• mjb over 2 years ago

    I figured out how to scan CD matrix-area barcodes: https://www.discogs.com/group/thread/726944

    WEA Manufacturing and WME pressings from most of the 1990s, except for a brief period in late '92/early '93, have Code 39 barcodes which apparently correspond to the original mastering sequence.

    Titles which remained in print for a long time have a variety of matrix styles, as partially documented elsewhere. Some have matrix barcodes, some don't.

    The string encoded by the bars also changed formats over time. One pressing might contain 00123, a later pressing might be 000123.

    Traditionally we treat matrix-area changes as normal manufacturing variations, unless they are affect companies or credits. An explicit exception was made for the introduction of SID codes as well, so we keep CDs with SID codes separate from those without. As far as I know, no other changes, like these barcodes, are treated specially.

    Is it time to change that, though? Here's an example:

    R.E.M. - Green – There is just this one release representing all pressings without SID codes, i.e. 1988–1993 for sure, maybe some 1994 copies as well. This naturally includes some pressings with the barcode and some without. Images are provided of both. When I entered the matrix barcode, I had to clarify that it only applies to the early '90s pressings.

    The Cure - Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me – This release was the same way, representing 1987–1993 pressings without SID codes. But was recently split, such that the new submission Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me represents pressings with the matrix barcode and the original is for supposed to be for those without...although some of the matrix variations currently entered on the original may be from copies with the barcode. The submitter says this happens all the time (people making separate submissions based on the presence of the barcode in the matrix), but it doesn't seem that common to me.

    Complicating matters: my copy of the Cure album has the matrix barcode and has a SID code stamped on the hub, so maybe it has to be yet another submission.

    Other companies besides Warner used matrix barcodes, too, e.g. Sony DADC and JVC, but I have not figured out how to scan those.

    So ... your thoughts? Do we treat CDs with matrix barcodes as separate submissions? If yes, do we also treat as separate a change in the encoded number like 00123 becoming 000123? If no, then is the R.E.M. example above how you want things to look?
  • obs over 2 years ago

    Initial thoughts:
    "Do we treat CDs with matrix barcodes as separate submissions?"
    Not sure.

    "If yes, do we also treat as separate a change in the encoded number like 00123 becoming 000123?"
    No. I would treat these as LCCN numbers, which means different numbers are still eligible to be in the same submission. If there's other evidence (such as SID Codes) that points towards a different release date, then it would be separate submissions.

    That also branches into a separate question: Should those CD barcodes be entered as LCCN numbers (instead)?
  • obs over 2 years ago

    Another thought: When entering the CD barcode in BAOI, shouldn't a Variant # be entered as well, when there are multiple matrices in a submission?

    For example, I'm looking at https://www.discogs.com/release/51185
    and there are:
    Barcode (Matrix area, Code 39): 10925
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 1): 25 EX 237-2 SRC=05 M1S1
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 2): 25 EX 237-2 SRC=05 M1S4
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 3): 25 EX 237-2 SRC=06 M1S7
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 4): 25 EX 237-2 SRC=06 M1S5

    From the uploaded image, we know that SRC=05 has a barcode (I think we can assume that both machine-stamped variants of SRC=05 are otherwise the same) , but we can assume that SRC=06 has one also?

    Or would it be better to enter it as:
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 2): 25 EX 237-2 SRC=05 M1S4 [Code 39 barcode: 10925]
    or if you want to enter it as separate lines:
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 2): 25 EX 237-2 SRC=05 M1S4
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 2, Code 39 barcode): 10925

    Personally, I think the barcode is better entered as a Matrix field.
  • OLDFRIENDSFORSALE over 2 years ago

    i think this is a time consuming nonsense, no offense, i mean the database has countless really important issues (errors and missing data) that needs the attention before we perform something that is not for everybody comprehensible - as you say you need to photoshop image of the matrix - first of all most submissions have no matrix and if there is one it's only one but not for each variant a new scan and the casual user do not photoshop and scan - so i would let it be

    and: i have already a bad feeling for Barcode (Matrix area, Code 39): #####
    this makes one more time room to enter randomly 1000 variants for the same one thing [you know the users here] and the Baoi descriptions fields are a true Eldorado instead make them uniform ;-)

    and: it's a part of the Matrix, not "the" barcode we know yet

    so we need another new dropdown:

    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/693089?page=3#7214060

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I'm going to suggest this:

    Barcode
    Rights Society
    Label Code
    Matrix / Runout
    Mastering SID Code
    Mould SID Code
    Pressing Plant ID
    Distribution Code
    Price Code
    SPARS Code
    ISBN
    Library Of Congress Catalog Number
    ASIN
    Other

    Matrix Code 39
  • mjb over 2 years ago

    Thanks for the thoughts.

    I don't care what we call it, and am happy to use whatever people want. Of course, without a new field for it, we have to use the description field to explain, no matter which of the options we choose.

    The description field I am using is just trying to keep it short and accurate. It is a type of barcode, it is in the same place as the matrix codes, and it is not the usual UPC-A/EAN-13 format. "Barcode (Matrix area, Code 39)" seems as tight as it can get without sacrificing accuracy. Just my opinion though; I will go with the flow.

    Getting back to the main issue -

    If we don't regard the barcode-containing releases as separate then we do get the problem of having to say that the barcode may only be associated with some matrix variants, as obs points out, and as I also alluded to in the R.E.M. example. Plus there will almost certainly be times when the same matrix codes appear on copies with and without the barcode, so we can't even say that the barcode exclusively applies to copies with a particular matrix.

    For this reason alone, I think they should be separate. But this is a departure from how we normally do things (as far as I'm aware), and could have unintended consequences, hence the request for opinions.
  • fishbulb over 2 years ago

    mjb
    The submitter says this happens all the time (people making separate submissions based on the presence of the barcode in the matrix)
    I never said that. My point was that the matrix variations in SRC pressings can give us a time frame of when the disc was pressed. For example, if a disc was pressed between 1990-1993, it would be a later version than a disc pressed between 1986-1987. If you know a disc was pressed years later than an earlier version, why would you not call it a repress?
  • mjb over 2 years ago

    fishbulb
    I never said that

    Apologies; I misinterpreted "this is the direction the database has been going".

    fishbulb
    If you know a disc was pressed years later than an earlier version, why would you not call it a repress?

    This has been discussed several times before, though I don't have any links handy. My understanding is that most "manufacturing variations" on the media, e.g. particular mother/stamper combos and other matrix-y things that changed on these long-in-print releases, can be potentially be ascribed to a particular time period. It was decided long ago that we don't want to have separate "releases" based on this correlation alone.

    Personally I would rather we did, at least for specific manufacturers like these, because you're right, that is the direction the database is going. But again, I feel it's not a decision we can just make without discussing it.
  • fishbulb over 2 years ago

    mjb
    It was decided long ago that we don't want to have separate "releases" based on this correlation alone.
    I haven't seen this ideology applied specifically to time period (year) variations, which is how you would determine if it is a Repress.

    mjb
    I feel it's not a decision we can just make without discussing it.
    I don't think adding a version that is known to be a repress from a different time period is a difficult decision, or that it warrants discussion. I would say it's the responsible thing to do. What I think would be difficult is trying to add all of these variants with different pressing periods (years) on to one release page with explanations for each. That seems like something that would need discussion and clear direction from management, and possibly some adjustments to the data entry page, since that isn't being done now.
  • truedream over 2 years ago

    fishbulb
    I don't think adding a version that is known to be a repress from a different time period is a difficult decision, or that it warrants discussion.

    You reminded me of https://www.discogs.com/release/7829003-Medusa/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest
    mjb
    Do we treat CDs with matrix barcodes as separate submissions?

    Maybe, but I don't feel the need for more hairsplitting.
  • velove over 2 years ago

    I'd add a separate release for cds with and without barcode in matrix.
    But would treat different barcodes as manufacturing variations.
  • berothbr over 2 years ago

    mjb
    For this reason alone, I think they should be separate.

    I agree with this rationale. However, because it appears to be a really subtle and an even harder to identify difference, an explanation in the release notes will be crucial especially for users like me who are vinyl-centric/CD-phobic from a contribution standpoint being that without that I would probably consider initiating a merge if I came across the release page.

Log In You must be logged in to post.