Why don't recording relationships show up for all discs with those that have them and how to fix quickly?

MusicBrainz
,
1

For the release group https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/36e39c55-c294-38ae-8890-594bcc019461
the two CDs have recording relationships for all recordings and the sacd does not? Since they’re all the same recordings why doesn’t the sacd have them too?

Is there a way to add them without typing them all in? I see this a lot on SACDs.

What am i not understanding?

3 Likes
2

You’re not missing anything. Just picked a release which is not completed. Someone added that SACD and did not associate it to the recordings.

In this case, as it is all stereo, the quickest way is to merge the recordings with one of the stereo releases. The extra quick way is using a Userscript to “Mass merge recordings”.

That SACD is a mess in many other ways. Didn’t even have the correct title. The editor did not check the title, and then just skipped the step to associate to the previous recordings.

I’ll merge these recordings for you, but it will take seven days to sort itself out.

I guess the problem is mainly you are picking SACDs - which less people own. And it is more obscure - so an even lower number of editors around to fix them. (Fixed now :slight_smile: )

3 Likes
3

For extra annoyance, that release wasn’t even an SACD originally. It was digital media and someone changed it, probably because someone else added the wrong cover art:

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/63045174
Edit #68292543 - MusicBrainz (note that it doesn’t match the art at Coleman Hawkins – Coleman Hawkins And His Confreres (2014, 24bit 192kHz, File) - Discogs, which doesn’t mention SACD/CD players)
Edit #83334478 - MusicBrainz

4 Likes
4

I see now, even more messy. I admit I did speed scroll that edit history as it was getting late night here and didn’t follow the DIscogs link to spot the FLAC origin. But no mention of that in the edit note. They still had not linked to recordings. So many other errors on that page. Good to get this more clearly nailed into one version or another.

It can often be a puzzle when there are three different releases in one as to which one to convert it in to. Sometimes I’ll end up cloning it to keep all parties happy. I’ll probably do that here too. Done - as the quality of data for the SACD was a bit better (cat nos, art, etc) I made a new FLAC copy and tracked down the original Quobuz link for the artwork.

4 Likes
5

Thank you Ivan!

Furthermore, I’ve seen releases where the mediatype is just Hybrid SACD, and it’s not split between the two layers because the tracks are exactly the same.
Which is the preferred method?

1 Like
6

I prefer adding the other layer, only when the tracklist is not the same.

But I cannot oppose when another editor wants to add all layers to a release in my collection.
It’s not incorrect.
(It just looks bogus to me) :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes
7

The layers should be split out separately as the track times on each layer are often different.

It is optional. As you see above, @jesus2099 is happy for a single layer. On the opposite extreme I know there are some editors who hunt out SACDs and fix it all up as multiple layers they have large collections of SACDs to refer to.

Many of us only ever listen to a single layer, I own SACDs where I have only ever played the CD layer as I don’t have an SACD player.

The point is, it all improves the data we have at MB. All is good. :smiley: Add what you can, and someone else comes along and expands it.

4 Likes