DIDX - DADC pressing numbers

Are we doing this?

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2255590&diff=13

It's not against guidelines as the DADC numbers technically represent a CAT# specific to that company.

I feel it's a bit of rankhunting to go around adding that everywhere DADC pressed a release, but if I'm editing something else I'd go ahead and do it.

well, at least brianvy is.. Had 12-15 alerts today on these updates

Brianvy is claiming there is forum consensus for adding DIDX-nnnnnn and the like as catalog numbers in LCCN, but I looked hard and could not find such a consensus. Neither the DADC nor Sony DADC mention that this is allowed (aside from the specific corner case which is not relevant to any of these edits). I don't particularly care, except as it may give the green light for anyone to pull whatever they want out of the matrix and plug it into LCCN just because it seems like a good idea. Forum consensus should be reached first, the relevant label pages updated second, and the edits made third.

Pretty sure there was forum consensus, but it may have been around a more general use of the CAT# in the CCN portion of the LCCN fields. I want to say it was in a discussion made around the same time (or in the same thread) that the LCCN were expanded to their current form. But I can't find it...

What does the first line of the profile read? There may have been agreement, but a formal outline has not been drafted and also, since DADC ceased to be in Aug. 2005 all these are wrong.:
http://www.discogs.com/search/?format=&track=&barcode=&genre=&anv=&catno=&year=2006&contributor=&advanced=1&style=&title=&country=&artist=&label=dadc+-sony&credit=&submitter=&type=release

And subsequent years. Brian has jumped the gun and is introducing errors as this information which I provided in the previous discussions has been overlooked:
http://content.screencast.com/users/Erythematosus/folders/Jing/media/a1552f03-c879-4f6c-8327-5a8f40d7955a/DADC%20Aug%202005.png

How would this be:

Digital Audio Disc Corporation or DADC was incorporated on 4th November 1983. Plants were opened in Terra Haute, Indiana; Pitman, New Jersey and in Austria. The Austrian plant was rebranded in the mid 1990's which coincided with more plants opening under Sony DADC. DADC continued to exist in the US, with Sony arranging the unification of the two brands in 2004. This unification occurred formally in August 2005 when DADC ceased to exist.

Please use this profile where a release specifically credits "DADC" or if the release has been identified via one of the four digit codes mentioned below and was manufactured before August 1995. If in doubt, please omit the credit. If "DADC" is mentioned in the following forms, please use those profiles. Sony DADC, Sony DADC Austria, DADC Austria, Sony DADC Mexico, or DADC, Terre Haute, Indiana when they are stated in one of these ways. There is also a guideline specifically about DADC: RSG §4.11.

In the absence of clear manufacturer identifiers, CDs pressed by DADC can sometimes be identified by the following matrix codes found either in the CD matrix, the CD face artwork or both:

CPDX
CTDX
CTDP
DIDC
DIDP
DIDX
DIDY
DIDZ

If these codes appear on a CD that has another manufacturer mentioned, please do not credit DADC.

About Sony DADC matrix/LCCN numbers:

DADC releases mastered in Austria usually have matrices in the following pattern:

[DADC logo] Axxxxxxxxxx-yyzz BB CC

and have exclusively a SID Mould Code IFPI 94xx

- For CD releases, yy indicates the disc number (always 01 for single-disc releases; 02 and onwards are used for multi-disc releases), while zz indicates the number of discs in the release (again, always 01 for single-disc releases). DVDs do not seem to use the same numbering for the yyzz part however.
- BB is a two digit number, usually between 11-25. The second digit is the same as the last digit of the mastering SID code (IFPI L55x).
- CC is etched into the matrix ring, and is usually A1, A01, A00, B1, etc.

When entering DADC matrix numbers into LCCN, ONLY the "Axxxxxxxxxx-yyzz" part of the string should be entered.

... without the silly all caps shoutyness?

cellularsmoke
I feel it's a bit of rankhunting to go around adding that everywhere DADC pressed a release, but if I'm editing something else I'd go ahead and do it.

Everyone needs a hobby. As long as they are not screwing anything up, I have no problem with it.

I was just invited to this conversation. Thank you, mjb.

I believe adding these sequential numbers (DIDX-xxxxx, etc.) for DADC has been discussed and accepted, otherwise I wouldn't perform these edits en masse. There have been many forum conversations about it. The main one I recall was uniformly uncontroversial regarding adding these sequential numbers from the MATRIX (not from the disc artwork, etc.) to the lccn, but determining a release date from the sequence was considered no-go.

Regarding the cutoff date from DADC to Sony DADC, that needs to be included in the profiles before anyone would even have a clue. Currently from the DADC page, it appears that any matrix with DIDX-, CTDP-, etc. is a DADC pressing.

P.s. I don't care if people think I'm "rankhunting". There is no prize or really any incentive whatsoever for a "high rank".

Eviltoastman
... without the silly all caps shoutyness?

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT EDIT!

brianvy
I was just invited to this conversation.

Welcome, and was this that thread (I wish the forum search worked better) 4000 results on "dadc lccn"
http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/371888

edit to include link, i left it out the first time. :-)

These sequential matrix numbers have been added to the DADC lccn for at least a year:
http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/367264#3407240

I also was actually under the impression these codes were allowed in LCCN and have been adding them when I edit DADC releases. I'm all for updating the profiles as I can't imagine anyone having any real problem with DIDX-, DIDP-, CTDX-, etc. numbers being valid sequential pressing plant catalogue numbers.

The thing is, I once thought I farted but I crapped my pants :P

Take things a step at a time. We shouldn't be assuming. Get the profile right, agree on the structure and get management to alter the DIDX aspect of the guidelines - he might have to sign off on the profile give the guideline. Also the profile still says to only credit DADC where DADC is explicitly credited and since DADC ceased to exist in practical terms in 2004, then formally in August 2005, many of these edits have been incorrect and performed by people who have not looked at the issue properly and have jumped the gun. Also the mass edit guideline states (as does the sticky) that you must include a link in each edit to the discussion which sanctioned the edit. Whilst the previous discussions existed, a consensus was based on loose articulation, a profile structure not written or agreed and as such the edits I mentioned occured which has intruduced countless errors to the database.

In the interim I'm affecting the profile as written above. All DADC entries from August 2005 onwards need to be undone, if in doubt, don't credit anything as we we do with Dubious dates, we may add a release note to the effect of "This CD was produced by DADC or Sony DADC around 2005". We must remember that production regularly pre empts release dates by several months.

I;ve made a quick but factual edit of the page. It;s provisional. I would ask that someone interested in this brand to contact staff and ask if they can purge or amend the DIDX guideline.

The profile update is useful info about DADC but still doesn't address the thrust of this thread (wasn't intended to?),

Myriad
DIDX-, DIDP-, CTDX-, etc. numbers being valid sequential pressing plant catalogue numbers.

This company specific LCCN sequential # addition from the matrix for US DADC has certainly been previously discussed (and implemented by many users almost since company LCCN has been accepted). IMO, the DIDX guideline has nothing to do with matrix data being transferred to the LCCN. DADC codes are printed on the artwork or disc face and don't always correlate with actual pressing/matrix info; thus the guideline - artwork codes should go to BaOI.

I don't see a lack of consensus about what numbers to extract from the matrix for US DADC, Sony DADC etc. There just exists some confusion about what company profile should be used for what dates (barring specific branding of course). Formalizing these areas of agreement would be useful and practical for users.

Also, isn't the date in this sentence on the DADC profile supposed to be 2005, not 1995?
"Please use this profile where a release specifically credits "DADC" or if the release has been identified via one of the four digit codes mentioned below and was manufactured before August 1995."

brianvy -I have removed you from the ability to edit the database and from voting at this time. This is the third time you have been warned regarding unannounced mass edits.

How is the company these 'catalog numbers' are added for determined ?

That's an issue in itself. Either they were manufactured before Aug 2005 and were made by DADC, or after by Sony DADC. In neither case is a company normally credited. Your question in my view highlights the fact that we had not really reached a consensus on how these are to be dealt with. personally, i did quite alot of work digging out the history of DADC in the US and asked if people could push things one as I could not commit to it. Sadly we're a few years down the line I found myself making the edit myself. I would be really pleased if the DIDX aspect of the guideline and the crediting issue can be looked at. I'm not sure we need to make things more complicated that they already are. I know DADC as an entity anywhere ceased informally in 2004 and formally in August 2005 and that it ended outside the USA around 1994 (the precise date is know but escapes me). If someone wants to take this information and make good use of it I would be very grateful.

nik
brianvy -I have removed you from the ability to edit the database and from voting at this time. This is the third time you have been warned regarding unannounced mass edits.

Thank you! I'm sick of seeing his erroneous edits.

So now what, do we have to EIC all his edits to restore the database?

With the 2005 edits. I think we need to discuss what's best. Perhaps no credit and add a release note.
After 2005, they're wrong. We could add them to Sony DADC which would be correct. The stuff before 2005 should be okay, but from 2006 to present he personally edited 130 submissions.

If it's a fact that those DID*-% numbers in the matrix belong to DADC/Sony DADC then I think allowing them to be an LCCN credit with those numbers added in the CAT# is a good idea, it's factual data.

There is also a profile for Digital Audio Disc Corp. - which should be mentioned along with the rest. Maybe as the "Parent" with the various DADC companies as "Sublabels"? (Not sure that's best, but it is a clean way to link all the various companies together.)

Sometimes the DID codes appear printed in the booklet or on the disc, sometimes the information can be pulled from the Matrix (much like a regular CAT#). The Submission Notes should probably include where one pulled the number from.

This part of RSG §14.11.:
"These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section"

Should be updated to say:
"These codes should not be used as Release Catalog Numbers, please only enter them as a Catalog Number for the correct DADC Company in the LCCN section. Please note where the DID_ number is listed on the release (Matrix, on Disc, etc ...) in the Submission Notes.

And this part:
"In some cases the DIDX codes also appear in the matrix codes of CDs manufactured by other companies."

Should be updated to add
"Please use the listed Manufacturing Company on the release if it has one, instead of adding "DADC" due to the presence of a DID code."

As a proposal.

I believe picking the company based on the release year, is way to tricky. Who says the release year is accurate ? Maybe it was released in January but pressed the year before and the company changed name in January ?
When there is no name given on the artwork or matrix, why should we make up one ?

jweijde
Who says the release year is accurate ?

It's the basis for nearly all the Polygram related manufacturing pages (a few dozen of them) and this is far less complicated.

jweijde
When there is no name given on the artwork or matrix, why should we make up one ?

Would you suggest a faux-series to collate them? one for each prefix? Just throwing out ideas as collating them would be useful.

Also the DIDX references... are they of any use. not for hard release dates, but for manufacturing or in this case glass mastering dates... that's another option as release dates may not follow the sequence, but glass mastering would - finding a baseline might be laborious but we've done this before too.

So if it's a US release, it's surely DADC pre-2005, Sony DADC post-2005, the only time period where it could be either is 2005. For non-US releases, it's DADC pre-1994, Sony DADC post-1994, and the "either" period is 1994. Right?

For releases in the "either" period, if it's really valuable to collate them, maybe create a faux label, like "(Sony) DADC"? If that's too much then I suppose we could just mention the situation in the release notes.

That's the jist of it. Regarding the latter point, I'd like Nik's opinion if he's willing. Should we credit anything at all for instance? If we do, should we look to bridge the gulf between the two entities to tie them up in one profile or series? if so how and what should we do. Obviously nik will be keen to avoid a "legacy label" scenario.

dreadmeat
Thank you! I'm sick of seeing his erroneous edits.

I'm afraid you have zeroed-in on only 1 small aspect of the work I do here. Your opinion is ill-informed.

dreadmeat
So now what, do we have to EIC all his edits to restore the database?

Yes, "restore the database". EIC everything! How about something productive instead? How about a conclusive profile edit about adding these matrix numbers for US DADC? As stated above, many many users (just a couple of whom are Myriad and myself) have been adding these DIDX sequential numbers to the lccn (only from the matrix) because it seemed clear through the forums that a consensus HAD been reached on adding these. Again, I would not have done this en masse if I thought otherwise. I've already been flogged in the past and I seriously thought this was a concluded issue for DADC. Presumably I was wrong. However, I've been adding these matrices to the lccn for the last year w/o complaint.

Also, I thought this consensus below was already in the guidelines:
http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/357563?page=2#3357308
after which, DADC was subsequently discussed... along with many companies such as Greg Lee Processing
(I think we've all been adding the L-xxxxx number from the matrix to the LCCN)

Myriad
I can't imagine anyone having any real problem with DIDX-, DIDP-, CTDX-, etc. numbers being valid sequential pressing plant catalogue numbers.

I can't either. I'm being singled out because there is apparently no consensus regarding using this matrix data (again, I thought there was) & because I did a bunch at once (again, only because I thought this had been accepted)... nik, why would I bother to announce these lccn edits in the forums when I was under the impression that, like Greg Lee Processing or Rainbo Records, they were already accepted?

I just looked through only the last few weeks of DADC and all of these users have added DIDX-xxxxx from the matrix into the LCCN (either recently or in the past):
Oleco, droneloop, craigandkim, ThankYouForHearingMe, Music_Without_Limits, mr.dna, skinnybutdangerous, abecedarian, deletio, el_duro, isidroco, fishbulb, STUMM47, cellularsmoke, Ivo94 & the list goes on...
I'm not trying to "call anyone out", my point being that a wide range of experienced users are adding these to the lccn as if its accepted. I'm by no means the only one.

Eviltoastman
The stuff before 2005 should be okay, but from 2006 to present he personally edited 130 submissions.

I added the sequential number from the matrix to the lccn (and most of these over the last year, not 3 days ago - all at once), but you've ignored the fact that DADC was already added (presumably incorrectly) as the pressing company on those entries by a previous user, not me. Let's not obfuscate that fact.

To be clear, I personally don't think brianvy was doing anything wrong, I certainly believed that adding the DID codes was accepted practice.

Of course, I hadn't until this thread, known of the DADC/Sony DADC issue regarding timelines and such; So the thread has at least done enough to clear up when which company is active/to be used.

I'm always for adding more data to a release if we can, especially if we can create a factual set of guidelines and timelines to go by.

Who knows, maybe some time in the future we'll find a use for DID codes... Cleaning up both the Company Profiles (ALL the company profiles) and the Guidelines will definitely provide a clear path for other people in the future.

I've been under the impression to not add glass mastering numbers unless it says it is allowed in the company profile. If this is the case, perhaps it could be noted in the guidelines, in section 4.7.

cellularsmoke
It's not against guidelines

It is: These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section.

cellularsmoke
Pretty sure there was forum consensus,

If so, why wasn't RSG §4.11 altered? So, any addition as LCCN cat# was against the Guidelines. Additionally, why wasn't the Sony DADC profile (nor any other DADC profile) changed? That doesn't look like a broad consensus to me at all. Or did I miss something?

cellularsmoke
To be clear, I personally don't think brianvy was doing anything wrong, I certainly believed that adding the DID codes was accepted practice.

He was, it wasn't the first time and it wasn't accepted practice.

cellularsmoke
Of course, I hadn't until this thread, known of the DADC/Sony DADC issue regarding timelines and such; So the thread has at least done enough to clear up when which company is active/to be used.

This is because there was no consensus regarding the numbers. Everyone on Brian's list has acted irresponsibly and prematurely and no one seems to have read the discussions. We still had questions. We still had problems.

obs
I've been under the impression to not add glass mastering numbers unless it says it is allowed in the company profile.

You're right which is why the matter was under discussion and was not resolved and it still not resolved. Also they're not "glass mastering numbers", they're just added at that stage of production but otherwise have nothing to do with that specific moment of manufacturing. They're normally work order numbers referred to as "batch numbers" which identify the content of the disc. Sometimes they mirror the catalogue number or will include it. The parts of the matrix added at this stage are the batch number (what we refer to as the matrix), the date code, mastering SID code and sometimes the catalogue number.

The DIDX reference as we've seen from the conversation are not specific to DADC and are probably assigned from above (Sony). We know this as DIDX CDs have been produced for Sony by other manufacturers. This poses a serious question, if they are not really DADC numbers, but numbers passed down from above who should be the recipient of any credit if anyone at all. This suggests that a pseudo series might be a better answer. Are DIDX etc and their alignment with DADC a coincidence of Sony primarily using its own plants? Or are the external DIDX references the result of a sold or exported glass master? If they use outside plants, the DIDX prefixes seem to follow.

sebfact
It is: These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section.

I'll add them to BAOI from now on and correct what I can find.

sebfact
If so, why wasn't RSG §4.11 altered?

There are quite a few examples of guideline being updated that leave other parts obsolete, just as in this case. In fact the last change of the guideline changelog was alos because of a legacy guideline issue made redundant by another decision.

Eviltoastman
There are quite a few examples of guideline being updated that leave other parts obsolete, just as in this case

Where is the decision to allow DID_ numbers as LCCN cat# then?
Generally, not updating the Guidelines immediately is a bad thing, especially with all those obsessed Guideline Enforcers around.

When pressing plant sequential numbers were allowed in the lccn

Just because I don't know any better, is this pressing ID stuff ok on vinyl releases? I've had a few of them come up today - http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2830554#latest
If it is unrelated, that's fine, I'm not ready for this "Level" if Discogness yet to may any informed decisions

Pretty sure it is, which is how DID_ numbers got into CD releases.

nutbarz
Just because I don't know any better, is this pressing ID stuff ok on vinyl releases? I've had a few of them come up today - http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2830554#latest

That example's fine. It conforms to the guidance given in the pressplant profile, and the profile history for the plant contains links to the relevant discussions.

I know this thread is about DIDX numbering, but does this also apply to DIDP numbering? An example is this submission of mine updated by brianvy a few days ago: http://www.discogs.com/submissions?mode=saved#mode=saved&item=release%2F5806988 - does his edit need reverting?

stevefreeman
DIDX numbering, but does this also apply to DIDP numbering?

It;s about all the related numbering. An incomplete list is found in the guideline for DIDX, the missing one is CIDP I believe. Anssisal found it if I recall it correctly, I'd need to trawl through the old thread again.

Eviltoastman
When pressing plant sequential numbers were allowed in the lccn

That was a long time ago and plenty of time to change the RSG accordingly - as it was done in other cases. Evidently, nik wasn't informed of that "consensus" (if there ever was one). All too vague; the Guidelines remain the highest instance - so, not allowed.

sebfact
That was a long time ago and plenty of time to change the RSG accordingly - as it was done in other cases.

As I said, the changelog shows a guideline change last week as a legacy of something that occurred a while ago, so no, you're wrong with that statement. Things get missed. Just consider the recent change to RSG §6.11 here:
http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/356624#3798710
Which was a legacy of a decision made and implemented on 24th October 2014 resulting in the realisation that part of the guideline above was irrelevant on 19th February, 2015. I welcomed the guideline change myself, I didn't notice the legacy info in the guideline, neither did staff until they were notified (or noticed) last week. We're human, things get missed.

sebfact
; the Guidelines remain the highest instance

There are two guidelines.

RSG §4.11 arrived first, and here it is:

4.11. DID_ codes are the numbers used by Sony's manufacturing company, Digital Audio Disc Corporation, to identify the master copies of CDs duplicated in their pressing plants. These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section - see help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode.

DADC has used a number of different DID_ code series over the years:

DIDC - Classical recordings released on Sony-affiliated record labels.
DIDP - Popular (i.e., non-classical) recordings released on Sony-affiliated record labels.
DIDX - Recordings pressed by DADC for release on non-Sony-affiliated record labels.
DIDY - Recordings pressed by the US division of DADC for the Columbia House Record Club.
DIDZ - Recordings released on WEA Japan. (This code was only used from 1983 to 1985.)

A DIDX code on a release doesn't necessarily mean that copy of the release was actually pressed by DADC. As more CD pressing plants opened around the world, the record labels would often have other manufacturers press later runs of releases originally manufactured by DADC, but wouldn't necessarily remove the DADC mastering code from the CD's packaging. In some cases the DIDX codes also appear in the matrix codes of CDs manufactured by other companies.

The CSIG code that appears on some 3" CD singles may also be a DADC-assigned mastering ID, making it a close cousin of the DID_ codes.

Some of the information is incomplete or outdated and the rule about entering the DID# number into a catalogue number field was written when we could only enter a catalogue number for a label as we had not yet had the LCCN rollout, so the instruction is to stop people entering it as a release cataogue number against a label.

We've obviously moved on since which is what occurred a few years back when RSG §4.7.6 was tweaked to allow manufacturers to have their sequential catalogue numbers recorded against them. This is precisely what the DID# numbers are. RSG §4.11 either needs redraughting/editing or removing. IMO that info belongs in the affected profiles no we have RSG §4.7.6 or it could be relayed in a Discogs Wiki page.

It'd be nice to get a comment from nik regarding DADC codes vs. matrix data for DADC in the lccn.

My understanding is quite different from that of sebfact and others. I'll state my understanding again. DADC codes are numbers on artwork which may or may not have anything to do with the actual matrix/pressing data. These codes belong in the BaOI per RSG §4.11. I always put these codes in the BaOI when present. Often these codes closely mirror the matrix (but with a "-" added) however many releases feature a "DADC code" on the artwork while the matrix is not DADC related. IMO, only sequential company-specific numbers extracted from the matrix should go into the lccn.

As a very common example please consider:
1. Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine
The DADC code (DIDP 078361) is written on the disc artwork above the Epic Associated catalog number ZK 52959.
The matrix (DIDP-078361 1) indicates that this exact pressing was manufactured by DADC.
[From my perspective this should get a DADC code in the BaOI (DIDP 078361) due to its presence on the artwork & DADC should be in the companies with DIDP-078361 extracted from the matrix to lccn for DADC. The "1" in "DIDP-078361 1" doesn't go to lccn because that is the pressing/cut #. It will often increase on later pressings of the same disc made by DADC.]

Subsequent pressings may keep the DADC code on the disc artwork but have a completely different matrix or manufacturer (just because these have a DADC artwork code doesn't mean these pressings are definitively manufactured by DADC):
2. Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine
The DADC code (DIDP 078361) still exists on the disc artwork but the matrix is completely different (E3 2A ZK52959 34) and is a much later pressing which may or may not be by DADC.
[IMO, in this case DIDP 078361 should only be in the BaOI and DADC should be removed from the lccn since this is not certain (also DIDP-078361 is not drawn from the matrix). Obviously with SID codes the issue date is not 1992 for this sub.]

3. Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine
The DADC code is absent from the disc artwork & the matrix is similar to above (2A ZK52959 03 B2).
[DADC shouldn't be mentioned in BaOI or in the lccn]

Finally, an example of DADC code only on artwork on first & all subsequent pressings regardless of manufacturer:
4. The Ornette Coleman Trio - At The "Golden Circle" Stockholm - Volume Two
The DADC code (DIDX 1585) is written on the rear insert & disc artwork below the Blue Note catalog number CDP 7 84225 2.
The matrix (CDP 7 84225 2 AO @ 2) (2-2 CAPITOL JAX 2) indicates that this exact pressing was manufactured by Capitol Jax.
[So DIDX 1585 should go to BaOI but based on RSG §4.11, I see no role for DADC in the companies.]

IMO, RSG §4.11 exists to make it clear that just because a release has a DADC code on the artwork does not necessarily mean that the disc was manufactured by DADC.

If I could get a reply from nik that would be great.

p.s. this one below I don't understand at all after the current edit. CTDP-113894 is not a "DADC code", it is a matrix. It should not have a separate entry in the BaOI under "DADC code". IMO, CTDP-113894 only belongs in the lccn extracted from the matrix for DADC. For me, this entry highlights the difference between a "DADC code" on the disc artwork, etc (this release has none). and a matrix of a disc pressed by DADC. In my understanding, and as I've tried to explain above, these are two very different things.
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1960225#latest

I agree with much of what you said but #2 is very likely a legacy artwork issue.
#4 I agree. Re: the post script, I agree and disagree. The matrices and DADC number are the same thing. They have the same role. The role of a matrix is to index the source recording. This is what the printed DIDP codes are also doing, they're just in different locations and enjoy a subtle difference, just as face label matrices and runout/mirror band marices often do. These are not a special case. Whether on the printed surfaces or in the mirror band, their role is the same, the codes are the same.

i would state in choosing between the almost identical matrix from the printed surfaces and the matrix, we ought to run with the most prevalent, in other words the most visible though we could quite feasibly add both.

Eviltoastman
I agree with much of what you said but #2 is very likely a legacy artwork issue.

Exactly. And in my opinion, that is why RSG §4.11 exists - "just because a release has a DADC code on the artwork does not necessarily mean that the disc was manufactured by DADC". This code is still an identifier that belongs in the BaOI. However, it is not an indicator that DADC pressed the disc or should have any entry in the lccn.

I'd still like to hear an opinion from nik.

Eviltoastman
The matrices and DADC number are the same thing. They have the same role. The role of a matrix is to index the source recording. This is what the printed DIDP codes are also doing,

I understand what you are saying but subtly disagree. In the case of DADC, these codes are very often on releases where the matrix data suggests a different plant (whether a legacy artwork issue --#2 above-- or DADC played some other role --#4 above--). So I think all lccn data for DADC should only be extracted from the matrix. This is the only reliable indicator that DADC had something to do with the specific pressing.

And again, this is why I believe RSG §4.11 was dreamed up in the first place.

Eviltoastman
RSG §4.11 either needs redraughting/editing or removing.

Yeah, quickly. Filed a SR.

sebfact
Yeah, quickly. Filed a SR.

There is already an SR pending on this particular issue. They are consulting with nik. You should close yours.

Eviltoastman
Some of the information is incomplete or outdated and the rule about entering the DID# number into a catalogue number field was written when we could only enter a catalogue number for a label as we had not yet had the LCCN rollout, so the instruction is to stop people entering it as a release cataogue number against a label.

We've obviously moved on since which is what occurred a few years back when RSG §4.7.6 was tweaked to allow manufacturers to have their sequential catalogue numbers recorded against them. This is precisely what the DID# numbers are. RSG §4.11 either needs redraughting/editing or removing. IMO that info belongs in the affected profiles no we have RSG §4.7.6 or it could be relayed in a Discogs Wiki page.

Hi folks, getting round to reviewing this.

Thanks for this summary Eviltoastman. I am interested you said "...that info belongs in the affected profiles ... or it could be relayed in a Discogs Wiki page", as that was what was going through my mind reading this thread.

I think http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#DIDX_And_Other_DID_Codes is too specific for the guidelines now, and would much rather that info was in profiles and / or the wiki. I am happy to remove it. I will give this thread a few days for any counter-proposals before doing that.

Thanks!

Thanks nik.

I agree it probably needs to be removed.

I wouldnt mind it if it was removed. To the least the guideline should be rewritten. Right now it also suggests what the label should be for some releases and the description of DIDZ is just plain incorrect.

nik
I think http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#DIDX_And_Other_DID_Codes is too specific for the guidelines now, and would much rather that info was in profiles and / or the wiki. I am happy to remove it. I will give this thread a few days for any counter-proposals before doing that.

I'm fine with all the details being removed/moved, but I think it might be good to leave a link there to someplace where people can get more info, be it the wiki page where things are moved, or a sticky thread we create for this purpose, or someplace else.

+1 for removal.

I agree. Moving the guideline to company info on the DADC page(s) makes sense to me. I still lobby for only extracting matrix data into the LCCN & keeping the codes written on the artwork in the BaOI (for DADC US pre-2005 releases). Again, due to legacy artwork considerations, the matrix is the only tangible criterion that DADC actually had something to do with the production of that exact disc, correct? Therefore it is the only sequential number that reliably links to that company.

Eviltoastman
Whether on the printed surfaces or in the mirror band, their role is the same, the codes are the same.

I subtly disagree with this statement and here is a specific example illustrating why. In the case of Columbia House (CRC) pressings, often the DID_ code and the matrix are different:

Kate Bush - The Whole Story
Printed code on artwork = DIDY1099
Printed code on disc = DIDY 080158
Matrix = DIDX-080158 3

IMO, DIDX-080158 should go to the LCCN for DADC & the DID_ codes should go to the BaOI with descriptions as to where they are printed. Clearly the DID_ codes & the matrix are not the same here...

^ going to give a +1 to brianvy's entire post

It seems to me that we have a general consensus on removing RSG §4.11 from the guidelines and into the DADC profile. Could we possibly move forward so the profile can be updated?

Clear instructions always help users. I find the Disc Manufacturing, Inc. profile to be very straightforward. We could use that as groundwork for what might exist on the DADC page.

Disc Manufacturing, Inc.:
"Please note that when entering the unique identifier to the LCCN field for this company, the work order number should be entered without the cut number. For example, if the work order number is 12345-1, only "12345" is required to be entered in to the LCCN field. It is unnecessary to include the remaining cut number, in this case "-1", because even if the disc was repressed, it will normally still retain the original work order number of 12345, but have successive cut numbers thereafter. Please read on for further information about the DMI matrix runout."

So for US DADC releases:
"Please note that when entering the unique identifier to the LCCN field for this company, the DID_ matrix should be entered without the cut number. For example, if the number is DIDX-012345 1, only "DIDX-012345" is required to be entered in to the LCCN field. It is unnecessary to include the remaining cut number, in this case "1", because even if the disc was repressed, it will normally still retain the original DID_ matrix of DIDX-012345, but have successive cut numbers thereafter. Please read on for further information about DADC matrix runouts."

Then we have something about NOT adding DADC codes on printed artwork to LCCN but only to BaOI (essentially incorporate RSG §4.11 into the profile). We then list the DADC specific matrix prefixes.

It might be helpful to leave a sentence in 4.11 that DID_ codes are considered cat#, together with a link to the respective profile or wiki. Otherwise there will be redundant forum threads dealing with those numbers over and over again.

So are we proceeding with entering the DIDx codes as catalogue numbers for DADC pressings?
I'm asking because I didn't see the profile updated with instructions to do so, but noticed that these numbers are being again.

Quoting myself from another thread:

mjb
Just a note about these in general...

The same DIDX, DIDY, DIDP etc. codes appear on many pressings. You will see some of the lowest numbered codes (for c. 1984 recordings) on CDs that you know were manufactured years later, like Columbia House pressings.

So just like when a specific mastering date is mentioned in the matrix, it's just not reliable for inferring an exact year. brianvy probably was right to infer 1987 from the code, but that's just the earliest possible release date, not necessarily the actual date of this pressing.

Because they appear on so many different pressings, I believe these codes are not referring to a specific CD glass master, but to the digital "premaster" (probably on U-Matic videotape, back then), i.e. the recording which is fed to the laser beam recorder during the process of glass master creation.

I do not think we should be entering these codes in the catalog number field for the DADC companies, or at least we should say something on the DADC profiles about how they were reused and thus can't be used to infer a specific year.

Thanks. So it seems that someone is jumping the gun AGAIN.

If two copies of an album show the same DIDX code in the matrix then they've both obviously used the same glass master, and that should not disqualify either one from having its pressing plant catalogue number assigned in LCCN. What we are advocating is the linking of DIDX codes found in the CD matrix only, not those printed on artwork, which can indeed be a lot less unique and are the ones that get copied to reissue artwork (referring specifically to mjb's post just above mine). Dont confuse the two different phenomena.

For example, Lady Gaga - The Fame Monster. What argument exists not to allow that code to be entered in LCCN?

hi

is this O.K to ask here?

i have in a matrix: MASTERED BY DADC AUSTRIA

as per comment i should enter 'Mastered At - DADC Austria' (with number) into the LCCN

i assumed a typo or autocorrection because AFAIK 'Mastered At' is about the recording of the music

so i take a look to the DADC Austria profile and it says i should enter

Pressed By – DADC Austria
the profile using this sub as example Burzum - Filosofem

i doublecheck some correct voted submissions and found
Manufactured By – DADC Austria
@ Depeche Mode - Construction Time Again

Glass Mastered At – DADC Austria
@ Front 242 - Mixed By Fear

Made By – DADC Austria
@ Frontline Assembly* - The Initial Command

i expect there are all possible variations to find if i'll digg further...

.

if nik could confirm which one is the one and only we could refer in the future to this statement :-)

thank you in advance

_

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
i have in a matrix: MASTERED BY DADC AUSTRIA

If "MASTERED BY" appears in the matrix, use Glass Mastered At. You are right assuming that Mastered At refers to the mastering of the audio. If "MADE BY ManufacturerName" is mentioned, use the Made By role in LCCN. If no specific role is mentioned, use either Manufactured By or Made By. This applies in the majority of cases.

thank you (copied to my profile) :-)

Myriad
What we are advocating is the linking of DIDX codes found in the CD matrix only, not those printed on artwork, which can indeed be a lot less unique

Thanks for clarifying. I was referring to the packaging, yes.

The DIDX code can be on the packaging of non-DADC pressings that predate or follow the DADC pressings—if there were even DADC pressings, which I'm not sure there always were—and the different pressings can have different masterings (but same matrix = same mastering, of course).

DIDX codes can appear in the matrix of non-DADC pressings, although I think (could be wrong here) it's only when there was a DADC pressing first. For example, some CAPITOL JAX or EMI JAX pressings exist where the pressing plant's codes are in the matrix in addition to the codes from a DADC pressing, including the DIDX #.

[Pink Floyd examples are documented in great detail at http://pinkfloydarchives.com/DUSCDPF.htm and http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm ... DSOTM and Meddle especially. Also my sub of Back To The Future (Music From The Motion Picture Soundtrack) is an example of a DADC-pressed Columbia House edition that had to have been released in '86 or later, whereas originals are from '85 and do not yet include any DADC pressings.]

Myriad
For example, Lady GaGa - The Fame Monster. What argument exists not to allow that code to be entered in LCCN?

None, really, as long as it is strictly limited to appearances of the code in matrix data.

We just need to be sure the profiles tell people that a DID_ (DIDX, DIDY, DIDwhatever) code in the matrix should result in a Glass Mastered At - DADC (...and if there's no objection, with the full DID_-#### code as the cat# for that field)... but any other DID_ code found elsewhere on a release (spine, disc face, booklet, tray inlay) is only deserving of a BAOI Other entry, with a description like "DADC Code" or similar.

Bump.

Could this weigh in on this discussion?
- http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/400668

Eviltoastman
[10 months ago]

4.11. DID_ codes are the numbers used by Sony's manufacturing company, Digital Audio Disc Corporation, to identify the master copies of CDs duplicated in their pressing plants. These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section - see help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode.

DADC has used a number of different DID_ code series over the years:

DIDC - Classical recordings released on Sony-affiliated record labels.
DIDP - Popular (i.e., non-classical) recordings released on Sony-affiliated record labels.
DIDX - Recordings pressed by DADC for release on non-Sony-affiliated record labels.
DIDY - Recordings pressed by the US division of DADC for the Columbia House Record Club.
DIDZ - Recordings released on WEA Japan. (This code was only used from 1983 to 1985.)

A DIDX code on a release doesn't necessarily mean that copy of the release was actually pressed by DADC. As more CD pressing plants opened around the world, the record labels would often have other manufacturers press later runs of releases originally manufactured by DADC, but wouldn't necessarily remove the DADC mastering code from the CD's packaging. In some cases the DIDX codes also appear in the matrix codes of CDs manufactured by other companies.

The CSIG code that appears on some 3" CD singles may also be a DADC-assigned mastering ID, making it a close cousin of the DID_ codes.

Some of the information is incomplete or outdated and the rule about entering the DID# number into a catalogue number field was written when we could only enter a catalogue number for a label as we had not yet had the LCCN rollout, so the instruction is to stop people entering it as a release cataogue number against a label.

We've obviously moved on since which is what occurred a few years back when RSG §4.7.6 was tweaked to allow manufacturers to have their sequential catalogue numbers recorded against them. This is precisely what the DID# numbers are. RSG §4.11 either needs redraughting/editing or removing. IMO that info belongs in the affected profiles no we have RSG §4.7.6 or it could be relayed in a Discogs Wiki page.

nik
[9 months ago]
Thanks for this summary Eviltoastman. I am interested you said "...that info belongs in the affected profiles ... or it could be relayed in a Discogs Wiki page", as that was what was going through my mind reading this thread.

I think http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#DIDX_And_Other_DID_Codes is too specific for the guidelines now, and would much rather that info was in profiles and / or the wiki. I am happy to remove it. I will give this thread a few days for any counter-proposals before doing that.

Bump

Has this been addressed with a different outcome more recently?

The information in the guidelines is incomplete.
Not all DIDX and DIDP release are mastered by DADC.
All early releases (before 1984) are mastered and manufactured by CBS/Sony Inc.
1985 and 1986 and some 1987 releases were also Made in Japan by CBS/Sony Inc..
for more information see my lists:

DIDX USA:
http://www.discogs.com/lists/DIDX-USA/195620
DIDP USA:
http://www.discogs.com/lists/DIDP-20xxx-USA/193771
http://www.discogs.com/lists/DIDP-50xxx-USA/194305
http://www.discogs.com/lists/DIDP-70xxx-USA/192495
DIDP EU:
http://www.discogs.com/lists/DIDP-Europe/193661
http://www.discogs.com/lists/DIDP-10xxx-Europe/182794

In the US DADC continued to use DIDP codes after 1987
In Europe DADC Austria never used DIDP codes, these pressings always use the cat# in the matrix (some release have the original artwork with DIDP).

Here's one with "DIPX", not yet in the DADC codes list:
Joni Mitchell - Night Ride Home

All DADC profiles are messy. It's not clear whether or not DID_ codes are allowed as cat# and which numbers shall be taken (from the matrix, e.g. DIDX-002893 1 or from the disc face, e.g. DIDX 2893). The DADC profile only states "Axxxxxxxxxx-yyzz" are to be entered and yet you can find hundreds of DID_ cat##.
It's the pits.

nik, can you please remove this part of the guidelines ?
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/691414

EDIT: Bumping this:

sebfact
All DADC profiles are messy. It's not clear whether or not DID_ codes are allowed as cat# and which numbers shall be taken (from the matrix, e.g. DIDX-002893 1 or from the disc face, e.g. DIDX 2893). The DADC profile only states "Axxxxxxxxxx-yyzz" are to be entered and yet you can find hundreds of DID_ cat##.

And this:

nik
I think http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#DIDX_And_Other_DID_Codes is too specific for the guidelines now, and would much rather that info was in profiles and / or the wiki. I am happy to remove it. I will give this thread a few days for any counter-proposals before doing that.

to Diognes_The_Fox

Okay!

Just to confirm: the whole of [g.4.11] or just the "These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section" part?

Hi, we were given a link to this discussion, had started our own https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/717229
We are still not clear on some things. We checked on DADC what to enter for numbers, looking at some examples, we do not understand if adding a number to the company as on for example Sentenced - North From Here / Shadows Of The Past is the way to do it.
Pressed By – DADC – DIDX-074321
Pressed By – DADC – DIDX-074322
This is a correct way?
One profile mentions "If these codes appear on a CD that has another manufacturer mentioned, please do not credit DADC+ DADC, Sony DADC profile does not mention this. It applies to one but not the other? Taking an example, CAPITOL JAX 1 C DIDX-008071 2 2-1-1 77328 , here we would not give a company credit to DADC?

Diognes_The_Fox
Just to confirm: the whole of RSG §4.11 or just the "These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section" part?

I think it can be removed completely, although it might be handy to somehow mention that these codes usually aren't catalog numbers of a release. They're usually quite prominent so people might mistake them for a release catalog number.

jansenENjanssen
One profile mentions "If these codes appear on a CD that has another manufacturer mentioned, please do not credit DADC+ DADC, Sony DADC profile does not mention this. It applies to one but not the other? Taking an example, CAPITOL JAX 1 C DIDX-008071 2 2-1-1 77328 , here we would not give a company credit to DADC?

In case DADC or Sony DADC are not mentioned at all, I would not enter a company credit.

jansenENjanssen
One profile mentions "If these codes appear on a CD that has another manufacturer mentioned, please do not credit DADC+ DADC, Sony DADC profile does not mention this. It applies to one but not the other? Taking an example, CAPITOL JAX 1 C DIDX-008071 2 2-1-1 77328 , here we would not give a company credit to DADC?

My *guess* is that this was glass mastered by DADC, but pressed by Capitol Jax, since the Capitol Jax part is machine stamped. However, I wouldn't advise entering it like this, since it's just a guess/assumption.

https://www.discogs.com/release/891530-Murray-Street/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest

Can we really derive release year from DIDX-number? I have not the impression that they are given chronologically.

It should not be done, and yet, people insist.

vellozet
https://www.discogs.com/release/891530-Murray-Street/history

In that example, the 2002 date (when the album first came out) is being questioned on a CD with a DIDX code that's numerically close to the codes found on releases from 2009, and brianvy says the date should be blanked because of that. That seems reasonable.

If they are not given chronologically, that can't be a valid argument, mjb. There are a lot of similar low DIDX-numbers of releases from 2002. If you look at this one for example
Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66* - Fool On The Hill, the Sonic Youth album could easily be from 2002.

vellozet
There are a lot of similar low DIDX-numbers of releases from 2002.

I was taking brianvy at his word that the DIDX numbers in that range debuted circa 2009. If that's not the case, then yes, there's less reason to doubt the 2002 date.

We've never allowed dates to be drawn from matrix information. I don't see this as any different. It does give you a mastering date. It doesn't give you an actual release date and I know of some releases that were held up for a considerable time.

Exactly... it rules out certain dates that are earlier than possible.

I don't think it's particularly difficult to argue that any DADC mastering sequence # after approx. DIDX-121100 (certainly DIDX-122000 onward) actually belongs on the Sony DADC profile and was mastered after the August 2005 company name change.

See:
https://www.discogs.com/label/264352-DADC?page=6

@ brianvy: The fact that we don't agree here is no reason to treat me like a fool and
pretending that I'm talking about cat# as you've done now in sub notes of that release. That's impertinent!

Sorry if I misunderstood you in the Sonic Youth history. I legitimately thought you were referring to catalog numbers as I could find no DADC pressing for the Nirvana - Nirvana CD to which you were referring.

At any rate these DIDX numbers are certainly sequential and 2005 released mastering #'s end near DIDX-121100. The Sonic Youth mastering number claimed to be a 2002 release is DIDX-154199. So unless there's a data entry error in the matrix #.....

brianvy
I believe adding these sequential numbers (DIDX-xxxxx, etc.) for DADC has been discussed and accepted, otherwise I wouldn't perform these edits en masse. There have been many forum conversations about it. The main one I recall was uniformly uncontroversial regarding adding these sequential numbers from the MATRIX (not from the disc artwork, etc.) to the lccn

Yet still after all this time, there is noting mentioned about adding these as company numbers on any of the profiles, no link to where exactly this was discussed and agreed on, this needs resolving.

jansenENjanssen
this needs resolving

I agree.

Per: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/410606?utm_campaign=user-mention&utm_medium=email&page=1&utm_source=relationship#3810143
from nik, we need to remove RSG §4.11:
http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#DIDX_And_Other_DID_Codes
and add some of this info (regarding legacy artwork) to the DADC profile.

Myriad
I'm all for updating the profiles as I can't imagine anyone having any real problem with DIDX-, DIDP-, CTDX-, etc. numbers being valid sequential pressing plant catalogue numbers.

We should add these sequential company numbers to the LCCN from the matrix like any other company. Legacy artwork often retains these DIDX #'s even though a subsequent mastering/pressing may be by a different company. Codes given on artwork but not in the matrix can go to the BaOI as suggested in RSG §4.11.

Bumping this again

And again....

And again and again and again and again.

Seems most don't care about this

Can we add the numbers or not?

jansenENjanssen
Can we add the numbers or not?

Good question! Yet another user has been copying and/or moving DADC codes to the company fields since yesterday.

mr.dna
jansenENjanssen
Can we add the numbers or not?

Good question! Yet another user has been copying and/or moving DADC codes to the company fields since yesterday.

4.11. DID_ codes are the numbers used by Sony's manufacturing company, Digital Audio Disc Corporation, to identify the master copies of CDs duplicated in their pressing plants. These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section - see help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode.

clear and unambiguous

Stereolab42
Forum consensus should be reached first, the relevant label pages updated second, and the edits made third.

- Has consensus been reached?

el_duro
4.11. DID_ codes are the numbers used by Sony's manufacturing company, Digital Audio Disc Corporation, to identify the master copies of CDs duplicated in their pressing plants. These codes should not be used as catalog numbers, please only enter them into the 'Other' tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section - see help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode.

Those are old guidelines though, we understand they were there before the companies option was introduced and those would need updating

el_duro
clear and unambiguous

What's unclear about that guideline is that it refers specifically to the numbers printed on the face of the disc or artwork, not to the unique catalog numbers found in the matrix. There's never been an issue with adding unique cat#s from the matrix, which is why the users have widely adopted this practice.

jansenENjanssen
we understand they were there before the companies option was introduced and those would need updating

Unfortunately not everyone understands this, and guideline updates do not seem imminent.

jansenENjanssen
Those are old guidelines though

I was referring to mr.dna's comment re. another user moving DADC codes to the company fields which is not correct, as per the current guidelines.

https://www.discogs.com/label/264352-DADC?sort=year&sort_order=
This is so wrong. Releases made in Japan are not DADC but CBS/Sony Inc..
DADC Plants were opened in Terre Haute, Indiana; Pitman, New Jersey and in Austria.
Only releases Made in USA are DADC, in Austria DADC Austria.