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
- Hybrid 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)
- Hybrid SACD
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.
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 
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.