18:57 PM
hawke__
reosarevok: It shows them in a format closer to what some liner notes show
2011-11-23 32720, 2011
18:58 PM
kepstin-laptop
then again, inline mode is closer to what other liner notes show :)
2011-11-23 32726, 2011
18:58 PM
hawke__
Exactly
2011-11-23 32733, 2011
18:58 PM
v6lur joined the channel
2011-11-23 32743, 2011
18:58 PM
hawke__
Having the option to switch back and forth makes it easier to compare to liner notes.
2011-11-23 32750, 2011
18:59 PM
kepstin-laptop
the other thing that's missing from the new built-in support is that bitmap's script takes all the release relations (no recording relations) and shows them at the bottom
2011-11-23 32733, 2011
19:00 PM
kepstin-laptop
so if there's a fuzzy release composer ar, you can see that on the release page instead of having to go to the relationships tab
2011-11-23 32745, 2011
19:01 PM
kepstin-laptop
does the built-in support highlight things with pending edits?
2011-11-23 32716, 2011
19:02 PM
kepstin-laptop
that and having inline editing links are the two things that built-in support could do to improve bitmap's script, imo.
2011-11-23 32727, 2011
19:05 PM
reosarevok
Inline editing links? Hmm, that'd make it UGLY
2011-11-23 32728, 2011
19:05 PM
reosarevok
:p
2011-11-23 32752, 2011
19:05 PM
kepstin-laptop
well, I'd use them.
2011-11-23 32705, 2011
19:06 PM
reosarevok
Sure, but but but ugly! :p
2011-11-23 32713, 2011
19:06 PM
reosarevok
(about the highlighting, I'd love that)
2011-11-23 32746, 2011
19:06 PM
kepstin-laptop
editing links could be made nicer looking, just use a ✎ as the link and make it light grey.
2011-11-23 32742, 2011
19:09 PM
kepstin-laptop should work on http://people.scs.carleton.ca/~cwalton3/temp/mbmockups/release.html again :)
2011-11-23 32722, 2011
19:12 PM
kepstin-laptop
hmm. maybe ✍ is a better 'edit' icon :)
2011-11-23 32717, 2011
19:13 PM
hawke__
Nah, it’s hard to tell wtf that is.
2011-11-23 32758, 2011
19:13 PM
kepstin-laptop notes that the weather today is ☃ :)
2011-11-23 32717, 2011
19:14 PM
kepstin-laptop
hmm. my irc client doesn't have a nearly big enough font size to see that.
2011-11-23 32726, 2011
19:14 PM
kepstin-laptop puts his unicode character map away now
2011-11-23 32747, 2011
19:14 PM
hawke__
The weather is…male?
2011-11-23 32757, 2011
19:14 PM
kepstin-laptop
that should be a snowman
2011-11-23 32700, 2011
19:15 PM
hawke__
Oh.
2011-11-23 32719, 2011
19:15 PM
hawke__
Wow, even zoomed in that doesn’t look like anything
2011-11-23 32730, 2011
19:15 PM
hawke__
It looks like a foggy lightbulb
2011-11-23 32734, 2011
19:15 PM
hawke__
at 18pt font
2011-11-23 32746, 2011
19:15 PM
kepstin-laptop
depends a lot on your font, I suppose.
2011-11-23 32754, 2011
19:15 PM
hawke__
at about 35pt, you can tell that it’s a snowman
2011-11-23 32714, 2011
19:16 PM
kepstin-laptop goes off to grab a ☕
2011-11-23 32724, 2011
19:16 PM
nikki recognised it, but has seen it before
2011-11-23 32754, 2011
19:16 PM
nikki
but looking closely, it doesn't really look like a snowman after all
2011-11-23 32756, 2011
19:16 PM
hawke__
kepstin-laptop: Is that tea or coffee?
2011-11-23 32758, 2011
19:16 PM
kepstin-laptop
amusingly, the description for U+2615 HOT BEVERAGE is "tea or coffee, depending on locale"
2011-11-23 32744, 2011
19:17 PM
nikki
hawke__: maybe it's hot chocolate!
2011-11-23 32703, 2011
19:18 PM
hawke__
nikki: nope, the description says “tea or coffee”. :-)
2011-11-23 32727, 2011
19:18 PM
hawke__
Clearly they were being very specific. ;-)
2011-11-23 32751, 2011
19:18 PM
hawke__
2011-11-23 32716, 2011
19:19 PM
hawke__
(MB needs a better way to draw attention to controversial edits.
2011-11-23 32721, 2011
19:20 PM
reosarevok is wondering how long before we get a forum post with "needing a note for release adds sucks"
2011-11-23 32747, 2011
19:20 PM
kepstin-laptop
the only correct response to that is "no, you suck!"
2011-11-23 32759, 2011
19:21 PM
Ismael joined the channel
2011-11-23 32714, 2011
19:24 PM
hawke__
CallerNo6: Good call on that second “Silly Sisters” album
2011-11-23 32730, 2011
19:24 PM
warp
hawke__: interesting edits are entirely on-topic here in the #musicbrainz channel IMO
2011-11-23 32703, 2011
19:25 PM
CallerNo6
even a broken c#6 is right twice a day
2011-11-23 32725, 2011
19:25 PM
CatCat
hawke_: you have my vote
2011-11-23 32741, 2011
19:25 PM
CatCat
this kind fo thing was exactly the kind fo thing i was talking about at the summit
2011-11-23 32750, 2011
19:25 PM
CatCat
(idr if you where there)
2011-11-23 32754, 2011
19:25 PM
hawke__
I was not.
2011-11-23 32704, 2011
19:26 PM
CatCat
ah
2011-11-23 32712, 2011
19:26 PM
CatCat
well i taqlked abotu it, it shoudl be in the summit notes
2011-11-23 32721, 2011
19:26 PM
CatCat
and i totally agree with "RFC: recordings: remove remaster from the 'should not be merged' list” for further discussion on a related topic"
2011-11-23 32727, 2011
19:26 PM
CatCat
erh yes
2011-11-23 32733, 2011
19:26 PM
CatCat
a bit copy-paste fail but
2011-11-23 32729, 2011
19:27 PM
CatCat
remaster can mean #we cleaned out the analogue tapes of physicasl bumps# up till "we remixed all the differnt traciks (identically)"
2011-11-23 32732, 2011
19:27 PM
CatCat
idk
2011-11-23 32735, 2011
19:27 PM
reosarevok doesn't really - although in this case, the second ISRC looks weird
2011-11-23 32752, 2011
19:27 PM
CatCat
unles you can spesifically HEAR a difference (in which case it's usually a reMIX)
2011-11-23 32711, 2011
19:28 PM
reosarevok generally agrees with splitting by ISRC
2011-11-23 32721, 2011
19:28 PM
CatCat agrees with that too
2011-11-23 32726, 2011
19:28 PM
reosarevok
(especially if we get label feeds - I'm hoping they include ISRCs....)
2011-11-23 32738, 2011
19:28 PM
CatCat
but i believe hawke's comments here
2011-11-23 32741, 2011
19:28 PM
hawke__
reosarevok: I think ISRCs should be taken with a grain of salt: “There’s a good chance these are different, please look more closely”
2011-11-23 32753, 2011
19:28 PM
CatCat
shoudl be a way to tag themn
2011-11-23 32705, 2011
19:29 PM
reosarevok
Yeah, sure, I don't think they should *never* been merged
2011-11-23 32712, 2011
19:29 PM
reosarevok has seen two ISWCs for a work even
2011-11-23 32712, 2011
19:29 PM
CatCat rememembers when the cd's first starting gettign popular i nthe early ninties
2011-11-23 32738, 2011
19:29 PM
CatCat
a lot of old releases were re-released as "remaster" this and that" for the "enhanced digital crisp sound"
2011-11-23 32742, 2011
19:29 PM
hawke__
But especially since ISRCs are questionable at best, and especially questionable getting to our DB…
2011-11-23 32755, 2011
19:29 PM
CatCat
it was basically a gimmick
2011-11-23 32701, 2011
19:30 PM
CatCat of to shower <3
2011-11-23 32747, 2011
19:31 PM
hawke__
That’s awesome that the ISRC handbook is CC-licensed.
2011-11-23 32716, 2011
19:32 PM
hawke__
CatCat: Technically all analog/digital transfers are remastered, so that’s a lot of, probably most, CDs.
2011-11-23 32723, 2011
19:32 PM
reosarevok
hawke__, Does it have ISRCs in it?
2011-11-23 32726, 2011
19:32 PM
reosarevok
Or what is it?
2011-11-23 32703, 2011
19:33 PM
hawke__
reosarevok: It’s the document talking about how ISRC should be used/interpreted, apparently.
2011-11-23 32756, 2011
19:33 PM
hawke__
How to put it on various media, what each part means, stuff like that
2011-11-23 32721, 2011
19:34 PM
hawke__
heh, “A separate ISRC must be assigned to every different track of a recording where there has been new
2011-11-23 32722, 2011
19:34 PM
hawke__
recordings.”
2011-11-23 32708, 2011
19:36 PM
hawke__
sound quality (also see Section 4.9.1 Re-mixes/ Edits / Takes), then no new ISRC is required.”
2011-11-23 32751, 2011
19:36 PM
hawke__
Separate Exploitation). Therefore they should be allocated a distinct ISRC.”
2011-11-23 32713, 2011
19:37 PM
reosarevok
Sounds like we *should* be following something like that for our recording differences :p
2011-11-23 32757, 2011
19:37 PM
hawke__
allocated. The recommended threshold is 10 seconds.”
2011-11-23 32721, 2011
19:38 PM
hawke__
It sounds like in theory ISRCs should be exactly what we consider to be recordings
2011-11-23 32727, 2011
19:38 PM
hawke__
but in practice, not so much
2011-11-23 32735, 2011
19:38 PM
reosarevok
Yeah
2011-11-23 32720, 2011
19:40 PM
hawke__
We have the (advantage|disadvantage) of (being able to|having to) judge after the fact.
2011-11-23 32740, 2011
19:41 PM
hawke__
I wonder if we could reasonably and legally adapt or reference the ISRC guidelines as our recording guidelines.
2011-11-23 32750, 2011
19:41 PM
reosarevok
What's the CC licensing?
2011-11-23 32710, 2011
19:42 PM
hawke__
BY-ND
2011-11-23 32700, 2011
19:43 PM
hawke__
Not sure how much that limits adaptation
2011-11-23 32744, 2011
19:43 PM
hawke__
ND would certainly suggest “not at all”, but I don’t know if that’s really accurate.
2011-11-23 32739, 2011
19:44 PM
luks
wow, the inline ARs really look weird
2011-11-23 32702, 2011
19:45 PM
hawke__
luks: I take it you haven’t been using bitmap’s script?
2011-11-23 32720, 2011
19:45 PM
luks
no, I haven't
2011-11-23 32731, 2011
19:45 PM
reosarevok
Poor luks :(
2011-11-23 32752, 2011
19:45 PM
luks
there seems to be completely random padding in the tracklist view
2011-11-23 32702, 2011
19:46 PM
hawke__
?
2011-11-23 32724, 2011
19:46 PM
reosarevok
Isn't it like one tab for recording relationships, two for work ones?
2011-11-23 32729, 2011
19:46 PM
reosarevok
Or is padding something else?
2011-11-23 32758, 2011
19:46 PM
luks
I mean vertical padding
2011-11-23 32716, 2011
19:47 PM
luks
if you have a track with one AR, you get as large padding at the bottom
2011-11-23 32742, 2011
19:47 PM
luks
and the space differences between recording and work ARs
2011-11-23 32742, 2011
19:47 PM
reosarevok
Add more then! ;)
2011-11-23 32750, 2011
19:47 PM
reosarevok
But yeah, it needs work
2011-11-23 32758, 2011
19:47 PM
warp
luks: which release are you looking at?
2011-11-23 32704, 2011
19:48 PM
luks
2011-11-23 32705, 2011
19:48 PM
reosarevok thinks it's better than nothing for users who didn't have the script though
2011-11-23 32720, 2011
19:48 PM
warp
I'm about to implement hiding as reosarevok asked.
2011-11-23 32725, 2011
19:48 PM
reosarevok
:D
2011-11-23 32725, 2011
19:48 PM
warp
I'll have a look at the css.
2011-11-23 32703, 2011
19:49 PM
reosarevok
warp, can you make it smaller while you're at it?
2011-11-23 32711, 2011
19:49 PM
reosarevok
(the size of bitmap's maybe? :) )
2011-11-23 32737, 2011
19:49 PM
hawke__
There is a weird gap between the “performed [instrument/vocals]” relations and the “performance of [work]” relations.
2011-11-23 32735, 2011
19:50 PM
hawke__
luks: Are you interested in looking at / finding out about acoustID collisions?
2011-11-23 32726, 2011
19:51 PM
luks
hawke__: yes
2011-11-23 32759, 2011
19:54 PM
hawke__
2011-11-23 32732, 2011
19:56 PM
luks
hm, what is wrong about that?
2011-11-23 32749, 2011
19:56 PM
hawke__
Well, they sound different, though not hugely so.
2011-11-23 32722, 2011
19:57 PM
luks
"Sink in the Pink" and "Sink the Pink" are different songs?
2011-11-23 32717, 2011
19:58 PM
hawke__
No, they’re the same song. The recordings are almost the same, too.
2011-11-23 32718, 2011
19:59 PM
hawke__
I think one may be a remaster, but not sure.
2011-11-23 32725, 2011
19:59 PM
luks is confused
2011-11-23 32735, 2011
19:59 PM
luks
what are those fingerprints calculated from?
2011-11-23 32750, 2011
19:59 PM
hawke__
From files I have locally, using fpcalc.
2011-11-23 32702, 2011
20:00 PM
luks
but which songs?
2011-11-23 32758, 2011
20:00 PM
luks
(I'm asking because I don't see what is the problem)
2011-11-23 32719, 2011
20:01 PM
luks
the two MB recordings have even identical PUIDs
2011-11-23 32743, 2011
20:01 PM
luks
unless you mean that one of the fingerprints is not from AC/DC's Sink the Pink
2011-11-23 32758, 2011
20:01 PM
hawke__
So it’s just a normal case of “too similar for acoustID to tell apart”?
2011-11-23 32718, 2011
20:02 PM
luks
I don't know :)
2011-11-23 32729, 2011
20:02 PM
hawke__
I’m saying that the two recordings, of the same song, are audibly different. :-)
2011-11-23 32729, 2011
20:02 PM
luks
because I don't know what are the fingerprints
2011-11-23 32702, 2011
20:03 PM
luks
well, if they have even the same PUIDs, I'm sure AcoustID won't be able to tell them apart
2011-11-23 32757, 2011
20:03 PM
hawke__
OK. The main difference seems to be in recording level, plus a very slight time shift.
2011-11-23 32739, 2011
20:04 PM
hawke__
I guess that’s just not enough of a difference for acoustID to notice, and is expected?
2011-11-23 32709, 2011
20:05 PM
luks
I can't tell without having checking those tracks
2011-11-23 32734, 2011
20:05 PM
luks
2011-11-23 32744, 2011
20:05 PM
luks
they all match almost perfectly
2011-11-23 32712, 2011
20:06 PM
hawke__
k. Let’s see, what was the other one I found…
2011-11-23 32714, 2011
20:07 PM
hawke__
…blah, I can’t find it, but it did definitely have two distinct clumps of fingerprints.
2011-11-23 32752, 2011
20:07 PM
hawke__
I’ll try to figure out which one it was again.
2011-11-23 32757, 2011
20:08 PM
hawke__
Did you see my comment the other day about Picard not showing the right acoustID when it automatically assigns a file to the wrong track?
2011-11-23 32711, 2011
20:09 PM
luks
no
2011-11-23 32741, 2011
20:09 PM
luks
you should really submit tickets about bugs like that
2011-11-23 32750, 2011
20:09 PM
hawke__
k.
2011-11-23 32705, 2011
20:10 PM
luks
even if you tell me, I'll just create a ticket
2011-11-23 32726, 2011
20:10 PM
luks
because I'll want to have a look at it later
2011-11-23 32733, 2011
20:10 PM
hawke__
I’ll just create a ticket then. :-)
2011-11-23 32728, 2011
20:12 PM
luks
I'm downloading the two AC/DC tracks
