+1. Obviously.
Are we generally saying that, until something better comes along, single media that have multiple tables of contents (track lists) that vary ONLY in either their rendering (PCM or DSD) and/or their mix (2CH or MCH) MUST have those track lists on separate media in MB?
I’d be happy to submit amendments to the style guide(s) in English if needed.
I wouldn’t use MUST as in RFC style because we explicitly have guidelines, not rules (so all of our cases are heavily recommended SHOULD over which the community gets a vote). The general idea seems fine to me (if nobody too strongly objects) that “SACDs that include multiple tables of content with the same tracklists but in different mixes should have their contents entered as two different media, SACD (stereo TOC) and SACD (multichannel TOC)”. Are there cases of SACDs with even more than two TOCs?
Fair enough. However you need to also separate the Redbook layer too (hence PCM vs. DSD). Therefore it’s not just the mix that is must be different, it could be the rendering.
Also it’s “tables of contents”, not “tables of content”.
3 ToC SACDs are Hybrid SACDs that have Redbook (PCM), DSD 2CH and DSD MCH.
I’m not sure it’s worth differentiating if an SACD is Hybrid or not (as we currently do) - I’d leave that to the disambiguation field. It’s obvious anyway if it has a PCM media. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Also the 2CH may not be stereo, so stick with 2CH (it might be mono/dual channel).
To summarise, an SACD may hold one or both of:
whereas a Hybrid SACD must hold:
and one or both of:
SHM-SACDs are the same as SACDs (I don’t believe they can be Hybrid; I could be wrong).
I don’t understand.
For me it’s already the case.
If I take a release I have, I can see one medium per layer already:
And nothing forbids me to add even more mediums and to use the disc title to say 5.1 recordings or stereo recordings.
Would your change be that we would have more medium types than below, so that we don’t have to use the disc titles?
- SACD
- Hybrid SACD
- Hybrid SACD (CD layer)
- Hybrid SACD (SACD layer)
- SHM-SACD
If so, why not.
But could you show what would be the new (bigger) list of SACD medium types? 
My opinion: without making more radical changes to how release media works on MB I would agree that it makes the most sense to add multichannel recordings on a separate medium.
I don’t think comparison with vinyl sides is apt because unlike the sides of a vinyl record, I imagine it would be very unusual to listen to all the stereo recordings on an SACD and then immediately listen to all the multichannel recordings.
I would expect generally the multichannel and 2ch track titles to be identical (using that linked edit as an example, I doubt “Tangled Up in Blue (5.1 mix)” is printed anywhere on the packaging). Instead, looking at the back cover I would suggest the medium titles be set to “SACD Stereo” and “SACD Surround Sound” as that is actually printed on the release.
If the style guidelines need clarification in this matter then I’d support that.
Can someone please look at the history of https://musicbrainz.org/release/1b7cad6c-2897-455b-8214-6c46533a6440/edits and finally revoke the auto-edit permissions for Cheezmo? The guy is insufferable!
No need to go berserk and say fuck you instead of leaving them an edit note saying what you think is wrong.
I don’t see discussion between you two in this history.
Why would anyone get their auto-editor permissions revoked for following the guidelines?
I think your edit notes are needlessly rude here regardless of Cheezmo’s actions. Leaving an edit note explaining why you disagree with the edits allows them to explain their reasoning and is more civil. Are there prior disagreements between you and Cheezmo?
I’m confused. Should @Cheezmo have voted against (as is his/her prerogative) rather than editing over the top (if that’s what he/she did - as I said I’m confused by the edits)? Or is that train of edits reasonable?
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.
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.
@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 
Exactly the approach I decided to take this morning.
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!
I don’t know if I’m one of the “SACD/other multichannel release people” 
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).
@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.
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.
