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.
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.
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.
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.
HibiscusKazeneko wrote: mudcrow wrote:
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"
That reminds me: I was just messing around with some releases that featured EnhancedCD content; should we add a category for such? Since it's burned onto a physical disc, it wouldn't really qualify as digital media. Same for CD+G and CD-Plus and similar formats, there should be a place other than the annotation box to stipulate what kinds of non-audio content is bundled with releases.
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