There are several disc IDs that are attached to multiple releases of John Coltrane’s A Love Supreme. These were pre-NGS additions, so they were not necessarily added to all the current releases to which they’re attached.
The 2002 deluxe edition was mastered by Rudy Van Gelder; it has that same disc ID (for disc 1), which I’m inclined to remove. Is it a safe assumption that these different masterings would produce unique disc IDs?
Well, those credits are about audio mastering and even the same mastering can produce different disc ID which depends on the actual CD manufacturing.
I’d say it should be OK to annotate the release with your CD matrix data and keep only the disc ID that matches it. I’ve sometimes also left such messy catch-all releases alone and created a new unique one with all the necessary details and essential artwork.
I understand the same audio master could result in two different disc IDs, dependent on the manufacturing. But I would have thought that a different audio master would necessarily lead to differences in the manufacturing. Is that not the case?
In theory, another audio mastering could also produce the same disc ID, but in practice this can be ruled out. The chance that the index points will be placed in exactly the same places (1/75 of a second) during glass mastering is minimal. In fact, even the same audio mastering has different index points from different manufacturers and thus a different disc ID. If several disc IDs are stored for one release, it is more likely that different releases were mixed up.
In some cases, different masterings from one manufacturer actually have the same disc ID - However, you can then see in an audio editor that the remaster looks exactly the same as the original master and is actually a scam.
But it’s not only because of that. I contacted editors who added disc IDs to releases in my collections.
It’s more, let’s add a new disc ID to this release - “CD in hands” - without ill intent and without knowing how releases differ at all. Same front and same tracklist is the same release. So far, in all cases we were able to identify another release to which the disc ID really belongs. (doesn’t work so well if the edit happened a long time ago)
Until a few years ago, I as well had no idea about disc IDs and release features. For tagging, I chose the release with the most beautiful cover and clicked the “Submit AcoustIDs” button when it was active, not aware of any consequences. (luckily I didn’t submit any disc IDs )
I’m also in that group of becoming far too geeky about DiscIDs. At least there is only a small number of pre-NGS discIDs on that Release, some popular albums can have 20 or 30. Mixtures of different factories, decades, home brews… a mess.
The bogus can be easy to spot as the same set of DiscIDs appear on multiple old Releases, often don’t appear at all in the edit history. I only generally trust something I see that was added with a comment or used to set track lengths.
I agree that 99% of the time a Release is one DiscID per Release. Though the DiscID is not always unique to only one Release. Companies like EMI would often press the same master in different factories around Europe and then ship them out to places like South Africa and Australia. One DiscID can legit be on many Releases.
I’d encourage people to add DiscID details in a little block with matrix detail in the annotation.
It is funny what knowledge does… in my earliest days I think my first submissions were discIDs via Picard. Picking “it must be the GB one with the same barcode”. Something I know now was so wrong. Same with AcoustIDs via Picard.
Trouble is Picard can hide what you are doing. As a noob it is easy to think you are helping when in fact you are polluting the accurate data. Now I serve my penance by clearing out that data of other’s mistakes.
Yeah, that’s what I meant. Thanks. Very useful to have a little set of connected details like that. Easier to flush out the bad DiscIDs then.
If you want to get clever, you can turn it into a link by using square brackets and a bar. The text before the bar is the URL (copied from the DiscID page). The text after the bar is what will display for the link.
Notice the centre of the CD has different paint on those Discogs photos? These should usually be separate releases in MB language. By looking at the Discogs images the Sony one is slightly different.
As the same release is listed twice in MB (The other one here ) I would suggest to update the Discogs link on your one to the matching Sony DADC one ( https://www.discogs.com/release/16086927 )
This would be a good example when the discIDs are very likely to be different. I would be surprised if a Sony DADC and EDC, Germany had the same DiscID.
Some of the problem is that DiscIDs are not always documented when added. I know when I started adding discIDs via Picard in 2017 I would just write “disc in hand” which I now know is pretty pointless. Better to see the matrix detail or at least a barcode otherwise we don’t really know if it was correctly added. I know the first ones I added were almost certainly attached to the wrong releases. Knowledge I have now is very different to the knowledge I had then.
You’re quite right. In general I only add discIDs to releases I submitted myself or I compare (as carefully as I can) with my own copy if no discID is there already. At least in the future I’ll try with better documentation than ‘Release in hand’ or similar (cross my heart ).
The best discIDs are the ones that appear in the edit notes from the same editor who added the release. Trouble is when submitting a discID it is usually in the CD player at the time so can’t easily add matrix details. A barcode is pretty good as they generally narrow down to one side of the pond and a narrow time period. Though this example the barcode is the same even though factory changed.
But I am an overly mad details nutter Working on releases on MB has made me far to aware of these details… So mad that one day I have promised myself to go back and check my first few dozen discID submissions to see where they actually went…
I’m not sure I’m seeing what you see. The little black inner ring looks a tiny bit off-center on the MB image compared to the discogs one - is that what you’re talking about? Or am I missing something?
Compared on Discogs: the EDC disc has a wider clear hub area behind the print. The print on the Sony disc is much closer to the center hole.
→ EDC vs. Sony
I’m not sure whether it comes from the different infall of light what you see as difference. Unluckily both don’t have an image of matrix/runout.
Maybe I’ll add own scans from my Sony release on MB.
Edit: on MB the media scans look quite identical to me.
Let’s say: I would like to have it a separate release because of different manufacturers and a certainly different disc ID. And they include distinguishable different discs (I still think the diameter of the unprinted clear hub area is different)
It is about having an annoying sense of spotting silly little differences. I see what @ernstlx has highlighted. The two CDs are manufactured by different companies, so they paint the inner ring of the CD to a different amount. If you place the two CDs on top of each other you would see the difference. The Sony is manufactured with a bit more paint. Leaving the diameter of the clear part smaller.
Working on releases on MB has made me far to aware of these details… So mad that one day I have promised myself to go back and check my first few dozen discID submissions to see where they actually went…