Release medium specifics (Page 1 of 2)

I agree at least with the vinyl part. I'm not sure about the bitrate, mostly because I don't want to have to add 6 releases in different formats for every bandcamp download...

I would prefer to be able to specify the format, bitrate and bit depth but we should be able to specify multiple media formats and bitrates on single release.

IMHO this information is important because some releases in high bitrate lossless formats are considered to be a "luxury" version. (for example FLAC 24 bit, 192 kHz)
Other releases are more or less demo. (for example MP3 128 kbps)

Discogs has also ruled that multiple releases that only differ in bit rate or digital format are not allowed, because even they see sense sometimes.

on the vinyl, I would prefer just the option to state it's coloured, not specify the colour, I don't really want multiple releases that differ only in how one person describes some colour (as seen on discogs).

I would like the vinyl to be expanded to include: picture disc, flexi disc, lathe-cut, shellac, coloured vinyl, 6", 8" 9" & 11"

I'd also like 20 naked nubile girls and a never-ending supply of beer

I'm not saying knowing the bitrate is useless information to have; I'm saying it's little use (compared to its cost of maintenance) to have it in a /structured/ relational manner. We have annotations for this type of thing.

There are too many formats. Bitrate is, at the margin, an arbitrary number. Part of the beauty of digital is that this doesn't /have/ to be standardised like was required for CD, vinyl. But that also reduces its utility in a structured database. The digital formats and birates things are released in will (and have) changed rapidly over time and it will be difficult to keep up. Different online retailers can release the same thing in different bitrates/formats/DRM. It sounds like a good idea at first, but on the balance I am convinced that it is absolutely not. If you only store one bitrate/format, which one do you store? If you want to capture that some version is a "premium" version with high bitrate, then presumably you're wanting to also capture the "regular" version with the lower bitrate for comparative purposes - this is already breaking the Discogs rule.

Having no experience in relation to database design/maintenance I will take your word for it, but I would have though adding some sort of check box feature, just for DM, which contained most common bitrates/formats would not be too difficult to implement at some point in the future. But I accept your point and know that there is more important work to be done at the moment.

To my knowledge, the only ones widely used are MP3 (192, 320), AAC (128, 256), lossless 44.1khz (FLAC, Wav, ALAC), 48khz, 24/96 and 24/192 (FLAC, WAV). Is that too many? I think digital is standardised, just on multiple levels.

I think it's pretty much just Apple releasing in AAC and ALAC at the moment, and I can't remember seeing any MP3 release in anything other than 192 or 320 for a while, except perhaps the odd 256.

With lossless, once you discount the format (which doesn't affect the sound), you have four levels. Moreover, AFIK we cannot record higher than 192 at the moment, and older recordings will be limited to whichever sample rate was used at the time.

I don't honestly believe lossy has anywhere to go. I mean AAC still hasn't been adopted as the industry standard despite being generally accepted to be superior to MP3, so I don't foresee any new lossy formats or rates appearing anywhere in the near future. Same for lossless.

The only change we are seeing in DM is the increasing distribution of studio masters, but the formats and bit rates themselves seem to have solidified. To that extent I think now is a good time to integrate such information. At the very least to specify where there has been a lossless release.

I'm curious as to why more formats have not been added across the board.

Since DVD track lists are allowed I principally see no reason not to include ECD as well. However, unlike DVDs the extra material is not on a separate medium, so would you append it to the end of the track list? I think on some ECDs there's a video or two that are actually specified as track x or y so that may be doable. Then again, you run into the problem of adding video tracks to the database, which is not meant to be done. DVD is allowed on the basis that the audio can be ripped, so perhaps the same principle could be applied. Don't know of the other two formats.

This brings up another thought I've been having: Splitting mediums. By this I mean adding some distinction between different parts of a single medium, e.g. where two albums have been re issued on 1 cd. Would be nice to see clearly in the database that there are two distinct entities within a medium, and would be very useful for tagging purposes. Other examples where this would apply:

Two releases on 1 USB stick: http://musicbrainz.org/release/d3c9ff76 … 73d2c9eba7
Separating bonus material from the actual album

Maybe instead of bitrate, putting "lossless / lossy" flag might be helpful for some people. But, other than that I don't feel bitrate is a logical option to include anywhere.

Fair point. Yes, there are a lot of other lossy formats about but I think the majority of vendors (Itunes, Amazon, labels) use those I stated. You could alway have an option for 'other'.

This would be a step in the right direction. However, I'm seeing more and more high-res releases, and I think these should be distinguished.

This is the same problem as with ECDs. I think currently MB is against adding info about video, pics or other material anywhere but in the annotation (with the exception of audio ripped from DVDs). However, I'm beginning to think such material should be included directly in the database.

I think having something like http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Paid_Downlo … nship_Type AR, can be nice. Something like;
"can be purchased for download at URL, in {lossless|lossy} format"
but I still don't feel entering different technical file details is a wise thing to do.

if your problem is to be able to search, just include anything in annotation and use http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Indexed_Search_Syntax

If you think it needs a new release, it's another issue, but if you think there will be no need for a new release for small technical changes, then you can just create a fancy looking annotation that telling the technical details in different sources.
All in all they are still using a digital file for transporting the music. Bitrate or any other technical difference doesn't change how it is transported.
Actually I was doing same thing long ago for the CD releases to enter SPARS codes (like AAD etc.). These bitrates are the same logic IMO.

You can have headings, lists, URLs etc. (see http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Annotation) in Annotations and they are really successful at search results. In fact Musicbrainz is currently using and wants their users to use it as "Sub Optimal Credits".
I don't understand completely what you mean by "reliable"?

Multi channel releases can be entered seperately, MB has support for different formats like SACD, DVDA, etc. See http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release/Format , but if you are talking about multi-channel digital files. I've never seen any of those sold online. If there are lots of those online maybe there can be a medium type for that, because I think it's much more important than bitrate or such technical details.

Actually MB does this seperation by the Barcodes. Each of those sold items should have different barcodes which will result in different releases in MB. The only problem is that you cannot tell the technical difference unless adding it to annotation.

That's not true, Digital File is still your medium, but the codec inside it is your music. Same logic applies to vinyls too, ie; every vinyl can be made of different chemical substance, still it's the same release, the audio material inside it is not changed, tho having such an info in annotation is nice.

"sound different" is a really relative term.

As I said above you will end up with different releases, but still you can't enter SPARSS code anywhere other than annotation.

You can have a style for this purpose and let everyone follow it. Besides, same problem will arise even if you had a text field. The only solution is to let people select from a combo-box like structure, but when I think about that combo-box I can see how pain it would be.