#musicbrainz

how do I tag for someone who is credited for "basic arrangement" in an album? my first instinct is that it's 'basic' as in 'bass guitar' (since that's one of the instruments used in the song) but maybe it means something completely different?

improbable that it means bass (as the word root for basic would be base, not bass). depending on context, I'd credit them as arranger.

(which may actually be a work relation, but I don't have the docs up)

right now I have them as "instruments arranger", should I remove the 'instruments' attribute?

(this is in addition to a general "arranger" credit, btw)

does "sound producer" = "sound engineer" on Japanese albums?

hi2all. A rather unusual question about picard. Is it possible to drag & drop files there via keyboard hot-key? Its possible to do with "send to [program shortcut]", but every time it launches a new program instance. May be its possible to modify "send to" to send files into existing program instance?

Darkloke: no, not possible at the moment, at least on Windows and Linux. On macOS it behaves like you describe by default, but this is due to macOS handling this differently by default

Darkloke: see also https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/PICARD-1933

PICARD-1933: Option to open new command line requests in an existing instance

Thanks for info, <outsidecontext>. Also thought may be someone knows some general utility for that (for sending files indifferent programs).

Darkloke: I am unfortunately not aware of anyway to do that. AFAIK applications have to handle it their own, there is no standard way to send files to running processes on Windows and most others. Which is a shame really.

The way of how macOS handles this is so much saner. I recently looked into solving this for Linux (and had it kind of working), but would like to have a cross platform solution.

hey all, I have a question: this https://mora.jp/package/43000152/LACA-15855/ has an entry in MB already but this https://mora.jp/package/43000152/LACA-15855_HI-... doesn't

it should be the same thing, just one is 48khz flac and the other is lossy 44.1khz, should I add a new release for the 48khz one, or just a new catalog id to the existing release?

with the catalog number being... LACA-15855_HI-24_48? I guess?

King_DuckZ: are you making up that catalog number?

atj: sort of, it's the thing in the url

I'm trying to figure out if they even have a different catalog number or not

King_DuckZ: if they definitely have a different catalog number then I'd lean towards a separate release. However I don't see the number listed on the page anywhere, and I don't think you can assume that the path in the URL is equivalent to a cat #.

I don't think sample rate should be a question of whether it's a different release - is it not just the same as Bandcamp offering WAV or FLACs, or MP3 v0 and MP3@320k?

evelyn: as a general rule I agree, but if it has a distinct cat # then I'd say it should be added as a different release.

Is it possible to configure picard to only add specific tags and discard all others?

I also wouldn't describe CD-quality WAVs as lossy :>

oxek: right-click on a tag field, you can add them to a whitelist so they don't get overwritten

evelyn: I found that option, but it means I need to label 50 tags that I don't want

and when I then tried it, picard still overwrote the empty fields

for example, I pick ASIN, put it as Preserve Tags, Remove it, do lookup, it is now marked as different, do save, and ASIN is once again saved into the file

Well, you're asking it to preserve the absence of a tag which doesn't make sense really.

My assumption is that the feature is there to preseve tags with existing values from being overwritten.

atj: I know. That's why I'm looking for an option to not add a tag.

oxek: ok, the answer (AFAIK) is no then.

oh

that's a pity then

Weird use case

oxek: note - I'm not a Picard guru so may be wrong, but I'm reasonably confident what I said is correct.

I've gone through all the options and looked at the guides and didn't see it either

so you're very likely correct

oxek: if you have a reasonable use case that is likely to be useful to more than just yourself then file a bug

oxek: however Picard has been around for some time so I think we can safely say it's not an oft-requested feature :)

outsidecontext would be the authoritative source on this I think

oxek: there are a couple of topics about this in the forums. The current way to do this would be to have a script that unsets all the tags you don't want to be written

oxek: and as I always do if this comes up: do yourself a favor and allow it to write the MusicBrainz IDs into the tags, at least the reocording and release ID

outsidecontext: of course those IDs are important, I'm talking about all those that are very likely incorrect because I have no idea which of the 18+ versions my CDs are

King_DuckZ, hi-def releases usually have a different UPC/EAN so yeah, I'd probably make a new release

oxek: beets with the zero plugin can do what you like.

more up to date

Lotheric: can you define hi-def?

darwin: checking it out, thanks

I already have beets installed, but am struggling with configuring it

atj, 24bit/192kHz

ok well so this means that without a separate cat number I shouldn't add a new release? I also don't see cat numbers anywhere besides the url, which is a bit of a long shot for guessing it, I know...

I can't see any UPC either

if you can't see a different cat number or upc or anything different.. than don't add a new release

ok, thanks for the answers :)

oh, what about the acoust id? is it ok for me to submit the acoust id from the 48khz flac even if it's landing on the non-hi-res release in MB?

atj, https://www.whathifi.com/us/advice/high-resolut...

King_DuckZ: acoustid should be the same for both releases

"going 16bit to 24bit can deliver a noticeable leap in quality" [citation needed]

I agree but what the industry does is not always sane :)

That way they can seel you digital music at a premium price that you won't hear any difference anyways because of your speakers, DAC or ears

hehe

Primarily ears

It's up there with premium ethernet cables that apparently enhance the bits that are sent across it.

it does make sense actually

the pairs in ethernet cables have different winding numbers (to lower crosstalk), hence for long cables you'll end up with bits travelling longer distance depending on which pair they take

this can introduce latency as the packets are reconstructed

higher quality cables can have winding numbers that are more similar between all pairs, so the latency is lower

not sure how that influences the quality of music sent across over the cable

of course most "premium ethernet cables" are nonsense, but there are some cables that actually are better quality

oxek: sorry, my comment was in reference to cables marketed to audiophiles, not general purpose cables.

it shouldn't matter for music, unless you're already almost saturating the bandwidth that the cable can take (by transferring other things), and using some QoS that deprioritizes music

that's when this tiny difference between higher quality and lower quality cables can manifest

(of course it's extremely unlikely that anyone would run into this scenario in the wild)