[meuler]

On the Deep Purple albums Machine Head and Made In Japan, tracks 1, 6, and 7 are the same on both CD's. How should I differentiate the entries for these songs? They are a studio album and a live album (respectively) if that helps at all.

 

[Sordel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it is still the same as the original pressing, then put the original year. If it is a remaster, then put the remastered year.

Surely that's wrong, Colonel ... for every CD we want to give the date of issue of the CD, and since there were no CDs in 1972 it makes no sense to take the "master" as dating back to vinyl, unless we are actually going to do an A/D conversion ourselves from the record, in which case we would be embarking on a different type of project.

The date shown on CDs is commonly the original release date for the record (assuming that it's one from the vinyl era. For example: Pink Moon by Nick Drake only lists 1972 on the packaging, but if you check the same release on Amazon.com, it will give you the CD release date (in this case 1992). It's the CD release date that is crucial, because that's indicative of the mastering date. In the interests of providing the highest standard of documentation, we should provide the information along the lines of:

Recording Issued: 1972
CD Issued: 1992

and, where relevant,

Remastered recording issued: [whenever]

We can design an Infobox for all this stuff like they use on wikipedia, so everything is standardised.

If the waveform is for the remaster it has to be clearly marked, and I would suggest that the waveforms of remasters coexist on the same page as the waveforms of first CD reissue rather than as a separate entry.

 

[supermoo]

Great to see the site is up and running. This project has a lot of potential and I hope it will be able to convince record labels to actually reconsider their methods. I wish the SV team good luck and I'll try to upload some of my CDs once I get more time. Until then, keep up the good work!

 

[colonelkernel8]

Sordel, you are right, my bad. Obviously, if it was originally released as vinyl (<1980), and you are using the CD (which would certainly be released at a later time) then you would use the release date of the CD version, not the vinyl.

 

[colonelkernel8]

ok. I am currently moving all the images from Imageshack to our own server, please refrain from any additions while I do this. From now on we will be uploading our images directly to the website, therefore eliminating the third party.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sordel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Surely that's wrong, Colonel ... for every CD we want to give the date of issue of the CD, and since there were no CDs in 1972 it makes no sense to take the "master" as dating back to vinyl, unless we are actually going to do an A/D conversion ourselves from the record, in which case we would be embarking on a different type of project. The date shown on CDs is commonly the original release date for the record (assuming that it's one from the vinyl era. For example: Pink Moon by Nick Drake only lists 1972 on the packaging, but if you check the same release on Amazon.com, it will give you the CD release date (in this case 1992). It's the CD release date that is crucial, because that's indicative of the mastering date. In the interests of providing the highest standard of documentation, we should provide the information along the lines of: Recording Issued: 1972 CD Issued: 1992 and, where relevant, Remastered recording issued: [whenever] We can design an Infobox for all this stuff like they use on wikipedia, so everything is standardised. If the waveform is for the remaster it has to be clearly marked, and I would suggest that the waveforms of remasters coexist on the same page as the waveforms of first CD reissue rather than as a separate entry.

Actually, now that I think of it, I was right in what I said. If a "CD" is reissued, then you put the original release date on it because it is the same "pressing" which I meant as another term for the same version/copy. True, if it was release on vinyl and then CD later, you would put the CD's original pressing date and not the vinyl's. That is what I meant.

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ok. I am currently moving all the images from Imageshack to our own server, please refrain from any additions while I do this. From now on we will be uploading our images directly to the website, therefore eliminating the third party.

I tried to keep my images to 95-96KB although they always seemed to be nearer 100KB upon uploading to Imageshack. If any are somehow too big I still have the originals lying around and can shrink them a little more. I've been keeping an eye on the fixes you've been making here and there around the site as well so I avoid mistakes and keep to the standards.

I'm going to be away for a couple of days but when I get back I'll upload more, hopefully a few CDs each week. I'll try to keep mainstream although there's a few goodies I just have to upload.

 

[colonelkernel8]

mirumu, you are doing excellent, your files are perfect. do not use imageshack anymore, I am transferring everything over as we speak. taking hella long time.

Keep in mind that this isn't only my site is "our" site. Feel free to make changes as you wish. It is a wiki after all.

 

[mirumu]

Certainly, I'm mostly referring to my typos.

The site seems to be coming along nicely. I've noticed some interesting things in the CDs I've done so far looking at the graphs, quite educational really.

 

[colonelkernel8]

ok, after several hours, I have managed to rehost all of the images to our own server. Please, from now on, host with us and do not use a third party. Thanks!

Everything is 100% operational.

www.songview.org - get postin

 

[incognitoedleon]

Well, I just uploaded Talking Timbuktu by Ali Farka Toure. I have to say for this project to be remotely successful it needs to be a lot more easier to produce graphs and submit entries. At this point, it's way too tedious and time consuming.

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by incognitoedleon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I just uploaded Talking Timbuktu by Ali Farka Toure. I have to say for this project to be remotely successful it needs to be a lot more easier to produce graphs and submit entries. At this point, it's way too tedious and time consuming.

I definitely found the first one I did take ages. Looking at the logs it was about 2 hours 10 minutes from start to finish for 13 tracks. Since then I've found faster ways to do things so it's now taking about an hour for the same 13 tracks which is better but still too long. I can live with doing a few CDs a week at this level but I'd rather it was faster.

I think the worst part is the image manipulation and following that, entering the artist/album/tracks details. It probably wouldn't be that hard to do a custom build of Audacity that generates the correct image to begin with although I still think the compression would have to be done independently since there doesn't seem to be any single setting that works right every time. As to the artist/album/tracks details, it would be easy to write a script to generate all that from a web form but it wouldn't save a lot of typing, just avoids having to think about all the formatting. I might dig around in Audacity a little to see if it can be tuned for the task...

 

[LFC_SL]

I'm taking the first exploratory steps into submitting some files. Am I doing something wrong then if it takes Audacity about 2 seconds to generate an image (Core Duo, 1.5gb laptop)?

Although I don't know anything about entering track details with it; its all .wav so no tagging!

How do you get the waveform and spectrum' to appear on top of each other like I see in the submissions? First time I've used Audacity... unless its just editing with a program

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFC_SL /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm taking the first exploratory steps into submitting some files. Am I doing something wrong then if it takes Audacity about 2 seconds to generate an image (Core Duo, 1.5gb laptop)? Although I don't know anything about entering track details with it; its all .wav so no tagging! How do you get the waveform and spectrum' to appear on top of each other like I see in the submissions? First time I've used Audacity... unless its just editing with a program

Audacity will take a second or two to generate the images, that's normal. Currently track details have to be manually entered in the Songview wiki, the instructions for new submissions can be found here. Essentially you just click the edit links where appropriate filling out the details. Look at how other albums are done to see how it works.

As to creating the image, unfortunately that currently has to be done by cutting and pasting screenshots from Audacity into a graphics program. It's not that hard once you get the hang of it, just a bit repetitive.

 

[incognitoedleon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirumu /img/forum/go_quote.gif As to creating the image, unfortunately that currently has to be done by cutting and pasting screenshots from Audacity into a graphics program. It's not that hard once you get the hang of it, just a bit repetitive.

I found a great work around to this problem:
http://www.donationcoder.com/Softwar...tor/index.html

It's a screen capturing program which should make things a whole lot less tedious. Capture -> "Grab windows object or scrolling window" seems to be the one we want to use. This software is Windows only, but there's probably similar programs for folks on Macs and Linux to use.