New SACD "media formats": last time to complain!

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe30d6d8678> #<Tag:0x00007fe30d6d8858>

I’m planning to implement the following formats at the latest by the end of the week, unless there’s significant opposition in this thread. Please scream (ok, politely but firmly express your disagreement) if you think this is a terrible idea.

SACD formats are currently:

  • SACD
    • Hybrid SACD
      • Hybrid SACD (CD layer)
      • Hybrid SACD (SACD layer)
    • SHM-SACD

New formats would be:

  • SACD
    • SACD (2ch)
    • SACD (mch)
    • 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)

See Amending the Style / Release / Medium Format to better handle SACDs for the previous discussion on the topic.


I don’t really agree with the linked post two following points in bold:

In this post, I think, replace the word ToC by Medium.

Indeed, I do have some Hybrid SACD but no longer own my SACD player.
So I can only fully inspect the CD layer and rely on what’s printed concerning the SACD layer.

Why should we either add everything or nothing?
We have always been able to add incomplete releases.

I would like to still be able to use the vague Hybrid SACD (SACD layer) when I don’t have too much time to spend on this or that SACD release or also when we don’t have that full understanding of the SACD structure.

I am beginning to understand the SACD structure of my own releases better but that is not the case when you start adding some Hybrid SACD, as a CD player user.


I’m not planning to remove those, so that seems good. For now I was planning to add them and add to the guidelines something like “it’s suggested to do it this way” - nobody should undo it, but I also think it can be a lot to ask from beginners.


Totally agree with @jesus2099 as I also own SACDs and no SACD player. Partial data is common in MB

Is there any chance we can get some examples of the correct way to do things linked up in the guidelines when this changes? I got lost in that discussion long ago.

1 Like

Agreed. @scotia: once we add these (assuming we do, anyway), I’d be grateful if you could create a couple good examples to share in the guidelines :slight_smile:


@reosarevok Sure thing.

Do you have the actual media and packaging? I don’t think I’ve ever actually played media to inform my MB edits.

As a general approach isn’t it best to leave doubtful information out of an edit in the hope that someone with greater certainty can add it? Off-topic I know but not having an working SACD player (but having the media) should not be an impediment to editing.

Another thing: given that the mix will now/soon be captured in the medium format, what will be the advice on track and recording naming? eg:

  • track names as are per the packaging (ie, no mix information)
  • recording names as per the track name
  • recording disambiguation to contain the mix detail

Or something similar?

1 Like

You know, we’ve got that handy attribute and icon for video tracks. Maybe something like that could be implemented for different audio formats. Probably a longer term solution, and given the challenges with using the video format probably needs some other changes to go with it…

1 Like

I had something similar in mind, which maybe can be combined with the attributes that you mention.

Adding new pseudo formats seems like a short term solution. Wouldn’t it be better in the long term to focus on solving this with something similar to (the UI was never finished), which I’m guessing will add tabs to the tracklist that you can switch between? The problem with this solution is how to handle that third level, e.g. “SACD layer, mch”, and if it would be possible for different tabs to have their own set of recordings.

That’s optimistic. At least medium-term, I’m afraid.

This is specifically meant for alternative track titles and same recordings. Different recordings would require a completely different UI and be a very different beast :slight_smile:


This should also give you an idea: Need script/functionality to make entering SACD releases easier

There is nothing “doubtful” about adding the data in hand from the CD as printed. Not having a SACD player still means we can lift the CD layer out accurately, and the box artwork and booklet tells us what should be on the SACD layers.

We are not talking about guessing and making things up. We are talking about using what we have available as a reference.

Though reading some of these SACD conversations it seems that between the people talking they have every SACD ever released so will be able to add all the missing data.


What I meant was actual edited examples linked from the database. For us non-experts in SACD a lot of the language in these discussions is confusing :exploding_head:

Much easier to see it on the page as a real example to follow.


I didn’t want to take up too much space on this tangent, but I made a ticket:

I only have 452. Going to be busy.


We need a laugh react.


Although I may just sit back and approve @Jorgosch edits :slight_smile:


Don’t count on it… once I have edited and tagged my stuff with a release I’ll move on to the next one in my pile. I don’t think I’ll revisit anything. Although I still monitor stuff like a mother hen through my subscriptions :slight_smile:


I added the formats, and added a tentative paragraph to - SACD people, do let me know if that seems sensible or it should be amended. @scotia: I can link a couple examples (ideally one SACD/SHM-SACD and one hybrid SACD with all 3 media) if you provide some :slight_smile:

Once the guideline is ready I can update the version displayed on

(probably) First example: