How to add a Bonus (Video-)DVD

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f7d017686c8> #<Tag:0x00007f7d01768588> #<Tag:0x00007f7d01768380>

yesterday I’ve added my first Bonus-DVD to MB.

Questions remain:

I’ve imported a matching release from Discogs as there was no matching release on MB available (there were 15, now 16). Discogs has no 2nd medium, but the (Video-)DVD titles were appended after the CD tracks. 2 titles (DVD-1 and DVD-2) contain the instrumental (remix) version and a 5.1 surround version of the album. Only the two others are actually videos (DVD-3 and 4). I don’t think that’s how it should be done. I added manually the second medium, separating instrumental and 5.1 tracks!
Should tracks be added seperately?
and if yes
Is there a tool for easy uploading information from a Video-DVD?

There is a similar release available and I copied it from there, but after attaching the CD’s TOC and setting duration - naturally - only CD times are corrected now.
It it possible to set track times for (Video-)DVDs too?

BTW: probably the 5.1 version should not be a separate recording. It’s only another quality, isn’t it?

1 Like

Looks fine to me. That’s how I add my DVDs. The 5.1 tracks are separate tracks on separate medium so it makes sense to list them like that. Just as separate and different as the Instrumental tracks.

The second layer of a SACD will also get its 5.1 tracks listed separately.

Little note - you forgot to tick “instrumental” on your Instrumental recordings.

No special tools for DVD. Which also means that awkward pain of needing to create all the videos as standalone recordings before adding the Release as there is no way to let the Release automatically make the recordings for you and get the Video flag set.

I also spotted that microscope in use :nerd_face: I’ve been photographing moss with mine…

1 Like

Yes, and again many thanks for your recommendation! I love this gadget. I didn’t believe it at first, but there are a lot of mould SIDs not showing up even on highest resolution scans, scanned under various angels. They are not even tiny, sometimes readable with the naked eye, but very faint and you have to adjust lighting. But with the microscope it’s captured in a minute. :smiley:

Instrumental is different, sure, there are no vocals. (I think it should be a “remix”)
But how is 5.1 a different recording? Or is a kind of remix too?
(I have added “instrumental recording” to the instrumentals, haven’t edited them at all as I see all kinds of missing relations there)

1 Like

In the language of MB the recording is different because it is a version without vocals on it. So you can’t swap the files like for like without noticing.

The 5.1 thing is confusing. There are different recordings for Mono and Stereo. So there should be different recordings for 5.1. And this is how most editors will do it. Meanwhile other editors come along and merge all multi-channel recordings into the stereo version claiming they are remixes.

The odd thing is when this is merged like this it then breaks the guidelines of “can you swap the recordings over without noticing?”. I’m a Pink Floyd nut and know how different the 2.0, 4.0 and 5.1 mixes sound to each other when I play them back on my 5.1 hi-fi system.

The official guideline says:

Number of audio channels

It may be the case that very similar released tracks have different numbers of audio channels. The most common audio channel configuration is stereo (two channels; left and right). However, there are several common audio channel configurations used in recordings, including mono (one channel), quadraphonic (four channels) and surround sound (various multi-channel configurations).

These different configurations should generally be distinguished by using separate recordings. However, the original multi-channel recording should be used when multiple channels have been combined into a single channel without actually creating a new mix from the source audio tracks. A similar exception should be made where a mono channel has been split into two stereo channels - for example, in Duophonic recordings.

That guideline clearly says “separate recordings”. And only if you know the stereo is a simple downmix from the surround version would you link them to each other.

With your DVD I would say these are all separate recordings - video, stereo, instrumental and surround.


Huh, who’s doing that? Can you give an example? I love the surround mixes I have and want to prevent such destructive edits :angry:


You know I am with you in this one… and I can’t remember an example. Just seen the weird debate happen before.

If I see any I’ll give you a shout in future. :smiley:


Okay, this fact I haven’t noticed yet. Then it’s clear. Thanks for the Guidelines link.

I think, I’ve seen it to, but now I will provide an example, if I stumble over it. Or better, I correct it.

But here it’s probably a downmix from the original multi channel recording, don’t you think?
(Maybe I should watch the included “Making of” docu)


Ultimately I am with @kellnerd on these. It sounds TOTALLY different during playback. You can’t just swap the files around and hear the same thing. I would always set 5.1 recordings as different to the Stereo versions.

The funny thing is I think this conversation is more likely relevant for those of us who play back music on multi-speaker systems. I know some Audiophiles think the idea of Surround is horrific - but then you see their systems and they only have two speakers. Everyone gets used to their own systems.


It’s perfectly OK for me although I do not have surround equipment (and I only have 2 ears :wink: )
But it makes sense. I’d asked because I want to know if there are exceptions to be made.

1 Like

You may only have 2 ears, but your brain has spacial awareness. You know if a noise is behind you or in front of you. Lots of clever processing in the old grey cells.

You are used to things moving left to right across your speakers. In a Floyd track they are also buzzing around you and from back to front etc. A Quad version of Dark Side of the Moon is so much more involving.


I know. It’s an evil joke to annoy surround enthusiasts. :wink:
But to be honest. If would have a proper room to have optimal positioning of the satellites (and money would not matter), I probably would buy such equipment. But it was hard to find acceptable positions for the speakers of my 2 channel equipment in my given living room (asymmetric).
And, if you do not watch movies at home, there are not many recordings available.

(I’ve seen the docu. The guy who mixed the recording was speaking to me, but there was no word on technical issues … surprise!)

Of course, the recordings of the 2 channel instrumental tracks without vocals in the standard version should be merged. Do you think so?
Overture (instrumental)
Unraveling (interlude) (instrumental)
The In-Between (Piano Solo) (instrumental)


I am confused at what you are trying to merge. Those are three different tracks.

My living room is also a weird shape. I am not after perfection, I am after a darn good experience. And both Dark Side of the Moon and Movies sound superb. Something like the opening beach landing scene in Saving Private Ryan is terrifying with the shells whizzing over your head and bullets ricocheting off the sofa.

1 Like

There are identical versions on the standard album:

I am still confused by your question.

Instrumental recordings are NOT the same as recordings with voices on.

Instrumental recordings should always be kept separate to recordings with a vocal track.


Sorry, if I wasn’t clear enough on this.
These 3 titles are instrumental in general. And as the instrumental version consists of the orchestral performance including Amy’s solo piano but WITHOUT her singing, these 3 are the same recordings, I think.

1 Like

I don’t know how many other ways to say - no it is not the same recording.

You have two tapes in front of you. One has a recording with vocals. One has a recording without vocals.

These are not the same items. Even if the one with the vocals has been made by taking the instrumental version and adding vocals. This leads to a VERY different final result.


So it’s to be decided on (sub-)release bases (only if all of them are the same). I thought it would be per track, because there’s really no difference for those three (except encoding).

But I think I leave it for now as I’m not really interested in details about Evanescence - I better add some more CDs. :slightly_smiling_face:

Yes, if you know the standard versions are without vocals they could probably be merged.

1 Like


Oops, there would have been something to read, thanks. :slightly_smiling_face:

Absolutely sure, these are small instrumental parts (interlude, etc.) - no vocals on any version.

1 Like