the_architech wrote:

I'm getting pretty frustrated when it comes to submitting digital releases. Without fail, depending on who views my submission, it will be wrong.

Firstly, if something is a digital EP release, why must the description be either EP or MP3 and cannot be both (because if either is Free Text, it's wrong). Clearly it's both, but I cannot make it so. I'm always being told to change the format to MP3 or WAV when neither is a format option, they're description options. File is the only format option that makes sense. And if I choose both File and MP3, isn't that redundant since an MP3 is quite obviously a file?

Secondly, why must I choose between MP3 or WAV when any digital music site allows both as downloadable options? Isn't it silly to choose one format or the other or to add both when the format of "File" should suffice? Or maybe allow "Digital" to be a format. I think anyone who knows anything about downloadable music sites knows that multiple file formats are often options.

I think you guys need to set a standard here, and let me know so I can quote you next time I get a "Needs Minor Correction".

psychonausea wrote:

Did you already read this?

Kergillian wrote:

Once you've chosen File and mp3 and entered them, you can click on 'add description' to add further descriptions to the format.





They are added in addition to File.





It's not at all redundant when you think of it from a databasing and search engine perspective - if you want to order a page by all file releases, search for only file releases, then you need File as the format.

It's also not redundant when you think that there may be multiple file versions of a release - how else would we know which one is wav and which one is mp3 if we don't add them?

The Format tells us what type of releases it is, and the descriptions add details surrounding that format. So File, mp3 tells us that it's a file format and that mp3 is the type of file.





Because each one is a unique release and should be added separately. Would you include the 7" vinyl version of a release in with the LP version simply because you could buy them both at the same shop?





We have a standard here. Please read the guidelines on Formats located at: http://www.discogs.com/help/su...-release-format.html

the_architech wrote:

But the difference between the 7" single and the 12" album is that they have seperate cat#s, whereas I've never seen a label give different cat#s to mp3 and wav formats (whereas they definitely would for digital versus vinyl).

Kergillian wrote:

Cat# has nothing to do with it. 5 versions of an LP may have identical cat#s and yet be manufactured and released in different countries by differed companies and distributed by different distributors.

Simply put: if it's a different version of the same release (and listening to an mp3 versus a wav file on high end systems will tell you that it's different!) then it's considered unique and it should be entered separately.

the_architech wrote:

But, what's the point? Isn't there a way we could simplify the submission process? I mean, otherwise there would be at least two releases for every digital release. I mean, you could even have 4 versions of every release if you wanted to do one for 192 kbps mp3, one for 320 kbps mp3, one for FLAC, and one for WAV. Doesn't that sound absurd and a total waste of your webspace even if they are slightly different on high end systems?

I mean, if that's the way you want it, I'll go back and resubmit a wav version of every digital release I've ever bought, but do you really want that?

punxtr wrote:

Well, you can just make your old submissions just WAV version only for example. You don't have to do all of this yourself. Others can. Don't feel compelled to :)

the_architech wrote:

Others can, but nobody would because that's silly. I mean, if I have the mp3 download of an album and someone had already put up the wav version, why should I care to submit the mp3 version? It's virtually the same thing. Frankly, I don't think I'd even notice that their version was even different from mine.

And I don't think I would go back to resubmit my releases because that's absurdly tedious and unnecessary. I was just using it as an example of how theoretically, if everyone kept updated digital releases to reflect this method, your server requirements would skyrocket, and it would flood the database with an enormous amount of unnecessary information. And as it stands, I can look down some of these digital-only labels and see some releases are mp3 and some are wav and in reality they're all both. It looks sloppy. I see why you guys are doing this (technically, yes they are different formats), but there has to be an easier way to do this.

punxtr wrote:

You do not speak for other users and their views on the variance of data rates to be fully honest. This was decided upon by nik most importantly. I'd contact him if you really wished to change this.

I find this rule to be quite good for noticing trends among who likes one data rate over another... I, for example, try to only download VBR mp3 files or FLAC. This could be helpful for a net label that wants to find which owners of their back catalog liked which file type and bit rate more than the other; cut down on ofering so many ridiculous slight variances. That's just me. Carry on :)

Kergillian wrote:

Personally, I think that digital releases could be amalgamated in some way, though I see why some collectors feel the need to have them separated.

But the simple fact is that the topic was argued to death and the decision was that they are unique releases and should be treated as such. Case closed.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

No it's not.

Hell, going by that logic why bother having a format at all? They're all virtually the same anyway.

maxxyme wrote:

Physical media are not virtual. Digital files are.

I understand the_architech's point of view, and always wondered why there wasn't such a system to allow submitting releases as, say, Digital, and then every owner CAN choose which format and which bitrate has the "particular" release he owns.

On the download shops, releases are not presented in three or four (depends on formats supported) ways...? They are presented in one way, then the format + bitrate ARE options (for downloading). Why not making Discogs simpler by using such a system?

Mr.Mystery wrote:

Durr, really?

psychonausea wrote:

So they're somewhat presented like this? I don't see much difference with discogs' way of presenting variations of the same release.

SeRKeT wrote:

i am a Vinyl lover so my opinions on MP3 are somewhat skewed :)
but..i have to agree with the_architect's comment i have qouted
and as maxxyme states i think it would be better with a dropdown tab for users so they can select a personal bitrate

pinkychukkles wrote:

I disagree, I buy vinyl and I buy digital (when they aren't released as vinyl). However, I only buy lossless formats (flac/wav) and that's what I want to see in my collection. I don't see it's much of a problem when we have the Master Release - just submit what you have, be it 12", 320 kbps mp3, wav, flac or whatever.

JT_X wrote:

nevermind.

the_architech wrote:

I do like how Discogs has condensed variations of the same release, but they're still separate releases and I don't see the point to it. This seems excessive to me.





I didn't say they were the same, I said virtually. The only difference is that it was available as MP3, WAV, FLAC, etc. If it were the difference between the German and UK versions of a vinyl release, usually there's different distributers, maybe different artwork, different release dates, maybe even different tracklisting. None of that would ever be different in digital releases, they're always identical (other than the slight quality differences). Couldn't we make it so it could be posted as a Digital release, and then have within the release a list of mediums that were offered? Maxxyme's dropdown suggestion is pretty good imo.





I don't really see discogs as being a major trend indicator since most digital releases only yield a handful of people listing them in their collections and distributors could easily report their sales directly to the labels. And in addition, there is almost no difference in cost to the label to release these different versions so even if only 0.1% of their sales are FLAC, they'll still release them.

Kergillian wrote:

That's not always true. I've seen digital releases where the FLAC version was available in layered tracks (ie: protools editable) instead of complete tracks, the mp3 version was the only version with artwork, some bitrates were had the whole release as a single track and some had it as individual tracks...

Mr.Mystery wrote:

So did I.

the_architech wrote:

I've never heard of that, but if that's true I'll concede. Seems like an understandable scenario, howerever extremely unlikely.

punxtr wrote:

^I think Trent Reznor does this with WAV files too?

Kergillian wrote:

NIN released multitracks for several of its recent releases - and they were available in lossless FLAC as well as WAV...

Girl Talk's Feed the Animals gets you a different version based on the price you pay: