2012/11/2 Sheamus Patt <musicbrainz.r...@ncf.ca> > On 11/02/2012 12:14 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > > On 11/01/2012 08:06 PM, Sheamus Patt wrote: > > Simply digitizing an analogue source doesn't seem to represent any more > significant change than doing an analogue pressing from a digital > source. Sure, some were "remastered", but I think many are simply > digital copies of the original analogue masters with the intention that > it be a faithful rendition. Calling this a distinct audio source is an > artificial distinction, which isn't adding value that I can see. > > So what do you do when this “faithful rendition/simple transfer” happens > multiple times and the result is different? Just treat them all the > same, even though they may sound completely different? > > > I don't really object to new recordings being created to describe a > remastering, particularly if a new engineer was involved and there are new > relationships that need to be attached to describe the new recording. What > I have a problem with is the wording of the revision of the style guideline > which seems to define *any* analogue-digital conversion as being such a > significant event. I just don't buy the argument that a digital version > "must" sound significantly different than the analogue. Forcing such a > distinction can lead to duplications of recordings for little benefit and > diminish the value of the MB database because those duplicates will in many > cases be left without the performance relationships etc. that the originals > might have had. >
How many Recordings are we speaking of? Or rather what is the proportion of digital mediums versus analog mediums currently in MB? -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
