#musicbrainz

(I think they've made an SC "set" as well, but I can't be bothered to look it up right now. :))

Freso: I've been using Ubuntu on one laptop since 11.04 I guess. I'm now also running it on the desktop and a VPS. none of these have broken (whatever broken is in this context).

ianmcorvidae: https://frob.nl/tmp/audio-setup.png

intgr: The HIB music releases should be added as separate digital media releases…

oh wait, messed that up.

refresh :)

ianmcorvidae: mpd runs on bullet-bill (a desktop computer), when I listen to music I use the usb device -> amplifier for best quality :)

sure, but mpd does the replaygain part itself

I don't really see how this matters re: replaygain :P

ianmcorvidae: I relatively often watch the livestream of the dutch house of representatives.

replaygain would just ensure the volume on the amplifier doesn't need changing regularly

(though switching sources might, it's true)

ianmcorvidae: which is just a bunch of people talking. which is boring in itself.

Freso: https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/0c8fc2f8-8...

ianmcorvidae: so the talking people are on 9-volt or 18-volt, while I'm still working on bullet-bill. I will then queue up some minimal techno on bullet-bill, at fairly low volume.

which in that case goes through the mixer, or?

ianmcorvidae: yes, I use the dodgy hardware mixer for that.

ianmcorvidae: anyway, so I regularly use four audio cards in various configurations, and volume levels are all over the place with that stuff.

seems like for that application replaygain would still be really nice -- no need to change the volume of the techno as it changes between albums in order to keep it matched to the right levels vs. the talking

obviously replaygain won't just let you stop touching volume, but it does remove one place where you'd have to

ianmcorvidae: the subtle volume changes between albums seem so insignificant compared to the huge jumps in volume between the different audio sources I switch between.

sure, which seems to suggest you'd be even better off never having to worry about them :P

making a small problem not exist is still an improvement

I do see why you wouldn't have bothered, but I'd still hold that it would improve your experience, however slightly :)

don't dupe edits usually get rejected? maybe b/c some got 502's

function1: only if found

ah, kepstin uploaded scans for that, nice

function1: of course, some will fail automatically anyway

But for example, if you add a release twice by mistake and nobody notices, both will stay there until someone does notice :)

reosarevok: not fail, but just D.O.A. guess not

Sometimes, yes

(it will be like "that's changed in the meantime!!!" and fail it)

i mean i edited the release group to the same thing, three times, apparently, b/c i refreshed after a 502

and they were all open edits

seems like it should have refused the two dupes from even being entered

Oh, nope

They'll fail when they try to apply

I mean, nope as in it doesn't do that. Not that it wouldn't make sense - I guess it's just harder

sounds like a good idea to me, though, you could add a ticket for it :)

ive had too much MB for abt a week

er enough for a week

all these edits

kepstin-work: actually reosarevok deals with most of the redirects. I deal with the 404s and disambiguation pages. I tried to find out if it properly tracks things, but wikidata didn't know of anything I tried to look up so I have no idea.

Freso: 913 is a custom code for wikipedia redirects, since wikipedia helpfully returns a 200 for those

i have a classical release, titled "the four sections / foobar" and in the four sections part there are 4 tracks. liner notes say (1 I. Strings \n 2 II. Percussion etc.) can i use that roman numbering scheme? the guideline seems to say as long as you're consistent it's okay. unless there's some classical nuance here

release is http://musicbrainz.org/release/18b48155-28dc-4f... wondering if its right or if i should do whats on the cover

Looks right to me.

hard to say without seeing the printed tracklist though

hawke_1: see above. thats printed tracklist

<hawke_1> intgr: The HIB music releases should be added as separate digital media releases…

You do it if you want to :)

intgr: I am, I just see that you’re editing the CD release on the basis of the cover from the HIB release.

(for Darksiders, specifically)

function1: So is it …"The Four Sections\n 1 I. Strings (with Winds and Brass)\n 2 II. Percussion\n 3 III. Winds and Brass (with Strings)\n 4 IV. Full Orchestra\nMusic for Mallet Instruments, Voices and Organ”

hawke_1: The cover is identical for the HIB release and the one on Amazon.

If you're talking about Darksiders

Otherwise I wouldn't have done it.

hawke_1: yes thats the list

function1: Then you can use either the arabic or roman numerals.

Just be consistent

I wouldn’t use both, though

right. i was planning on useing I. Strings, II. etc

and changing whats already been entered in MB, savvy?

You should keep the section title

So The Four Sections: I. Strings

The Four Sections, I. Strings;

ok

Yep

(Or "The Four Sections: 1. Strings" would be fine if you prefer that)

hm anyone got some good knowledge with amps ?

might as well just leave the 'part' in there anyway

Personally I prefer arabic because it sorts well.

who needs sorting unless you're talking about a filesystem

i mean ascii sorting

Who needs roman numerals unless you’re living 2000 years ago. ;-)

ascii or unicode, no difference there. :-)

i mean if we're going with all this 'whats on the cover' and theres so much info, you can sort by whatever you want in software. for filenames you'd want to start with an arabic number, yes

im a major proponent of YYYYMMDD

bc it sorts well

im starting arguments for no reason

function1: ISO-8601 :)

you're a bit late to be making fireworks

nikki: it was more clouds of smoke :P

nikki: I literally cooked a component :P

which would be fine, if i didn't need to use it to do lots of work this weekend :P

still, it's not the worst i've done :P i blew up an ipod in a similar way :D

what on earth do you do to your stuff? :P

well i do electronics at uni :P

I see :P

i dont just randomly mess around with it :L

anyway, you all good? :)

You’re trying to commercialize this, aren’t you: http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/

hawke_1: it was a remarkably similar situation :P

<jargon>I shortcircuited the two power rails because a lead was too long and fell across them. Which meant that I drew a few hundred mA through a diode only rated for 200...</jargon>

but the good news is i can probably fix the device because it's open source hardware ;)

and i think i only blew one component (though possibly two)

ianmcorvidae: :D

ianmcorvidae: Did you reuse the recordings for all of them sans 12?

13, you mean, and no; I reused all of them :)

possibly should be split

ianmcorvidae: Well, track 13 should definitely be a new recording. :p

ianmcorvidae: The rest... check their AcoustIDs. If they're all the same, probably no reason to make new recordings.

(You could also listen through each one and compare... but running through a fingerprinter and comparing the results are probably easier.)

(And faster.)

a.) I only downloaded 13

and b.) it actually used the same acoustid, I think :P

o.O

Strange.

I think it's fairly easy to determine that they aren't the same audio though.

yeah

So they should be separate recordings.

And perhaps we should send a copy of each file to luks to figure out why they get the same id. :p

(And by "we" I mean you, since I didn't actually bother to download it.)

lol

ianmcorvidae: https://acoustid.org/track/97c72264-4de6-44f8-9... only has one fingerprint too.

Are you sure you scanned the SoundCloud downloaded one?

It sounds rather unlikely that they'd have the same fingerprint.

I scanned it and it found the CD version, and thus didn't light up the submit, I think

right.

weird

er not fingerprint, acoustid

Is it after the 2-minute mark?

no

it's 0:17-1:10

It has two different acoustIDs: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/433101a6-79d7-...

And the difference is evident

http://acoustid.org/fingerprint/24043239 http://acoustid.org/fingerprint/24649495

ah, there we go

I just opened up acoustid-fingerprinter to use that instead, that's probably why it's just appeared

I assume http://acoustid.org/fingerprint/24043239 is the corrupted one?

yeah, that's the CD version that has chunks of track 12 in it

https://acoustid.org/track/8f6e47dc-f3d6-4ce9-8... not that the new recording is replicated yet, but :)

er, or someone already did :P

ianmcorvidae: I know picard will only submit if it’s different enough (like 90% different maybe?)

90% different where?