#musicbrainz

thanks for jumping in

by the way, let me say that this autoedit "feature" is BS xD

I only realised because the front cover changed and I re-tagged my files and randomly checked the editing history, otherwise I didn't get any notification

at this point who knows how many of my releases got changed behind my back without me ever knowing

King_DuckZ: I suggest subscribing to the artists you care most about. You’ll at least get notified about the autoedits…

crism: well, I mostly know about the things I entered because I research a bit before adding stuff

dominikh : If that first track should be rounded to 16, then you still should be voting yes on that change?

although it's applied now so im not sure it matters

...although maybe you figured that out in the difference cause i se your abstain

but regardless

it's sort of meaningless to claim that you side with "Accuracy"

cause neither is more or less correct in a technical sense

if we had a rule that said we round, or one that said that we truncate, then there would be technical correctness to be had

but for all intents and purposes, the claim of the change that got undone is simply that the user's preference for rounding is inherently superior somehow to truncation, which is not based on anything of which i am aware, and that the compatibility with other listings is irrelevant to this preference

and if we just wanted to side with greater precision regardless of anything else, we should be looking to add millisecond remainders to the available inputs, rather than alter the shortening method

although it's applied now so im not sure it matters <-- exactly my problem, I think I will file a bug report about this autoediting and fast tracking other people's edits

For example, if I were to phrase the runtime as "how many full seconds exist within the runtime of the track?" .... suddenly truncation is more accurate than rounding.

so we cant claim accuracy here without more information/policies than we have

and if we just wanted to side with greater precision we should be looking to add millisecond remainders <-- that - not that I'd want to add track lengths in milliseconds, just saying that if accuracy is set to seconds there's a reason

lol good luck timing cassette tracks with millisecond accuracy xD

i mean the reason may simply be that nobody thought of it, or nobody cared to provide that much, or just not worth storing that much

but the point is

its not more or less accurate to round or truncate unless you can describe "how" it's more or less accurate, or "according to what rule" that would be the case

I totally agree with that

so meanwhile, if we claim th ey're equally accurate, but everyone shows one over the other

.....that's all i need to know, personally, in order to make a decision about which one im going to put in my entries

King_DuckZ : as to your other question, about this high res thing

Can you clarify that it has the same label id and the same barcode?

I would recommend consulting any policy stuff, but my first instinct is that if all the meta-identifying info, I would consider it "the same thing"

sorry, **if all the meta-identifying info /is the same/

actually, looking closer, you're also linking to the same product listing page ..... so I'm inclined to think it's the same "thing"

Erin: the discussion is scattered a bit everywhere here https://musicbrainz.org/release/416ade1e-7319-4...

I made a comment here https://musicbrainz.org/edit/83042086 showing some examples of hi-res and non-hir-es separate releases, although they have a different barcode (except the last one that has no barcode)

so

otoh I don't think the barcode means much because last last link has same barcode paired to wildly different CDs

just looking at this example: https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/9d615e01-...

can you tell me which two releases are the normal and hi res ones?

is it 2 and 3?

the 2xdigital media with barcode 4988601465236 (which is the same as the CD) and the one marked as 96kHz

so

you have a different catalog number on those

is it fair to say that that implies that the publisher considered these things to be separate publications?

and in turn, is there a way in which a reasonably similar claim can be made about this other situation that we're actually here to talk about?

interestingly they both link to mora.jp, each to the respective release hi-res and non-hi-res, just like I'd like to have for the album we've been arguing aobut :)

yeah, but can it reasonably be said that there is a distinction made in terms of the identity of the publication, beyond simply having downloads for the varying files?

well that I honestly don't know, I just saw that several release groups included the 96kHz version and conformed to it whenever I see mora.jp selling both

[im also trying to look through guidance here, to see if there's a specific detail]

yep, I'm also trying to figure out

I'm not upset or anything :D

I mean, I've already been told that the different url on mora doesn't count as a catalogue number (they add _96 to the url for the hi-res versions)

I'm sorry but I really have to go to bed

I said I'd sleep by midnight and it's 3:30 /facepalm

i tried treating this as a "this needs to be merged" and looked for guidelines on when to do that, but i didnt find any, so im thinking we dont have a good answer on when to merge and keep separate, but i'm super interested in a doc link if we do

im currently trying to look at the square enix info to see what they consider it to be

if you figure out any guidelines drop me a message on irc or a note on MB as I would also like to know for the future

are you perma-online? cause yeah, i can dm

yep, unless server dies

[i said square enix but that's not correct -.- ... am shamefaced]

highlight or pm are both fine

lol it's because you were looking at FF15 just a moment ago

wow the rounding seconds up or down discussion + edits might have put me to sleep more than anything else I've come across in MB, and that is really saying something!

Erin, King_DuckZ, dominikh: About the rounding thing: Picard round up, but the majority of tools seem to truncate (which I actually prefer)

yvanzo / zas / monkey / Lotheric: what the hell are "génériques"? https://musicbrainz.org/release/b3e29410-66da-4... I'm confused about whether this is classical music or what :)

Sunday evening editing if anyonw wants to hang! https://www.twitch.tv/aerozol2

reosarevok: Usually means 'credits' as in TV/movie credits, but sometimes also encompasses other broadcast design elements such as jingles and bumpers

Looking at the compilation, in this case for radio shows rather than TV, but the same applies

=#

reosarevok, as monkey said

In your experience, if there's a pregap track on one disc, is there one on all pressings?

I assume that the person that originally added the discid didn't use a ripper that handles pregaps and that's why it's not there.

CatQuest There was a tweet similar to that I saw recently.

Anyone? Should I just add a pregap track and assume all discIds for the release have it?

I guess not as this is what Whipper output about it. "HTOA discarded, contains digital silence"

Odd that it's there but empty.

Is there a way to diff releases? These two seem identical except for the release date.

even the annotation history is largely identical, odd

I mean, it's not guaranteed that every version of a cd will have a preegap

maybe some other pressing will not have it, but if anyone comes with a cd without that preegap their cd should b a diffrelease

so like see if there is a release there with the exact same stuff as yours and a preegap then move your disc-id over there. if none such exists edit the release te disc id is attached to

and anyone else comming around willø have to create a new release if theirs have no preegap

PelvicSorcery: so what's that tweet?

suggestions on how to deal with the two vinyl releases in https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/7d75da84-... They are sold separately so they shouldn't be merged into a 4x Vinyl release

I was thinking a separate release group for each of them, with both linked to the main release group using the "included in" relationship

CatQuest If I remembered that I would have posted it. :D

:)

elomatreb[m]: i belive thats exactly how to do it

they were separate originally, merged into one in ... 2009

My discId pulls up this release but my barcode doesn't have the trailing 3. Should I make a new release, remove the 3, or other? https://musicbrainz.org/release/38e56a95-b97b-4...

the last digit of barcodes usually is a check digit, if everything else checks out it should be the same release

Okay. Just wanted to check.

here is some nice raga if anyone is interested in dhrupad https://chandraveena.bandcamp.com/music