SACD release missing hi-def stereo tracks

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fa5ca827ea0>

Hi all,

this Bob Dylan release: https://musicbrainz.org/release/fe698a41-e048-3b00-ae52-6c33a89e0f51

only shows the CD layer of the SACD, and the 5.1 tracks of the SACD layer.

The back cover however shows a logo stating it has:
CD audio
SACD Stereo
SACD Surround Sound

I guess I should insert the SACD stereo tracks - do they normally appear before or after the 5.1 mixes?

Thanks

You can indeed add that layer.

But this release is a mix of many editions (added pre-NGS), with 8 Disc IDs for the CD layer.
If I were you with my SACD in hands, I would create my specific edition, with only my Disc ID (and label, catalogue numbers, manufactured in/by relationships, etc.), in the same release group. :wink:

Or another option, that requires more work, is to check which one is you Disc ID, and then check the edit history to see if you can remove all the others (if there is no edit notes spcifiying the edition info of each).
I checked already, none of the Disc IDs are linked only to this release, which is already a nice start to enable removals.
I checked the edit history and no Disc ID has any visible edit notes identifying any editions.

2 Likes

Usually the SACD stereo tracks are entered before multichannel tracks.

However, I would ask you to reconsider adding them at all. I started like this myself, meticulously adding all available tracks into two mediums. This would of course be correct, but has disadvantages when tagging one’s one digital copies.

The layout of the release in question now is represented via a CD layer (stereo) and a SACD layer (multichannel), titled “Hybrid SACD (CD layer)” and ."Hybrid SACD (SACD layer). This allows us to use matching discsubtitles, like “Stereo mix” and “Multichannel mix” or “CD/SACD stereo” and “5.1 mix”, for example. Stereo tracks usually have the same titles and lenghts on both layers, exepcions are very rare. When tagging files this may lead to SACD stereo tracks (in .dsf format,for example) to be summed up incorrectly under "Hybrid SACD (CD layer) but for me personally this is a small inconvenience compared to be able to use discsubtitles. Those are a great help in separating tracks in software like KODI.

If you add stereo tracks to the SACD medium, discsubtitles will not be applicable since the media already have correct titles and writing “CD” and “SACD” would just be repeating them.

Also, I think the style guide says something to the effect “when track names are repeated, new media may be omitted” (can’t get the wording 100% right).

All that said, I feel that your proposed edit is not strictly necessary and your precious time might be better spent elsewhere. I would probably also vote against such an edit as the current layout for me represents the best of both worlds and to feel the pulse of my fellow multichannel editors in this matter since there are not strict guidelines yet.

1 Like

Hey. Thanks for the notes so far. I was hoping it would be an simpler discussion. :slight_smile:

It seems the first failure was the initial addition of this release. It should have not passed scrutiny because it was incomplete. (And did not lend itself to be fixed easily later).

What’s the MB policy in this case? Add a new release which is complete/correct?

Secondly if it’s possible that an edit to the original be voted down, what would be the proper way to tag the ripped files of the entire medium (PCM, 2CH DSD and 5.1 DSD)? The current release does not allow for this.

Thanks.

It does, if you tag both the redbook and the SACD stereo with the “Hybrid SACD (CD layer)” part.

Sorry, I don’t understand.

I have 33 files (11 x Redbook, 11 x 2CH SACD, 11 x 5ch SACD). In Picard the release allows for 22. How would I tag the files without duplication/overlap?

Thanks

Personally, I use foobar2000 which allows matching per medium.

In Picard, you can cluster files into a release which is what you seem to be doing. If there are “leftovers” or files are not clustered at all, you can drag them manually one by one to the appropiate entries on the right. Picard will accept multiple files per entry on the right. It’s not a 100% perfect representation but as I outlined above, the advantages outweigh the imperfection IMHO.

Just out of curiosity: Why do you keep both redbook and SACD stereo files? The latter will usually give better fidelity so redbook is not needed.

1 Like

So, instead of fixing the release, the release that enumerates only 22 of the 33 actual tracks, you would
suggest duplicating the 11 that it lacks when tagging. Such that the destination directory would have:

1-01 first_track.flac
1-01 first_track (1).flac
and so on...

And those tracks would be identically tagged.

Am I correct? If so, I can’t see how that is favoured over either fixing the release, or, if that’s unpalatable, creating a new, correct release (which surely would be more unpalatable).

Why do I keep both Redbook and SACD? I don’t, but I have scripts that execute against the tags, and the having the correct media tag is important.

To be clear, I’m only describing a personal preference which may or may not be shared with other editors who specialize in SACD, DVD-A and other multichannel releases.

What you’re describing now concerning filenames seems to have nothing to do with tagging files, but with renaming them. How you name your files is completely up to you.

I’m not only describing file naming, I also said that the files would be identically tagged. That is the main problem, created by the root problem: a poorly created release.

Yet if I’m not mistaken you would probably vote against its fixing. I think you’re right though - I should fix it and see how the votes fall. It’s not madness if everyone is mad. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Sometimes there are mastering differences between the CD and SACD stereo layers, and less frequently actually differences (extra track on one not the other, etc). It is best to reflect what is on the release its entirety. I believe the guidelines say it is OK to leave the SACD stereo off for convenience (most were entered that way originally before we had the separate layer formats) but it is also absolutely allowed to include it.

The edit for this debate is now apparently https://musicbrainz.org/edit/71798511

I’m really not sure what Jorgosch is trying to do. You seem to suggest that you use Medium Titles to help with your tagging, but you can’t just make up Medium Titles. There is a guidelines for when Medium titles are appropriate, when they are named on the release. I think we all need to step back and perhaps debate the concept of creating a separate medium for the “HD 2ch” and “HD Mch” “areas” on an SACD. That kind of branches out to DVD-Audio where there is an AUDIO_TS folder with the DVD-Audio content and a VIDEO_TS with content that can be read by a conventional DVD Player. Those releases would become really interesting (as the HD stereo is sometimes in the AUDIO_TS folder and sometimes in the VIDEO_TS folder as PCM but there is no differentiation visible to the user.

2 Likes

You can get a really good feeling for what goes on with SACD and DVD-A when you load ripped ISOs in foobar2000. Both formats employ a kind of layer and the plugin author even gives you the possibility to only show 2CH or MC (obscuring the other layer). I realize this is not very technical but it is a practical application directly derived from the media.

As a KODI user, discsubtitles help to split up disc/media with different content. Again, this is not strictly relevant to the database but I still think MB should be aware of its practical applications if they are not completely far-fetched.

Personally, I even “hack” SACD compilations of 2 releases (like very often released on Vocalion label) to split them with discsubtitles into their original releases AND 2CH and MC parts so that I end up with 4 virtual media in such cases. I wish MB would offer such a possibiltiy natively (not necessarily via discsubtitles) but as I have learned changes here take a long time.

Now, splitting SACD (and even DVD-A) releases into 3 parts would

  • help with representation for some playback software
  • not affect existing release layouts
  • not necessarily be technically incorrect
  • avoid problems with having to reorder tracks when supplementing existing tracklists
1 Like

I remember there being quite a bit of debate on adding the “layer/side” formats for DualDisc, and SACD. This is an extension of that to consider different “data areas” on a medium as separate mediums. I am kind of in favor of it, but no totally convinced. The new formats would end up being something like.

SACD
SACD (CD Layer)
SACD (SACD Layer)
SACD (SACD Layer, HD 2ch)
SACD (SACD Layer, HD Mch)

DVD-Audio
DVD-Audio (HD Audio)
DVD-Audio (DVD Content)

Of course we would need the extra DVD-Audio formats for the DVD-Audio side of a DualDisc also. And better names :slight_smile:

… and let’s not even talk about video content on DVDs here… :stuck_out_tongue:

Here is the ticket where the Layers were added. I’m probably going to open a new one for discussion of the “area” additions.

And https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/STYLE-381

OK, I’ve opened a ticket for the new formats.

I’ve added some comments to the ticket that may inform part of the conversation here.

As a side note - I would not bother with the “HD” adjective. There’s no guarantee that the audio is HD (whatever that means) even if stored on a medium that can store high bitrate audio. I don’t think MB distinguishes the audio quality anywhere else. (I could be wrong). The “SACD layer” phrase differentiates the layer enough (although I prefer “DSD layer” as that’s often how it’s presented on the cover).

1 Like

Thanks, do you know if the “mono” SACD actually is implemented as one channel vs. 2 identical channels? I have several mono SACDs and pretty sure they were all implemented as two identical channels. SACD players only have settings for preferring the 5.1 or stereo version there is no separate mono setting. (Just checked my Oppo and the choices are Multi-Channel, Stereo, and CD Mode).

I agree the HD is redundant. It was just in the document I was referencing, but since that isn’t an official standard not important.