It was your comment about “make a database” that got me thinking. KODI has that SQL Database with all my CD in it just begging for an extra table to be added with all this mad data. We are talking very long term project…
I can only support the urge for more information.
If I scan my CDs, I do it always with the matrix. Helped me to avoid some surprises already.
Specifically for this need i bought a CCD scanner, to get a clear scan of the matrix.
…in fact it would need only one additional table for included discs, because the release and all release related data is already available. I don’t see an overriding benefit right now, but this way it should be easy to maintain, and I don’t see a downside either.
Thanks for this idea, thank you once again!
Now I looked up what a CCD scanner is…
I don’t think I have one. Actually I’ve got an awful scanner (very cheap, probably a CIS scanner), but it is sufficient for documentation (awful colors, still good depth of field). I will probably keep it, but if i ever buy a new one, I will look for a CCD scanner.
(For my records I will switch to photo technology. That looks more promising to me.)
Scanning vinyl is a pain in the ass, tbh. I do it only from time to time.
Tell me more about the photography technology, if it’s more than just taking good pictures.
- I will get a proper camara - borrowed. No extra costs at the moment and I can figure out what is necessary.
- I will buy an all-in-one copy stand like this:
EDIT: ("reprokid" Copy Stand with lighting unit ← not recommended, see comment below)
I bought Falcon Eyes Copy Stand CS-730
As an alternative: I’ve got a DIY instruction for building my own device with 2 tube lights (no LEDs) mounted at an angle so that no direct reflections can hit the lens. The base is big enough for an unfolded gatefold cover - because this is actually the disadvantage of the ready-made “reprokids”. They all have the dimensions 40 x 40 cm². But I will buy one of them - for starters…
Wow this is awesome. This looks amazing. If you can avoid reflections with it, perfect! need to take a closer look at this. And according to google it’s affordable. THANKS
Don’t be too euphoric - I’ll try it first. I’m not entirely sure if it fully works. This copy stand has point light sources. Although the light comes from 2 directions, I’m not sure if everything is illuminated evenly. And I will first see if there are no reflections…
Agreed @slipmaxim! I have been struggling to figure out how to get good vinyl images (they don’t fit in my CanoScan 9000F). Every time I upload crooked images with reflections I cringe a bit, but it’s the best I have right now. I would love to hear anyone’s experience or recommendations for a copy stand.
I feel you! I have the same scanner but MK II.
I managed to scan gatefold covers like this:
But it’s very time consuming tbh, because you need to stitch pictures together.
Me too, until I bought it… but it’s not very expensive and I will probably test it.
I tend think this about a lot of tickets that are really just adding types or adding something to a list, but I really don’t know. Maybe it’s a bigger job than we think.
I always add them now because they’re part of the workflow. Also because I can’t predict what people/I might need in the future, when the past is a hazy blur and nobody is sure if there was just one run or if there’s bootlegs around
you guys are the best!
Looking forward to some ‘copy stand’ reviews :o
I am not meaning to be negative. I know They are too busy on the complex work of running this place. They don’t see the need for these extras that only a small number of us are using. I realise adding to a list still takes hours of planning, implementing, and documenting changes.
Seriously though - buy a microscope. They are fun.
One reason I don’t typically add these myself - aside from basic laziness - is that I don’t know that much about the significance of the various codes, and no clue what should be a separate release (much less how to document those differences).
Would any of the folks who are knowledgeable and interested in this topic be willing to write this up? That could include basic documentation for what they signify as well as potential style guidelines to govern their usage.
Of course, that’s a problem. Discogs has a search engine where I can type in my matrix string and find precise instructions on what to do. There’s a complex web of linked information. Something like that would be necessary to let people know how to document relevant differences. A mandatory matrix entry is certainly not easy to set up. But that’s no reason not to implement a cover art type “matrix”.
Post a couple of examples and we’ll help decode. I read 'em at an amateur level and don’t have enough knowledge to write a How To document. I also don’t have the correct terms to explain.
Mainly you have three sets of numbers on the inside of a CD. A long waffly Matrix text that tells you where the stamper(?) that was used to press the CD was made and usually also where it was manufactured. Usually includes a company or plant name in here. For long runs you’ll also see a stamper number which explains its parentage.
Next you’ll find two other tiny numbers (after April 1994). SID codes. They are also usually impossible to pick up on a scanner and is where the microscope comes in. These both start with IFPI and are the Mould and Mastering info which basically tells you which factory and machine the CD was pressed on.
The subject is HUGE and would take a lot of writing up. Here is a useful intro from a Pink Floyd obsessive and this is only about EMI Pink Floyd CDs. The section 4 on Matrix is most relevant.
UK CDs: Pink Floyd Archives-U.K. CD Discography
USA CDs: Pink Floyd Archives-U.S. CD Discography
W.Germany CDs: Pink Floyd Archives-E.U. CD Discography
Europe: Pink Floyd Archives-E.U. CD Discography (you need to scroll the page to find it)
He has pages on most territories. It is biased to EMI Sony and Floyd, but a good grounding on what you are reading on a CD.
Some of the problem is every plant then has their own variations. Discogs is good at documenting this and “how to spot the difference”. We are trying to add some of these details here, but need to re-write it so as not to just rip off their text.
(and this is even more complex with vinyl)
The Discogs search engine is epic. Totally puts the MB effort to shame. I usually use the Discogs search, then follow the links back to MB.
As we don’t have quite so many releases here I don’t find the lack of Matrix search too big an issue most of the time. A bar code \ cat no gets me close, then usually someone has noted something in the disambig of the Release
FYI I don’t really look at or understand the matrix’s either*. But I still add the scans.
*apart from a recent interest in NZ pressing factory’s, but that’s easy, usually just the factory name in the matrix
FWIW, I am part of that “small number of us”. As you note, there are toooons of tickets, and while some of them may seem simple (“it’s just adding a new type!”) there might be non-apparent ramifications to adding this type. @reosarevok is also one of the contractors with the widest spread of tasks and responsibilities on the MetaBrainz team, so he can’t focus on Style work every day to look at tickets and make these considerations.
I feel demoralised (and I have heard others express similar sentiments) when I keep seeing you talk about us like we don’t care or “don’t see the need”. Far most of MetaBrainz staff are users of MusicBrainz too—and have been so for years. (@reosarevok is one of only 6 editors with more than a million edits in MusicBrainz!) You may not intend to be negative, yet many of your comments (esp. relating to the MusicBrainz/MetaBrainz team) come across as such. Please try to keep in mind that the impact of your words have a more direct effect on others than your intention of them.
For what it’s worth, I actually don’t know enough about matrix numbers and other pressing information to be able to tell whether they should or should not be a 1:1 match to releases.
My understanding is that the same release, with the same barcode and no other distinguishing info, can be pressed in several batches or plants leading to different matrix info, in which case I’d expect us not to split each one of those into its own release just for sheer difficulty of keeping the whole thing organized. But a discussion on this can certainly be useful.
Freso pointed me to a CAA ticket asking for a “matrix/runout” type, turns out I had even voted on it, but CAA tickets are not something I usually check so I totally forgot about it I moved it to STYLE where it probably belonged (STYLE-2038) and added the type now, any improvement suggestions appreciated as ticket comments