Amending the Style / Release / Medium Format to better handle SACDs

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fbb4967d2a0> #<Tag:0x00007fbb4967cff8>

Following the guidelines is not the issue, what he did on this and various other edits is using his priviledge to auto-edit instead of putting it up to a vote, knowing fully well that the guideline is about to be changed. And yeah, I find this behaviour rude enough in a passive-agressive way to act the same.
If an edit is put up to a vote I’m happy to enter into a discussion but not here.

I’ll admit I took an usual shortcut. But the result is a proper release that follows the current style guidelines rather than being in an awkward state with an extra medium and no way to attach a discid for a while.

Yes, there is history between Jorgosh and I. He tried to change how SACDs are entered by making up his own rules (naming mediums, creating new mediums that don’t exist by our definitions, etc.). I actually ended up agree somewhat with what he wanted to do and went through proper channels, creating a ticket to recommend new medium formats and style guidelines. Why he continues to break the guidelines and harass me for correcting things is beyond me.

1 Like

I would also like the guideline to address whether the medium title should be used to indicated “stereo”, “multichannel”, etc. Seems like that would be redundant if it was in the medium format name, but could clarify things further in the case of “quadrophonic mixes” or “5.1 mixes”. The current guidelines would seem to say not to use medium title for anything other than an actual title, but since these are virtual mediums, perhaps are different.

3 Likes

@Jorgosch @Cheezmo I think in this situation it would be best to wait for the final guideline changes and abstain, both ways, from editing the “mediums” of SACD r releases. There is no point on battling about this right now :grinning:

2 Likes

Exactly the approach I decided to take this morning.

2 Likes

I again defer to SACD/other multichannel release people: while the general guidelines say “only medium name”, we can override them for this (at least until they can maybe be migrated to a medium attribute, but no promises). If people think it makes sense, then let’s go for it!

1 Like

I don’t know if I’m one of the “SACD/other multichannel release people” :slight_smile: but my preference would be to stick with the current purpose for the “Medium name” field: that is, as I see it, a direct copy (or transliteration) of the medium name from the source release. If a medium has no obvious “name” (as most don’t), then the field should remain blank. I don’t see it as a free-text field in which to carry other information. If MB is missing such a field, then the schema needs extending.

The way most DSD areas (2CH and MCH) are differentiated in MB is by extending the track title (and recording) to include a multi-channel mix designator (5.1 mix, for example), where no designator implies 2 channel. This works, but isn’t ideal. One benefit of extending the MB schema to separate the DSD areas using additional media formats (as I’ve been pushing for) is that this information is moved out of the track title and into the media format (2CH DSD, MCH DSD), etc.

Ideally MB would have a subordinate field to medium formats that allows for different ToC areas, but that’s more work in both a schema change and front-end editor change (with possibly other implications).

4 Likes

@scotia, that is my feeling also. If it is covered in the medium format and the disambiguation on the recordings on the medium, using the medium title for something it isn’t designated for isn’t something I would do.

1 Like

I’lll desist from using it that way until the style guide is amended to accomodate such information.

However, the field “DISCSUBTITLE” would also be extremely useful in splitting compilations like those issued by Vocalion, for example, into their original release parts. But that is for another day.

1 Like

But the DISCSUBTITLE is there for separating out the separate parts of boxsets, etc. Or are SACDs never in boxset form? i.e. a second disc of “demos” or a concert?

How do we get this over the line? I believe there’s a reasonable consensus that using different media formats for SACD DSD ToCs is a desirable, if imperfect, improvement. I also believe there’s enough information with which to complete the task.

There’re also other threads and conversations popping up that are germane to this proposal that would benefit from its implementation.

Ok. To confirm: do we agree with adding all the layer options suggested on STYLE-1426, or only specifically SACD (SACD layer, HD 2ch) -or SACD (SACD layer, HD 2 channel)- and SACD (SACD layer, HD mch) -or SACD (SACD layer, HD multichannel)?

For formats are currently:

  • SACD
    • Hybrid SACD
      • Hybrid SACD (CD layer)
      • Hybrid SACD (SACD layer)
    • SHM-SACD

I’ve a fan of brevity, so how about:

  • SACD
    • Hybrid SACD
      • Hybrid SACD (CD layer)
      • Hybrid SACD (SACD layer)
        • Hybrid SACD (SACD layer, 2ch)
        • Hybrid SACD (SACD layer, mch)
    • SHM-SACD
      • SHM-SACD (2ch)
      • SHM-SACD (mch)

Additions are in bold. This maintains the current language and extends the schema without altering any existing fields.
Some words should be put into all relevant style guides as part of the change.

Of course alternatives are welcome.

STYLE-1426 also discusses non-SACD changes so would need to remain open (or split into another ticket) if we just change the SACD stuff.

What I ask myself is, do we go for a virtual layout completely or still take physical media into account? For a set of 2 multichannel SACDs the above suggestion would result in 6 media… but they could also be represented by 3 media, summing up all tracks under CD, SACD stereo and SACD mc.

As it currently stands you’d still be adding the same number of tracks, just across 4 media instead of the proposed 6.
Part of the motivation of using separate 2ch and mch media is to accurately record the track numbers (which wasn’t possible when merging 2ch and mch). Collapsing all of a release’s media would present the same problem.
Unless I misunderstand.

Again, there are better ways to solve the problem (for example MB presenting “CD”, “2CH”, “MCH” tick boxes in the track editor - which would expand everything for you when clicking “expand” or something like that), but that would involve more work that adding four more media formats to the schema.

You left out the non-Hybrid SACD variants. Need to represent 2ch and mch for an SACD that is not Hybrid.

Opened New SACD "media formats": last time to complain!

1 Like

Quick question to SACD owners: Does a “Hybrid SACD” always have a CD layer as well as a SACD layer(s)?

I saw three “28 track” Hybrid SACDs in this release group ( https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/6139bff5-9a9a-3038-99ca-c7fa8bb754f3 ) and my assumption is these are really three layers in the new method.

I’m about to do some edits in that RG and will clean up the three SACDs to comply with the three medium. Lack of SACD player means I have the Blu-Ray Audio version of that release.

Quick answer: Yes. Without a CD layer it is not a Hybrid (of a CD and a “DVD5” layer) … and without an SACD layer it is just a CD :grin:

3 Likes

Thank you for confirming I have my assumptions correct. Cricket Bat of Compliance™ being applied in coming days. And also thank you for teaching me it is a hidden DVD! Never knew that is how it worked.