Discogs format system update

There is an extensive update proposal for how we enter format information for releases up at http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesFormat-NEW .

Although the proposal and conversion is somewhat involved, I believe the new system will allow us to be much more accurate and descriptive about the format a release is in, and will allow us (together with a master release function – tba very soon) to list all unique releases without problem.

{edit – link made to work – thanks!}

Return to Discogs Blog
76 Comments
  • Oct 10,2006 at 08:31

    [quote=nik]Nice find on the AB-CD thing! Fan Disc, AB-CD, MiniMax… what to use?!? They really all the same?
    [/quote]
    I’ve recently seen yet another variant on the 3″cd in a 5″ body as it were [b]Semi-Substrate disc[/b] which kind of sounds generic. I’d think the other types some sort of marketing idea especially the terribly named AB-CD

  • Oct 1,2006 at 02:44

    …need to go through this… need to go through this…

  • nik
    Sep 27,2006 at 05:14

    [quote=Gecks]a videogame CD-ROM is not an ‘enhanced’ audio CD[/quote]

    Is this for video game CD-ROM’s with audio tracks? Ther is CD-ROM alreasy in the list.

    Enhanced is just used as a catch all because CDs use this term, and CDs are going to be the biggest use for this term. It’s easy in the future to swap out names in any case if a better one comes along.

  • Sep 27,2006 at 03:20

    well, yes… ALL data on CD is ROM data… unless it is a CD-RW disc :D

  • Sep 27,2006 at 01:30

    ROM = Read Only Memory, ie, data you can’t change, so it’s pretty much the same. Although, technically, the audio on the CD is also ‘data’…

  • Sep 26,2006 at 04:36

    Data content?

  • Sep 26,2006 at 04:00

    [quote=nik]lazlo_nibble – Thanks for the research you put into the AVCD thing. I am proposing in this format description update that ‘enhanced’ is a super-generic description that is available for ALL media, and that signifies the media carries some kind of computer code or programs.[/quote]

    i still reckon ‘enhanced’ is a bad term – eg, a videogame CD-ROM is not an ‘enhanced’ audio CD, really. not sure of a better term, though :/ ‘ROM content’ I guess, but that’s perhaps not so easy to understand.

  • Sep 25,2006 at 15:27

    [quote=nik]Fan Disc, AB-CD, MiniMax[/quote]
    As someone who didn’t know what they were called before I visited this thread, I personally prefer MiniMax. To me it sounds most like what it is.

  • nik
    Sep 25,2006 at 04:05

    lazlo_nibble – Thanks for the research you put into the AVCD thing. I am proposing in this format description update that ‘enhanced’ is a super-generic description that is available for ALL media, and that signifies the media carries some kind of computer code or programs. This means it can be used for releases like the [r=7941]. I think we should keep the AVCD as well. A lot of these CD ‘formats’ are just different ways of putting mixed-mode media on a CD.

    maxx_eclipse – AVCD is in the [url=http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesFormat-NEW] proposal[/url].

    Nice find on the AB-CD thing! Fan Disc, AB-CD, MiniMax… what to use?!? They really all the same?

    maxx_eclipse – From your last post, I think you are misunderstanding things here… please re-read the proposal.

  • Sep 24,2006 at 23:34

    ^ We need to decide which of the three to use, and then mention the other two in the Comments field.

    It’s difficult for me to suggest which is the best one to use since I’d never actually heard of any of the three terms before this forum.

  • Sep 23,2006 at 20:58

    Back to the topic of Fan Disc vs. Minimax for a moment, where exactly does an [url=http://www.sonydadc.com/products.special.ab.go]AB-CD[/url] fall? (The three seem the same to me…)

  • Sep 23,2006 at 15:59

    I would guess up until your post about it not many people would have been aware of the fact a CDE was some sort of RIAA certification scheme but would have been aware of the concept of CDE, ie Music and Data on the same disk (Disks with DRM WMP files excluded), even if they were not certified CDEs.

    I think at this point CDE has become pretty much a generic term for all “Music with Data” disks.

    Actually speaking of DRM perhaps something like DRM-Disk should be included as strictly speaking a disk with DRM is not a CD according to the Redbook standard.

  • Sep 23,2006 at 06:47

    ^
    But I must note that I did not add (Special Asian AVCD Edition) label in parentheses myself just to describe it, as it is the actual title printed on the release!

  • Sep 23,2006 at 06:46

    An AVCD, as in my [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/775957]submission[/url], is a combination of audio tracks and video tracks on one disc. It stands for Audio/Video computer display. Is this a selectable format yet so I can edit it now?

  • Sep 21,2006 at 12:53

    [quote=nik]It will be after we enable the Master Releae function, yes.[/quote]

    hmm, sounds nice
    any info yet on how this will look like?

  • nik
    Sep 21,2006 at 06:32

    ^ that’s an annoying thing about all these CD ‘formats’. It is reasonably easy for someone to make a new data-model for how a CD does things, make a machine or computer program to read it, and say (legitimately) that it is a ‘new CD format’. There are a number of examples in the list already.

    The bottom line with this new format description system is we can add them in easily, so the only problem is finding out exactly what the format is about (so we don’t duplicate the same format with different names).

  • Sep 21,2006 at 06:01

    [quote=maxx_eclipse]
    but I am pretty sure thaat CDE was already invented when this was released, and there are no signs of “Enhanced CD”, (like here: Wow! Hits 2005: 31 Of The Year’s Top Christian Artists And Hits). [/quote]

    that’s cos “Enhanced CD” is a standard – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_CD. ie, not all audio CDs with data content (videos, etc) have it, only those that meet/apply for the standard.

    whether or not ‘non-standard’ audio/data CDs should be marked as “CDE” is up for debate. personally i’d prefer we just marked them as ‘ROM Content’ or something else that isn’t specific to the standard.

  • nik
    Sep 21,2006 at 05:50

    It will be after we enable the Master Releae function, yes.

  • Sep 21,2006 at 05:40

    [quote=nik]I have removed the ‘Coloured Media’ tag. The colour should be noted directly using the free text field, which makes the use of this tag redundant.[/quote]

    excuse my ignorance if i’ve got this wrong but what if you have many different colours of the same vinyl with the same catalogue# I would like to have each one as a seperate entity.

    Is this possible?

  • Sep 19,2006 at 12:32

    [quote=neocactar]It’s just, I saw ‘Cinepack’ and it sounded like a codec[/quote]
    You’re right I messed it up myself.. :-)

  • nik
    Sep 19,2006 at 03:52

    [quote=grantcorp]Off the top of my head, I’d like to see videos like these included in the artist discographies.[/quote]

    At this point, I am somewhat reluctant to add a set of video file formats, simply due to the complications that the audio file formats (MP3 etc) are still presenting us. However, solutions are being worked on, and I would propose we look at adding these video formats in as soon as we have a proper structure to deal with them.

    [quote=maxx_eclipse]It specifically said Audio/Video CD. a.k.a. A/VCD.[/quote]

    AVCD, A/VCD, Audio Video CD – I have added this in, although it’s hard to find much proper information about it on the net, possibly due to the fact that it is maybe a mainly Asian format. Any links appreciated!

  • Sep 18,2006 at 21:10

    @[u=lazlo_nibble]

    You’re probably right. Or at least I’m probably thinking wrong somewhere :D As I said, dunno much about video. It’s just, I saw ‘Cinepack’ and it sounded like a codec, and I know there are a billion of those (or maybe I’m getting my termology wrong)

    Whatever! (you were right, too complicated for the layman) I vote for Digital Video File.

  • Sep 18,2006 at 20:07

    [quote=Schneckl]It would be more useful to mention the encoding technology[/quote]
    But aren’t there a whole bunch of encoders? Like, hundreds? (I’m not particularly knowledgeable about video, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten)

    [quote=Schneckl]’digital video'[/quote][quote=grantcorp]”Digital Video”[/quote]
    agreed. Although maybe the addition of ‘File’ just so we don’t give the wrong impression that it’s a file [i]produced[/i] digitally (computer graphics and stuff, as opposed to films of people)

    I noticed the suggestion included file formats for music files. Whether its OGG, WAV, MP3 or anything else, wouldn’t it be easier to go with Digital Music File and then specifiy the formats in the Text Field, just so we don’t have to cover every file format people come up with?

  • Sep 18,2006 at 16:04

    Is it going to be possible to make a release 2x Album, for releases like this [r=611384] where two albums are packaged together?
    Or like this [r=424495] where the correct format would be 1x Single + 1x EP ?

  • Sep 18,2006 at 13:49

    LOL, you beat me to it!

  • Sep 18,2006 at 13:49

    I simply referred to some of the most common file types used for digital video, with no regard of underlying technology. Actually I don’t think we need to get too technical on this, with DivX, MPEG-4 and so on. We could simply use a container of our own here on ‘ogs, as suggested for digital audio in general in previous discussions. I would think that “Digital Video” for example would satisfy our needs, further refinements could be listed in the notes.

  • Sep 18,2006 at 13:43

    grrr… pressed the wrong button…

    WMV – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmv
    MPEG – Moving Picture Experts Group, a standardization assiciation, not a file format. A MPEG file can be anything from MPEG1 through MPEG4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg
    MOV – should be QuickTime, and its descendant MP4. An open container format for video, sound and text. Can contain data compressed by various encoders, including MP3 and DIVX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg

    IMO, all those file extension are too ambiguous to be used as ‘format’ designations. It would be more useful to mention the encoding technology, e.g. ‘DivX’, ‘MPEG2’, ‘Cinepack’, ‘MJPEG’ etc. but as this looks too heavy for less-techy people wouldn’t it be better to simply call it ‘digital video’?

  • Sep 18,2006 at 13:22

    AVI – container format, can contain video/audio compressed by almost any encoder, originally windows media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVI
    WMV – set of codecs, some of them proprietary (not a file format!). WMV can also be contained in ASF or AVI files.

  • Sep 18,2006 at 12:01

    Bumpity bump: AVI, MPEG, MOV and WMV.

  • nik
    Sep 18,2006 at 04:58

    Ok, I have moved the ‘Mini’, ‘Shape’, and ‘Business Card’ away from the formats for CD and DVD and into the descriptions. Makes total sense to me!

    I have also added in the Record system matrix to the ‘Shape’ tag so we can tag shaped records.

    I have removed the ‘Coloured Media’ tag. The colour should be noted directly using the free text field, which makes the use of this tag redundant.

    [quote=Hypno]WAV [/quote]

    That is there already.

    [quote=JT_X]CD+G. [/quote]

    Added

    [quote=kawayama]i would like this not to be part of this format at all. not even in the plaintext field. rather, we need a separate section for packaging. just add packaging format details to Notes until futher notice.[/quote]

    I still feel that adding more sections is overcomplicating things. Packaging only needs to be described when it differentiates one release from others. We have about a thousand Digipack instances atm http://www.discogs.com/search?type=all&q=digipack&btn=Search , but is seems only nine of them have the (Digipack) noted in the title. I firmly believe we should not be cluttering the format descriptions with unnecessary packaging details.

    [quote=vargind]is “unofficial release” still going to be indexed?[/quote]

    Yup, it is going to work exactly the same.

    [quote=vargind]and if so, and if you’re going to allow “partially mixed” as a descriptor, will you then also add “partially unofficial” to cover situations where only one or two tracks on the release are “unofficial” ??[/quote]

    Yes, seems fair enough, I have added in “Partially Unofficial”. Your ticket request takes us into a whole other level of complexity as far as applying it to how the data is displayed. For the moment, using the “Partially Unofficial” tag together with descriptions in the notes of what tracks it applies to is a good start, and we can look at this in more detail after these larger changes have been made.

  • Sep 17,2006 at 15:33

    [quote=JT_X]
    It’s a CD with graphics included, requiring a special player. It’s not an enhanced CD. Please read the wiki article I linked.[/quote]
    OK, I got that, but it can be played in normal players, too… so it appears to be just like a normal disc, but ‘enhanced’ with this graphics feature… that’s why I said “enhanced” ;)

  • Sep 17,2006 at 13:36

    just a few questions, is “unofficial release” still going to be indexed?

    and if so, and if you’re going to allow “partially mixed” as a descriptor, will you then also add “partially unofficial” to cover situations where only one or two tracks on the release are “unofficial” ?? (cf. [url=http://help.discogs.com/ticket/1687]ticket1687[/url])

  • Sep 17,2006 at 12:11

    [quote=urbazon]This doesn’t look like new format… It’s more like an enhanced type of CD… ??[/quote]

    It’s a CD with graphics included, requiring a special player. It’s not an enhanced CD. Please read the wiki article I linked.

  • Sep 17,2006 at 08:47

    and by no means would i want the above post proposal to delay the format system update. just add packaging format details to Notes until futher notice.

  • Sep 17,2006 at 08:36

    regarding digipak, cardboard, gatefold, etc.

    i would like this not to be part of this format at all. not even in the plaintext field. rather, we need a separate section for packaging.
    one section for audio/video carrier format, one section for packaging format.

    so you would get someting like this:
    · 2 x CD
    · 2 x Digipak, Gatefold

  • Sep 17,2006 at 07:00

    [quote=JT_X]Still missing CD+G.[/quote]
    This doesn’t look like new format… It’s more like an enhanced type of CD… ??

  • Sep 16,2006 at 22:52

    Still missing [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD+G]CD+G[/url].

  • Sep 16,2006 at 22:18

    [b]WAV[/b]

  • Sep 16,2006 at 09:45

    [quote=nik]CD Business Card[/quote]

    what do you mean by this? CDs shaped like business cards? If so, can you add “postcards” too? These are greetingcards (or christmascards) that play on a recordplayer. Don’t know if it exists as cd too though.

    [quote=nik]Shape[/quote]
    this one can be added for vinylrecords too I hope

  • Sep 16,2006 at 09:17

    [quote=nik]Sure, what types of releases do you see these being used for?[/quote]

    Off the top of my head, I’d like to see videos like [url=http://www.tonatom.net/content/vreleases.html]these[/url] included in the artist discographies.

  • nik
    Sep 16,2006 at 05:04

    [quote=dj_purity_control]Colored Media
    — will this need to be appended if we’re denotating the color of a vinyl? IE, 12″, Vinyl, Colored Media (Green), or just 12″, Vinyl, Green is fine?[/quote]

    I missed this question. I am feeling that maybe the “Colored Media” description is redundant. Surely just the colour in the free text field is enough? The shorter and more concise we can make the whole format description, the better IMHO (for the display).

  • nik
    Sep 16,2006 at 04:39

    [quote=ziggysmurfdust]- One Sided Vinyl (like this, the 12″ is one sided) [/quote]

    I have added this in

    [quote=ziggysmurfdust]- mixed speed vinyl (one side 33 and the other 45 rpm, like this one)
    – variable speed (records that can be played at any speed (and still sound shit ;)))[/quote]

    Mixed speed can be indicated by using more than one speed description – it will have to be explained in the notes anyway. Variable speed is a notes thing as well I think.

    [quote=kreuztot]sniffle disc[/quote]

    I think that can be put in the free text rather than on the dropdown.

    [quote=dj_purity_control]Hmm, looking closely at it, perhaps the following two entries should be changed as well;
    DVD 80mm
    DVDr 80mm
    To MiniDVD and MiniDVDr, presumably?[/quote]

    This is interesting. in fact, looking at it, there COULD be a reshuffle for CD and DVD descriptions that makes them more like records (move all size and shape away from the format). It could be ‘boiled down’ so instead of this:

    Format:

    CD
    Mini CD
    CD Business Card
    ShapeCD
    CDr
    Mini CDr
    CDr Business Card
    ShapeCDr
    DVD
    DVDr
    DVD 80mm
    DVDr 80mm

    We could have this:

    Format:

    CD
    CDr
    DVD
    DVDr

    Description:

    Mini
    Business Card
    Shape

    Looks a lot neater to me, and we have the Mini / 80mm / 8cm / 3″ size description for both CD and DVD in one place, with one name! I am not sure if you get Shape DVD or business card DVD, but that kind of flexibility is added with that change.

    [quote=grantcorp]I just dawned on me that it would be good to see support for music videos on digital releases, i.e. the formats AVI, MPEG, MOV and WMV.[/quote]

    Sure, what types of releases do you see these being used for?

  • Sep 16,2006 at 01:22

    I just dawned on me that it would be good to see support for music videos on digital releases, i.e. the formats AVI, MPEG, MOV and WMV.

  • nik
    Sep 15,2006 at 07:11

    A thread regarding the complicated conversions; http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=111101

  • md
    Sep 15,2006 at 05:46

    [quote=ziggysmurfdust]I was talking about seperate tracks that start and end, without specificaly being lockgrooves.[/quote]
    And that’s why this is not really relevant to this topic. Locked grooves are track specific, not release specific. This can be mentioned in the notes.

    Locked grooves can either be locked at the end of a track or be a straight one-revolution loop. Not really applicable to the whole release. Yeah there are some releases that contain only locked groove, but again this should go in the notes I think.

  • Sep 15,2006 at 05:28

    [quote=dj_purity_control]Yeah, just “Locked Groove”, typically. Common on techno releases, I can think of Intexor vs. Sinesweeper, Christian Smith & John Selway, and Pounding Grooves releases that have locked grooves as mixing tools. But the first one I remember was Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music which ends in a locked groove of repeating noise.[/quote]

    I thought a locked groove or lockgroove just goes from one cycle of the disc and thus repeats the same bit endlessly?

    I was talking about seperate tracks that start and end, without specificaly being lockgrooves.

    The one on the King Kurt page has two tracks on the B-side, B1 ends in a locked groove and then you have to lift the needle to go to track B2 that doesn’t end in a locked groove.

  • nik
    Sep 15,2006 at 05:11

    Thanks for all the enthusiastic feedback!

    (this reply has taken me 2 hours to research and write, sorry if I cover things already replied to and discussed)

    Some of the issues that have been brought up I feel we may need to discuss more. At this stage, I think it may be more prudent of us to go ahead with the update and add aspects into the new system as time goes on, rather than hold theimplementation of this update until all additional aspects are fully discussed. I don’t think it is that big a deal for teo to adjust the odd thing, nor is it a problem for me to add in formats and descriptions as we see fit.

    In any case, and bearing this in mind, here are some of my thoughts regarding issues brought up:

    RE: [b]Packaging[/b] – As it stands just now, we do not have any packaging in the drop down list. I feel if we start to add the obvious ones (Digipack, gatefold sleeve), then onto the standard ones (jewel case), we will end up having to list ALL packaging types into the list, including rare packing types for uncommon media, and basic packaging types that don’t need to be listed in most cases (e.g. cardboard sleeve and disco sleeve for records). Rather than fill up the list with all variations of packaging, I feel that there is a good case for the use of the free-text box to enter packaging variations. It would be a good idea to have a list and explanation of the packaging types, however, so folk can enter the correct thing.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]Description is a little overloaded. I suggest splitting the proposed list into three groups[/quote]

    This was suggested before by an editor. I did consider this, and in fact I started out with more lists, with things broken down into finer categories. However, after building a practical example based around this method, I quickly felt that it was overcomplicated, confusing, and cumbersome in use, and that the four field system was much more user friendly and easy to understand. Unfortunately, I didn’t keep the example I built using six fields, but I can make it again if anyone wants to see it.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]Reel-To-Reel should be under “Audio tape.” [/quote]

    Reel-to-reel has it’s own ‘system matrix’ tag to enable the speed and tape width functionality to be made available when it is selected, but to hide these descriptions from other tape formats such as cassette and 8 track where these descriptions are not necessary. The system matrix field will not be shown on the submission, it is simply an internal tag used to hide irrelevant description selections from the list for a given format selection, ala the styles drop down for given genres.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]Quadrophonic: There are multiple Quad formats on vinyl. Submitters should be specific on which format if possible. Make selection? [/quote]

    I think we have to let submitters use the free text box for this, otherwise our list would expand too much:

    Quadraphonic – CD-4 / Compatible Discrete 4 / Quadradisc
    Quadraphonic – UD-4 / UMX
    Quadraphonic – Q4
    Quadraphonic – Quad-8 / Quadraphonic 8-Track
    Quadraphonic – SQ / Surround Quadraphonic / Stereo Quadraphonic
    Quadraphonic – QS / Quadraphonic Stereo
    Quadraphonic – EV / Stereo-4
    Quadraphonic – DY / Dynaquad
    Quadraphonic – Matrix H
    Quadraphonic – Passive Pseudo Quad
    Quadraphonic – Pseudo-surround sound

    (goodness me, no wonder quadrophonic died a death!)

    I have added in these formats to the comments for quadraphonic.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]multigroove [/quote]
    [quote=ziggysmurfdust]aka lockgroove [/quote]

    In fact, they are different. Multigroove is when two or more spiral tracks are cut inside each other, meaning the audio would be different depending on which groove the needle dropped into. Lockgroove is where a circular one-revolution groove is cut that joins itself, therefore playing the same audio with each revolution. I feel that both items would be fine for the free text field and / or the notes as needed.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]Video Tape: Add D-VHS. [/quote]

    From the wikipedia article [i]”given the wholesale move to DVD and then hard disk drive (HDD) recording, the format failed to make any headway into the video market”[/i]. I am wondering how far we need / want to go with esoteric formats such as this, where the number of submissions is going to be very low, and the format could be described quite well by selecting ‘VHS’ from the format, and adding ‘D-VHS’ into the free text field.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]LaserDisk: Available in 12″ and 8″ formats. It would also help to distinguish CLV/CAV sides/releases (CAV == higher quality, but lower capacity), and note the presence/absence of digital audio tracks (early releases didn’t have ’em). [/quote]

    I wasn’t aware of the 8″ laserdisc format. It is possible to allow the 8″ description used for records to be used for laserdisc, and I have updated the tables to reflect this.

    Regarding audio formats, there appears to be a number of methods of encoding audio onto laserdisc, and again, I wonder if this level of detail is better for the free text field and / or notes section. From Wikipedia: “[i]Audio could be stored in either analog or digital format and in a variety of surround sound formats; NTSC discs could carry two analog audio tracks, plus two uncompressed PCM digital audio tracks, which were CD quality (2 channels, 16 bit, 44.1KHz sample rate for PAL and 44056Hz for NTSC, and a 96dB signal-to-noise ratio). PAL discs could carry one pair of audio tracks, either analog or digital; in the UK the term LaserVision is used to refer to discs with analog sound, while LaserDisc is used for those with digital audio. Dolby Digital (also called AC-3) and DTS, which are now common on DVD titles, first became available on Laserdisc, and Star Wars: Episode I (1999) which was released on Laserdisc in Japan, is among the first home video releases ever to include 6.1 channel Dolby Digital EX Surround.”[/i]

    However, reading this through, one format description that I think is both important to add, and reasonably well understood by the general public, is of course PAL, NTC, and SECAM, and I have added these in for the video formats.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]Video Discs: Add CED/SelectaVision.[/quote]

    Done.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]EP, etc.: For the autoconversion I suggest “EP” be used only if at least three or four distinct song (rather than mix) titles are present. Many Maxi-Singles have at least one B-side. This rule could also apply to 7″ singles. Also: Labeling should trump any general rules after the initial conversion — if it calls itself a “Mini-LP”, that’s what the release should be entered as, no matter how many tracks/songs/etc. [/quote]

    Cool, rather than try to discuss this amongst the other items in this thread, I will start another topic regarding this specific aspect of the conversion process. I feel it is the most important item to be discussed and resolved in the best way we can possibly see, as it potentially is going to affect hundreds of thousands of items in the database and will be hard / impossible to revert or perfect once the conversion is done except by doing release-by-release updates, which I am sure everyone appreciates would be incredibly time consuming work. This is definitely one thing where 5 minutes thought and discussion now has the potential to negate 50000 hours work later on!

    [b]Minimax/Fan Disc[/b] – I was under the impression that these are different, where Minimax only applies to cd’s where the Mini CD is surrounded by clear plastic to make it the same size as a normal CD (http://eil.com/newgallery/Jamiroquai-King-For-A-Day-145936.jpg ), whereas a Fan Disc uses extra areas of the CD’s substrate (normally the metallic layer) in the design. However, a brief search for either term doesn’t bring up anything conclusive. I am sure there was an example of a fan disc image here at Discogs, but I can’t find it now :-/

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]CD: Add HDCD encoding. [/quote]

    There was a discussion regarding this three months back http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=101688 . I also remember another conversation regarding various other CD mastering based ‘formats’ where we came to the conclusion it was unnessasary to add these into the official Discogs format list. The analogy with Dolby B is very close, technicaly as well as from a Discogs perspective.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]CD-Video/CDV: This is a hybrid format a la DualDisc: LaserDisc-format video with CD-format audio on the same side of a single 5″ disc. It is not a subformat of any of the “Format” listings above and should be its own format alongside DVD, CD, LaserDisc, etc., not a “Description”. A callout that it’s NOT THE SAME THING AS VIDEOCD might be helpful too. [/quote]

    Done

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]VideoCD: add Super Video CD. [/quote]

    Added, thanks.

  • Sep 15,2006 at 04:57

    Don’t forget [r=118813], with a triple banded side.

  • Sep 15,2006 at 04:55

    ah I see

    Btw now we’re on the really bizare, there’s also records that play the other way round, from the center to the outside.

    12″ version of King Kurt’s Destination Zululand

    http://www.alcoholic-rats.com/king_kurt_discography_singles.html

    Also on this page there’s a record, where you have to lift your needle to get to the next song. How you call that?
    Some kind of extended lockgroove.

  • md
    Sep 15,2006 at 03:53

    Think I’ve also seen it called “dual concentric”.

  • md
    Sep 15,2006 at 03:43

    [quote=ziggysmurfdust]aka lockgroove [/quote]
    No, this is something different. This looks like a normal record, but actually there are 2 grooves running in parallel from the outside towards the middle. Each groove can have a different track in it.

    To be honest I’m not sure that level of granularity is required (release notes would do for something that unusual/specific) but I suppose it does no harm to add it to the list.

  • Sep 15,2006 at 01:17

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]Records: add multigroove as a qualifier (more than one groove extending from the edge to the center, so what gets played depends on where you drop the needle). Probably best known from early pressings of Monty Python’s Matching Tie And Handkerchief.[/quote]

    aka lockgroove

  • Sep 14,2006 at 21:17

    [quote=Jooles]here’s another example of a fan disc / minimax CD[/quote]

    Ah now I know what it is thanks :) I actually have some of those, like this one [r=129112].

    And indeed, if we start to mention packageing, don’t forget the cardboard sleeves the European 2-track singles come in.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:47

    This is fantastic news and hopefully my forum [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/board?forum_id=637]Allow all unique releases into Discogs[/url] will be obsolete one day.

    Adding some packaging details (digipak, jewel case, gatefold sleeve etc) to the dropdowns would be smart because we then avoid some confusion.

    Some information might not be possible to list in fixed fields by using drop downs so we will need the free text fields too. The most important thing to me is that I’ll be able to list my complete collection one day.

    It feels like that day is coming sooner than I thought it would!!!

  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:40

    [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/524567]here’s another example of a fan disc / minimax CD[/url]

  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:32

    Looking like one helluva cool system, nik. With it split into different drop downs, I think we’re really close to finding a good compromise between having too many formats and wanting to show all possible formats in existence.

    Here’s some suggestions for consistency and clarity in the wording (changes in italics)

    [b]Minimax Comments field[/b]
    [i]Mini[/i] CD single with a (usually transparent) built-in adaptor, which makes it look like a [i]regular-sized[/i] CD-equivalent of a “clear vinyl” record, design-wise. Plays on all CD players, like a normal CD.

    If [b]Fan Disc[/b] is indeed the same as [b]Minimax CD[/b] (and I’ve never heard of either of them, so I’m not sure) then there’s no need for both of them in the Description list. We need to just have one and mention in the Comments field what it’s also known as.

    Agreed with djpc about changing DVD 80mm and DVDr 80mm to [b]Mini DVD[/b] and [b]Mini DVDr[/b], but also including a clear explanation in the Comments field:
    [b]Mini DVD[/b] [i]A DVD with a diameter of 80mm or approx 3″
    [b]Mini DVDr[/b] A writable DVD with a diameter of 80mm or approx 3″[/i]

    [b]LP Comments field[/b]: typos: Technicaly > Technically, lenghten > lengthen

  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:26

    [quote=PhilippN]Couldn’t the text field be used for packaging details, like vinyl colours? If you add digipak here, one might request… [/quote]

    I’ve never seen any information about standard jewel cases and different trays here on Discogs, but there are lots of releases entered as digipak (currently more than 2500).
    Cardboard sleeve may be useful as well, not sure about other packagings.

    [quote=little_alien]Hmm, I still don’t get the Fan Disc thing[/quote]

    E.g. [url=http://www.discogs.com/image/R-205190-1151180633.jpeg]here[/url], only 8 cm is the silver CD, the rest is transparent.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:23

    uh, oh, doh …
    GREAT !!!
    thanx.
    ; )

  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:18

    [quote=nik]I have added in White Label. [/quote]
    can we have “Test Pressing”, too, please !?
    i.e. [url=http://www.discogs.com/label/Defender]DEFDJ-1 to DEFDJ5[/url] were released as tespressings only, but they’re neither promos nor white labels.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:14
  • Sep 14,2006 at 13:12

    Hmm, I still don’t get the Fan Disc thing. :(

  • md
    Sep 14,2006 at 13:08

    [quote=urbazon]I am not from English-speaking country[/quote]
    I am, but I have no idea what a digipack is.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 12:29

    [quote=gonzales4ever]I think Digipack and Gatefold-sleeve should be added as qualifiers. [/quote]
    If you add something, or anything like that, I’m fine, but, PLEEEEAAAASSEEEE, at least put some link to pictures of that!
    I am not from English-speaking country, so I was always in doubt how to call the ‘packaging’ of a disc…
    please? :)

    cheers!

  • Sep 14,2006 at 11:43

    I’m missing two formats actually or rather descriptions:

    – One Sided Vinyl (like [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/710472]this[/url], the 12″ is one sided)
    – mixed speed vinyl (one side 33 and the other 45 rpm, like [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/665636]this one[/url])
    – variable speed (records that can be played at any speed (and still sound shit ;)))

  • Sep 14,2006 at 11:35

    also needed as qualifier: sniffle disc

  • Sep 14,2006 at 11:28

    [quote=dj_purity_control]CD | Fan Disc [/quote]
    Fan Disc is actually the same as a Minimax CD.

    I think Digipack and Gatefold-sleeve should be added as qualifiers.
    Currently we add this information to the notes, but these are the most frequently used alternative packagings and i’d like to see them as qualifiers.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 10:54

    [quote=nik]There seems to be a general consensus that it is going to be fine to allow separate listings of releases with different coloured media, different artwork, or any other difference. The reason for doing this is of course to allow collectors to have the database reflect what they really own, and what they really need to complete an aspect of their collection. The downside of this is longer lists on the label and artist pages. I am confident that the ‘Master Release’ function will solve the issue on the artist pages, I am not sure about the label pages, maybe the same function can be reused there to keep the length of the list sane[/quote]

    [u=nik], does this mean it’s OK to now submit coloured variants of idendical existing releases, which were previously not allowed? Or will it (soon) be possible to re-add the exising one to your collection, but as a variant (eg blue vinyl), which can exist in your collection as a seprate identifiable record? So you could have N number of releases, each tagged with some sort of suffix (blue vinyl, white label, nothing [the regular version])??

    Thanks!

  • nik
    Sep 14,2006 at 10:00

    [quote=dj_purity_control]”A compact disc with a diameter of approx 3″ or 80mm.”[/quote]

    Cool, I have added that in.

    [quote=dj_purity_control]Not all white labels are promos, and not all promos have white labels. Perhaps a separation of the two would be in order? [/quote]

    That’s fine as well, I have added in White Label.

    [quote=dj_purity_control]now that this is allowing a more precise description of a release’s format, to the extent of allowing there to be — say — a Vinyl, 12″, green as well as a Vinyl, 12″, blue of the same release with the same catalogue number, will we be allowed to add these items separately, or shall we add all the different variants in as one (ie Vinyl, 12″, green and blue)? Just want to be absolutely clear on this.[/quote]

    There seems to be a general consensus that it is going to be fine to allow separate listings of releases with different coloured media, different artwork, or any other difference. The reason for doing this is of course to allow collectors to have the database reflect what they really own, and what they really need to complete an aspect of their collection. The downside of this is longer lists on the label and artist pages. I am confident that the ‘Master Release’ function will solve the issue on the artist pages, I am not sure about the label pages, maybe the same function can be reused there to keep the length of the list sane.

    [quote=neocactar]is the ‘Remove’ button going to work the same way as the ‘Remove’ button for styles works?[/quote]

    The remove button isn’t planned to be updated here, so it will remain as is for the time being.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 09:17

    [quote=mawiles]Please split them up, as dj_pc said. It’s equivalent in most cases, but not absolutely.[/quote]

    Indeed. Otherwise it looks/works really nice!

  • Sep 14,2006 at 07:56

    [quote=dj_purity_control]Promo / Promotional copy, white label

    Not all white labels are promos, and not all promos have white labels. Perhaps a separation of the two would be in order? [/quote]

    Please split them up, as dj_pc said. It’s equivalent in most cases, but not absolutely.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 07:47

    Looks useful.

    Although, is the ‘Remove’ button going to work the same way as the ‘Remove’ button for styles works? As in, we’ll have to get rid of everything up to the point of mistake, and then re-add it all once the mistake is fixed. (ex: add Abstract, Drum & Bass, Breakbeat, realize you don’t need Abstract, and have to clear Drum & Bass & Breakbeat to get at it)

  • md
    Sep 14,2006 at 06:53

    Can’t wait. Tomorrow, please.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 06:29

    remove the last dot of the link.

  • Sep 14,2006 at 06:28
  • Sep 14,2006 at 06:28

    just delete PERIOD sign at the end ;)

  • Sep 14,2006 at 06:25

    Nik, nothing at that link…..

    Cheers
    SDevo

Leave A Reply