Hello, On 02/02/12 05:58, MeinDummy wrote: > Of course all these sources do not provide exactly the same audio but this > does not mean that they cannot be the same release. > > We are not even sure if we want to keep original and remastered tracks > separate. So why should we differentiate between encodings?
It's not just about the encoding of the audio. The original metadata in the files is likely to be formatted differently and include other data (e.g. embedded cover art). They may include different cover image files or "digital booklet" files. Obviously they are different if one of the releases contains audio or video files which the other doesn't. Even releases from the same retailer can be different in this respect. For example the original mp3 release of Quaristice by Autechre included a different cover image embedded in each .mp3 file -- whereas the .flac release did not come with the individual track cover art. I have both copies on my harddisk because they are different to me. > As of now, MB only offers the format "Digital Media" without further > branching off into codecs and their parameters so except for the release > event all those MP3 releases are the same with respect to their MB data. > Even the PUIDs and AcoustIDs are the same. Obviously the AcoustIDs are the same. In general for a group of releases in a release group I expect most of them to share recordings and fingerprints. Some may have bonus tracks, but that is not the only reason to distinguish particular versions of an album from other versions. > If Digital Media releases from different sources were kept separate then the > owner of some MP3s might not even be able to correctly identify his release > unless the source is mentioned in some ID3 tag field or he remembers where > exactly he bought or downloaded every item of his music collection. ok Which is exactly why I want the help from musicbrainz to keep track of these different versions in those situations where I have multiple versions in my music library :) > And with the "different audio" argument you would also have to create > separate releases for Jamendo MP3 and Ogg Vorbis or for the different > encodings that you can choose when downloading from Bandcamp or archive.org. Except for rare cases (like the Quaristice example) I would consider these to be the same release, available in multiple formats. I would like to keep track of these formats in MusicBrainz, but that is a separate issue. Considering this, I will also accept that a release available on both iTunes and Amazon is the same release if it was released on the same day and has exactly the same files included (if the iTunes release has a digital booklet .pdf and amazon does not -- they are different releases, etc..). This is very difficult to determine without purchasing both however, so I would still be inclined to enter them separately unless I have proof that they are the same. > I don't see why we shouldn't stick to the simple "Digital Media" format to > cover all encodings. And as I said before I even think we should combine MP3 > releases from different sources into one MB release to prevent the database > from being cluttered up with identical copies of the same data. If I have reason to keep multiple copies of a particular album, there is obviously something different between them. If there is, they should be separate releases in musicbrainz, so I have distinct release MBIDs for both. Obviously it's OK if they use the same tracklist and recordings. For this reason I prefer to err on the side of caution, and create separate releases for iTunes and Amazon downloads. For me, the issue of not being able to distinguish between two different releases would be a much larger problem than "clutter" in the database. -- kuno / warp. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
