Re: Release medium specifics
ym wrote:Lixobix wrote:For the sake of argument, suppose the above release was available at amazon. You could add the release to MB and it would be exactly the same as the MP3 release, except it would have a different ASIN. Problem is that someone editing would see the two releases and think they are dupes, and they would be right under current schema. But in reality they are two distinct release with different prices. The fact that the price is different MUST mean the things are different. The seller knows that, the buyer knows that, so why does MB not know that?
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.
...no, because a digital release doesn't have a barcode, so how do you distinguish?
You can add "can be purchased at" relationship, but sometimes you might need a different release too.
ym wrote:Lixobix wrote:Digital files are not a mode of transportation, they ARE the music. CDs are a mode of transporting digital files. The end result, when you put the CD into your computer or CD player (which is a form of computer) is that you have those digital files.
Supposing you downloaded 44.1khz lossless files and bought the CD, you would have the same digital files in the end. On the other had, if you buy the CD and 96khz lossless you end up with two different sets of files.
When talking about the actual music you hear, in the first example the end result both ways is exactly the same. But MB distinguishes between the two releases. In the second example, the music you hear from the 96khz download is different to the CD and the 44.1khz download, but MB won't recognise it as unique from the 44.1khz download, even though it says the CD and the 44.1khz download, which sound exactly the same, are both unique things.
That's not true, Digital File is still your medium, but the codec inside it is your music.
ALL digital music, whether on CD or in files, is encoded with a codec. I think it's WAV for CDs. The CD was just a convenient way of getting those files to you, ordered and ready to play. It is a container for the files. A container you don't need if you just download the files.
My point is you can download 44.1k WAV files directly or you can copy them to your computer/CD player from a CD and you will still end up with a bunch of 44.1k WAV files. But if you download 96k files you have something different.
different to whom? I don't see or hear any difference... I'm sure lots of people don't too, but I understand some can hear difference, I just don't understand why do you need a different release for that?
ym wrote: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.
The weight of vinyl affects the sound. So the material is different.
do you see anyone adding a new release because of that? As I said before that is a cool annotation info, but not a good reason to enter a new release.
ym wrote:Lixobix wrote:That's the crux of the problem. Is makes no sense to say that two things that sound exactly the same are different but two things that sound different are exactly the same.
"sound different" is a really relative term.
This is not a matter of subjective perceptions, a 96k file contains more audio information than a 44.1k file.
I know they do, and probably sound better, but we do not enter a new release because they sound better!
ym wrote:Lixobix wrote:This is not the same at all. MB would accept a new release whenever the SPARS code is different because, presumably, each new SPARS code would mean a new release, whether with a different catalog, barcode or just date.
As I said above you will end up with different releases, but still you can't enter SPARSS code anywhere other than annotation.
Possibly another improvement that could be made. But SPARSS codes aren't around anymore, to my knowledge, whilst his-res releases are current and growing in popularity.
Musicbrainz already have support for both of them, you just want to enter a different release for each of them!
ym wrote:Lixobix wrote:I think pabouk is saying there is not a consistent rule as to how thing are written in the annotation field, making searches inaccurate. For example, some releases will say 24/96, others 24bit 96khz, others 24 bit audio etc. So if somebody has phrased the information in a different way it won't show up in the search. And there are no guidelines saying how it should be written
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.
Where would you put the guidelines explaining how to add the correct annotation in relation to hi-res releases? I think style guidlines for annotations would be very difficult to enforce. I don't see how a selecting box could be complicated. Even if there were 20 or so options, it's not hard to select the appropriate one.
I don't know if there is any such proposal before, but I remember before NGS we were entering catalog numbers and such (yea there were no support for those too :)) info to annotation just like:
Catalog No: xxx
SPARS Code: AAD
Release Date: xxx
Labels: x, y, z
...Something like this doesn't even need any guideline IMO...
