ETI vs. Disambiguation for channels (5.1, 4.1, etc.)

[tigerman325]

Should all 5.1, 4.1, etc. ETI be kept in the ETI or moved to disambiguation? I’ve always seen it kept in the ETI. Guidelines state to keep ETI in parenthesis after the main part of the title, with the exception of live recordings. But some editors keep trying to move the ETI to disambiguation. What do others think? Here’s a current example of an edit:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/71062617

[chaban]

Multi-channel recordings and disambiguation

While submitting releases with quad or 5.1 tracks, I keep running into the same problem: Should the channel information be included in the track title, like appending “(5.1)”, or should this go into the recording disambiguation field? There is no common practice at this time and arguments can be found for both approaches. a) It certainly looks cleaner to have only recordings of the same title and add channel information to the recording disambiguation field. b) There are releases which ONLY …

[tigerman325]

Thanks. I thought I remembered seeing this brought up before, but I couldn’t find it when I searched.

[jesus2099]

When it does not appear next to the track on printed tracklist, it should go to comment.

[Cheezmo]

Some releases (dts CDs for example) are all 5.1 so the tracks should not have ETI and the recording should have disambiguation. Other releases (most SACD or DVD-Audio) have both stereo and multichannel so the ETI is necessary on the tracks to make any kind of sense. When looking at the recording I leave it as ETI if it is ETI on all the release, but if there is a release without ETI I would move it to the disambiguation. Does that make sense?

[tigerman325]

Yep. That makes sense. I’m just so used to seeing it as ETI. But yeah, if it’s not even ETI on the release than I can see it being disambiguation.