#musicbrainz

hey what kind of packaging would a literal cardboard box be?

Is there a max size cap on CAA uploads?

https://musicbrainz.org/doc/How_to_Add_Cover_Art claims that there isn't, but my 292 MB PNG scan has failed thrice in a row, and the attempts were done at wildly different times

The error message doesn't tell anything either (and console is empty)

not that i know of

could be an unstable connection

you could try compressing the png into something more manageable

Didn't work with a VPN either

And my upload speed is way above the global average (unless there's some other connectivity issue)

huh, didn't realize this edit would take 7 days : https://musicbrainz.org/artist/6dfa1795-fa88-4f...

why in the world is your PNG 300MB?

bleh, same deal here : https://musicbrainz.org/artist/34f88176-6b5c-40...

and this : https://musicbrainz.org/artist/05d0cd12-fbe9-45...

it... seems sub-optimal that noticing an artist name needs correction while tagging means you have to wait 7 days to tag :/

@derwin: 48-bit 600 DPI 12 inch vinyl scans do get pretty large lol

Is it overkill? Yes

But that's also kind of the point when it comes to archival

I am well aware that most people don't scan at 48-bit colour though

I'm not an expert, but isn't it quite likely that you are scanning in a much higher resolution than the thing was actually printed in?

like, it's literally impossible for you to capture information which isn't there?

yeah 300MB per scan doesn't feel very useful either

it's so large that just attempting to view it would take forever at the speeds the IA servers provide

AFAIK scanning at a higher resolution (in my case, 600 DPI) than the print resolution (which is usually 300 DPI) and then downscaling usually yields better results than directly scanning at 300 DPI

Too high DPIs (like 1200) might cause other issues though (really slow speeds, alignment issues, DPIs beyond the actual optical resolution of the scanner)

As for higher bit depth, it's simply for having a larger headroom for post-processing

What would be the appropriate relationship to use between two songs by the same artist that have the same lyrics and title (aside from the version disambiguation), but differ in their instrumental (the instrumentals are both original). Neither "edit of" nor "remix of" seem appropriate to me

^ that sounds like two different recordings of the same 'work' to me

So should I create a new "work" entry and then link both recordings to it?

@CircularTrapezoid47: Depends on how significant you consider the differences in the instrumental part, but yes

if they're completely separate musical pieces, they should be directly linked to the same Work, but you can indicate that they use the same lyrics by using the "based on" relationships and creating three Works in total

*they should *not* be linked to the same Work

^ what's the third 'work'? lyrics only?

that was my thought

but I guess you can also just have two works

Ok thanks, in this case one work with two recordings seems appropriate to me👍

harmony says tidal removed their v1 api? what am i gonna be missing from tidal in my harmony lookups

@Guest24: Tidal links, mostly

the other providers will continue to work and provide basically the same set of metadata, just from one less source now

<https://xythium.github.io/tidal.html>; Still seems to work for Tidal lookups