to this message