Property

Nov 1 2019

Free lyft promo code for existing users 2019




Free lyft promo code for existing users 2019-Free lyft promo code for existing users 2019
Free lyft promo code for existing users 2019-Crediting Manufacturers When None Are Credited On Release Тема начата ChampionJames over 6 years ago , 53 ответов ChampionJames over 6 years ago I am increasingly seeing edits where

Crediting Manufacturers When None Are Credited On Release

Тема начата ChampionJames over 6 years ago , 53 ответов

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

I am increasingly seeing edits where people are “figuring out” manufacturing/pressing credits based on production numbers found on release or based on other occult methods and then crediting them without so much as the bat of an eyelash:

and so forth. A lot of these edits are coming in waves of what some might call “mass changes” as well.

Since we’re not allowed to add artist credits that don’t appear on a release even though they might be obvious, why should this be allowed? And if it is allowed, shouldn’t some documentation/proof be provided?

discosanddragons over 6 years ago

Kergillian over 6 years ago

Please keep this in mind for the runout guideline overhaul being done now.

While it is okay, IMO, to use the runouts to credit companies and artists, it is important to note where this information comes from when it is less than obvious. When it comes from runout patterns such as this, evidence should be provided – as there will most certainly be crossover (etching numerical patterns are hardly unique) and a note should be added in the release notes explaining the extrapolation.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

Kergillian over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
To credit companies that don’t appear on the release? I can’t see anything in the guidelines to support the practice.

The point is that the etching patterns are specific to a company, which is evidence on the release that those companies were the manufacturer.

As with any piece of information, if there is valid evidence it can be included. Even artists – if there is evidence of those artists on a release (as long as credits aren’t transferred between releases) you can add them with [Uncredited].

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

Kergillian
As with any piece of information, if there is valid evidence it can be included. Even artists – if there is evidence of those artists on a release (as long as credits aren’t transferred between releases) you can add them with [Uncredited].

That is because we have a system in place for marking artist credits that don’t appear on a release. There is no such way to mark company credits.

I’m really surprised that people aren’t more alarmed by this. Can I just start adding all kinds of credits to things now based on “my experience” and “patterns”?

pano9000 over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
I’m really surprised that people aren’t more alarmed by this. Can I just start adding all kinds of credits to things now based on “my experience” and “patterns”?

Based on “experience” without any other evidence: No.
Based on “patterns” that are clearly described, e.g. on the label page: Yes.

el_duro over 6 years ago

I would not credit manufacturers when they are not mentioned on the release.

RSG §4.1.2.: Normally, listing the main label (usually the largest brand or logo on the release) is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. You can optionally list other companies mentioned on the release.

“Mentioning” does not mean that I must have knowledge on matrix /run-out patterns to figure out which companies should be credited IMO.

jweijde over 6 years ago

el_duro
Based on “experience” without any other evidence: No.
Based on “patterns” that are clearly described, e.g. on the label page: Yes.

Kergillian over 6 years ago

el_duro
I would not credit manufacturers when they are not mentioned on the release.

RSG §4.1.2.: Normally, listing the main label (usually the largest brand or logo on the release) is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. You can optionally list other companies mentioned on the release.

“Mentioning” does not mean that I must have knowledge on matrix /run-out patterns to figure out which companies should be credited IMO.

If a company has a matrix number, pattern or symbol that is unique to that company, then it is essentially ‘mentioned’ on the release.

However, there most certainly needs to be some form of external evidence in these cases.

Agree 100%. I commented on that release.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

Kergillian
If a company has a matrix number, pattern or symbol that is unique to that company, then it is essentially ‘mentioned’ on the release.

Symbol, yes; number or pattern, I’m not so sure. A lot of times I see these edits based on simple 5 or 6 digit numbers in a CD ring. Are we to believe that only plant XYZ uses n # of digits, etc.? Why must we force credits on to releases when they’re not there in the first place?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I am not talking about situations where cutting engineers or firms put their own identifying marks on a release and we interpret/figure them out. I’m talking about situations where the plant has left no IDs on a release and users are relying on the number of digits or patterns in digits to ID companies.

Kergillian over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
Symbol, yes; number or pattern, I’m not so sure. A lot of times I see these edits based on simple 5 or 6 digit numbers in a CD ring. Are we to believe that only plant XYZ uses n # of digits, etc.? Why must we force credits on to releases when they’re not there in the first place?

This is why we need proper evidence. Because such patterns can be more common than assumed, simply saying ‘the company uses xxxxx.x(x)’ isn’t enough, IMO.

But in some cases, I think that it evidence can be provided. If we know that a company pressed records in the UK in the 50s and 60s and was the plant that pressed a lot of Brunswick records, and we know that this company used the pattern of xxx.xxx.x-x on all of its releases, then a 1956 UK Brunswick release with that pattern 99.9% guaranteed to be that company.

pano9000 over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
A lot of times I see these edits based on simple 5 or 6 digit numbers in a CD ring.

Can you provide any examples for that?
The digits may appear to be simple 5 or 6 digit numbers at a first sight, but they may also be a “complex code”, that you first need to “understand”.

Many promo records of Urban often did not carry any cat#, so people started putting the matrix as cat#, which in reality was not a cat#, but the ID assigned by Optimal Media Production (which is explained in detail on the label page).
To them those numbers appeared to be “simple 5 or 6 digit numbers”, as they did not have any knowledge about the “actual” meaning of the etching.
That’s why proper documentation is very important.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

Well here’s one that credits glass mastering based solely on SIDs:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=3409475#latest

Here’s one that credits PrimaSys when PrimaSys’s name doesn’t appear at all. A 6 digit number seems to be all that’s relied upon:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=3256632#latest

and so forth and so on.

Mind you, I’m not saying that these attributions are wrong; I really have no way of verifying it. I’m saying the releases themselves don’t credit anything, and the subbers have provided zero proof for these updates.

William-Lee over 6 years ago

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

Myriad over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
Mind you, I’m not saying that these attributions are wrong; I really have no way of verifying it. I’m saying the releases themselves don’t credit anything, and the subbers have provided zero proof for these updates.

Unfortunately this is not the only area in which lazy subbers don’t provide evidence or reasoning. Track durations on vinyl, release dates which are copied from one release to the next without being checked, credits, etc. A lot of submissions are messy and full of these kinds of mistakes that are almost impossible to spot without owning the release yourself.

But onto the topic of matrices, fonts, text positioning and size are also an important part of matrix patterns being used to identify manufacturers, as well as number strings themselves.

Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

There is nothing wrong with crediting a manufacturer where none is listed explicitly on a release (as long as the current guidelines are observed) apart from “uncredited” being unavailable for these roles – which is a concern in itself. These two initial examples and many that arrive in my inbox don’t follow the guidelines, basic guidelines designed to protect the database’s integrity, particularly the most critical one for this practice RSG §1.1.2.

I agree that experience and research can be used to identify things about a release but in the absence of “uncredited” type bracket for LCCNs means that we should be explaining in the notes, as we do for mastering credits (“Vinyl mastering credits are not explicitly found on the release and have been identified via information in the vinyl runout”). it seems the same brief release note explanation with a full explanation on the submission notes is absent.

Also, we should bare in mind that if “User A” adds “Made by Daffy Duck Inc.” based on a bizarre matrix string and gypsy ritual slaughter described in a book found in a cave, “User B” could quite conceivably think “my copy does not say ‘made by Daffy Duck Inc.’ on it anywhere. My copy is unique” and his conclusion would of course be correct but based on a false premise, false because a simple disclaimer is not present in the release note and that submission notes are woefully inadequate. and then we have duplicates.

Surely when changes are made which are not properly explained, where experience and research was required from the submitter that the edit should be subject to a vote under RSG §1.1.2? There are problems with this as the response will come in the submission history quite often and the sub is dead to further votes until it’s edited. However if the release notes do not have the explanation that the data is uncredited, then perhaps this should become part of the guidelines to advise that a brief note explaining that the information is not found on the release should become mandatory when an lccn external credit is made, and that would sort that voting issue out, enabling us to vote when the data which is not properly explained or where there is no citation demonstrating the veracity of the credit and that it does not appear on the release.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

Eviltoastman
There is nothing wrong with crediting a manufacturer where none is listed explicitly on a release (as long as the current guidelines are observed) apart from “uncredited” being unavailable for these roles – which is a concern in itself.

Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

pano9000 over 6 years ago

Eviltoastman
With vinyl we currently get this for “The Record Industry” if a record is European and has a matrix consisting solely of numbers over the figure of 55000 or so (see profile),

That’s not true:
They have a clear pattern, which is more than just the numbers:
##### XY Z
matrix begins with a 5 digit code, followed by cut number (X) and the side identifier (Y). Z is the catalog number of the release.
The whole string is stamped.

With that in mind, let me just say: You don’t identify releases made by Record Industry solely because of those 5 digits.
You identify them because of the whole stamped string. Check these 3 examples:

94465 1A SDRVNYL 001
94465 1B SDRVNYL 001

55473 1A SOUL:R 015
55473 2B SOUL:R 015

65247 1A NHS 116 Stu.
65247 1B NHS 116

(the last example additionally shows the etching of an external mastering engineer, which is etched by hand).

With that said, I have to admit that the current info text on Record Industry’s label page isn’t doing a good job on explaining this scheme/pattern.
I will update the page accordingly soon though.

William-Lee over 6 years ago

You’re referring to Capitol’s runout mark? That’s not what I’m talking about at all. That is Capitol intentionally leaving their mark to show us they made the record. I’m talking about releases where companies haven’t left us their marks.

And leaving IFPI L555 together with IFPI 94K7 isn’t companies intentionally leaving their marks?

Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

William-Lee
And leaving IFPI L555 together with IFPI 94K7 isn’t companies intentionally leaving their marks?

William-Lee over 6 years ago

Kergillian over 6 years ago

William-Lee
Then it is up to the discogs community to come up with something better.

No, it is up to submitters to be responsible and not add credits based on assumptions or second-rate unconfirmed information.

The simple fact is that if you cannot confirm that a matrix scheme or SID code is EXCLUSIVE to a company, then it should not be added unless there is concrete external evidence that the company pressed or manufactured that release. Period.

HM-2 over 6 years ago

Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

William-Lee
Then it is up to the discogs community to come up with something better.

Kergillian
No, it is up to submitters to be responsible and not add credits based on assumptions or second-rate unconfirmed information.

HM-2
most of this information is in effect “derived”, however from credible sources such as matrix schemes or SID codes

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

HM-2
manufacturers are almost never explicitly credited on a release, so most of this information is in effect “derived”, however from credible sources such as matrix schemes or SID codes that are unique to the respective companies. The rare instances where a company name does appear (mostly as a kind of logo) is inheritant to the companies themselves, some do, most don’t.
You may have noticed that pressing plants have always been greatly a “hidden” party on a release. Artist names, engineers, labels, distributors are always omnipresent, the guys that actually make the records mostly aren’t or they are well-hidden in the really small print. I cannot think of any release I own that has a prominent credit for a pressing plant anywhere on the artwork.

This just isn’t true. Nearly every CD I own has the explicit mark of the pressplant on it in some way or another, either through a logo or a “MADE BY” string or by the initials of the factory along with the location. As for artwork, a great many of new audiophile pressings brag about the plant on the sleeve; a great many of my US major label records list the factories on the rear sleeve; printing credits are common on older sleeves. As for plants on the artwork, WEA is known for this, as in this example: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=369960 (text around disc circumference).

The percentage of records and CDs in my collection that do not explicitly state the pressing facility is really quite low.

What I’m bothered by, and what is the subject of this thread, is people making guesses, educated or not, and providing no proof.

Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
The percentage of records and CDs in my collection that do not explicitly state the pressing facility is really quite low.

djindio over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1324607#latest
.
and so forth. A lot of these edits are coming in waves of what some might call “mass changes” as well.

Someone should really contact the RTi Record Technology Incorporated company and ask about those numbers, as it’s unclear to me at the moment whether or not it’s possible that those numbers may be RTi lacquer processing numbers (which would require a Mastered At credit to be attached to the LCCN listing of such a number for ‘processing/electroplating/’metalwork’ if so)? . or may actually belong to RTi’s subsidiary company AcousTech Mastering instead. I have hundreds of RTI pressings without those numbers. Mainly late 90’s US Hard House style releases that were manufactured though a 3rd party manufacturing broker, which used one company for label printing, another company for mastering, another company for ‘lacquer processing’, and RTi for pressing. Non of them have such numbers in the runouts, but the RTI logoed test pressing copies (and matching tell-tale RTi stamper rings on the corresponding retail pressings) confirm where they were pressed.

(Being the user closest to California in this conversation) Why don’t you give RTi a call ChampionJames ?

ChampionJames
Nearly every CD I own has the explicit mark of the pressplant on it in some way or another,

2003, the “WEA Mfg. Olyphant” and “WEA Mfg. Commerce” text-logo found in mirror band only confirms where the CD was glass mastered. The actual pressing plant is determined by the Mould Code (along with other markings, as in the case with CD’s pressed at Cinram, Olyphant, PA sourced from WEA Mfg. Olyphant glass masters.

Also, please try to remember that this is not just a CD site, take into account the other major formats documented at this site when considering what percentage of releases actually state a pressing plant on them.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
Nearly every CD I own has the explicit mark of the pressplant on it in some way or another, either through a logo or a “MADE BY” string or by the initials of the factory along with the location.

djindio
“Nearly every”? I would have to say that would be wrong, there are actually more CD’s in existence which only state where they were glass mastered, or state nothing at all.

How you can possibly know what CDs I have in my collection in order to be able to speak authoritatively like this is quite beyond me. The absolute fact is that out of the 1,000s of CDs I own and have documented on this site, the ones without any manufacturer marks on them number less than 20, and yes, I have counted.

djindio
Also, please try to remember that this is not just a CD site, take into account the other major formats documented at this site when considering what percentage of releases actually state a manufacturer on them.

I never said it was or anything even remotely like that—to the contrary. And I own more records than I do CDs, so whatever bias you might think you’re exposing is imaginary. In fact, you seem to be arguing with a phantom of some kind, and not with me.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

djindio
(Being the user closest to California in this conversation) Why don’t you give RTi a call  ChampionJames?

jaseywacey over 6 years ago

djindio over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
I can’t imagine what proximity would have to do with it, but anyway

pano9000 over 6 years ago

djindio
Someone should really contact the RTi Record Technology Incorporated company and ask about those numbers,

I won’t have the time to do it in the next couple of days, so please feel free to contact the guy responsible for technical questions:
http://www.recordtech.com/contactrh/rhcontactform.php

Would be cool, if we got a response.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

jaseywacey
I came across this one
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1273900#latest
where the submitter credited PMDC, USA because the mould SID code was 03xx. But in 1999 when it was released, PMDC was renamed UML so it can not verified which one to credit just using the SID code.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about, and it appears to be more widespread a practice than I’d thought. Now another user might see this and think it’s the right thing to do and before we know it we have 100s of releases credited to the wrong company.

These company attributions could well be correct, but we need to see something more than SIDs.

djindio over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
These company attributions could well be correct, but we need to see something more than SIDs.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

timetogo over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
Yes, the perils and pitfalls of attempting to ID manufacturers on the basis of SID codes alone have been aptly summarized by  Eviltoastman here and elsewhere; I’m glad to learn that he and I aren’t alone in our uneasiness about the practice.

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
I can’t imagine what proximity would have to do with it, but anyway, the onus should not be on me to prove that other people who are crediting companies without evidence are correct or not.

I already asked to a submiter if he can do this, not because i’m lazy but because i’m not enough comfortable with english. explanations need to be clear in this message.

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

This is another thing that concerns me; the standards for what constitutes “evidence” should be firmed up. What you’ve linked is a Nirvana fan site / discography site that does not state its sources for this information either. The author(s) of that site could be guessing, or they could have read it on some other site, who knows? I note there is frequent use of words like “possibly,” “perhaps,” and “probably” on that page as well.

Secondly, the text you’ve quoted only suggests that RTI did the plating, while you’ve given RTI a Pressed By credit on that Sonic Youth disc. Again, they may well have pressed the thing—I don’t say they didn’t—but from what I see, you’re guessing they did, rather than having proof they did.

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
but from what I see, you’re guessing they did, rather than having proof they did.

no i don’t. Just after, i say “I’m not sure to anderstand clearly. The numbers look like beeing an internal code of RTI but not necessary for the pressing, maybe only for the processing. am i right?”
So, i ask, and i’m very able to admit that i made an error

For the message to the company, i hope someone good in English will write to RTI. And yes, if i’m wrong with these numbers i’ll revert my edits (which is not a mass edit, i only update some items in my collection)

Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

ChampionJames
This is another thing that concerns me; the standards for what constitutes “evidence” should be firmed up

ChampionJames over 6 years ago

Sorry, adrien2329 , I didn’t mean to say you’re still guessing, only that your edit was a guess. My mistake for not being clearer.

And I don’t mean to pick on you, and this thread isn’t about you in particular, just about a lot of the edits I’ve seen recently. Yours was just an example.

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

ALeirvik over 6 years ago

Hi, I’m the owner of Pennyroyal 3, just thought I’d chime in a bit regarding my site.

Everything is thorougly researched, not a word is written lightly. I do agree that source information should have been better than just a list at the bottom not referred to specific parts of the text, but that’s currently not in place.

My main sources are:

1. Mastering engineers/ pressing plant employees (who unfortunatly often wish to be anonymous, and are as such not listed)
2. Websites of mastering studios/ pressing plants
3. Original research (mostly pattern recognition)

Information are not taken from random websites, with very very few exceptions. At least nothing to do with matrix codes.

When it comes to point 3, pressing plants/studios unfortunately don’t detail their run-outs publicly unless you bug the hell out of them. Why should they care about that stuff? As with any research, at some point you have to figure stuff out youself, based on your knowledge and previous research. Some times it’s very very obvious, some times it’s not. Put together a text document with 20 sets of run-outs from the same plant, and it most often talks to you. I used to detail more how conclusions were made, but in most cases where it’s obvious (to anybody who has some amount of knowledge anyway, perhaps not to someone who sees this the first time), I feel two paragraphs of “matrix wanking” is redundant.

I should also mention that I used to have more speculation on the site. Most of this was removed a year ago when the current design was put online. Everything was then re-researched and completely rewritten. I spent two years on this.

From there it’s simply a matter of breaking down the matrix codes, with side A as example, and you have the “pedigree”.

Lacquer leaving the mastering studio: BG ORG 033-A
Processed (and initial pressing) by RTI: BG ORG 033-A 18525.1(3)
Addition to mother, new stampers and pressed by Pallas: BG ORG 033-A 18525.1(3) -21920- P. USA

Easy peasy. Most documents are developed this way.

(Lesson learned: Some times you need to know stuff not written in the matrix codes. Say you have BG ORG 069-A 69696.1(3), can you automatically assume it was pressed by RTI? No. You can tell it was processed by RTI because that’s what those numbers are, internal processing numbers, but it may have been pressed by a second plant which did not care about etching their own signature/numbering. In the case with In Utero, the addition of -21920- P. USA makes it all so obvious if you know a little about ORG and Furnace, even if ORG hadn’t specified pressing plant names directly on their website.)

In closing, if there is no maybe/possibly/perhaps/plausible written, the information is fact. It may have been derived by myself, but if there is just a tiny tiny possibility of another. possibility, I use any of the above-mentioned words. Any conclusion is drawn from information given to me by engineers etc and comparing a LOT of matrix codes. (Again with this specific page, the only uncertainties here are if BG refers to the company as a whole [so any random engineer] or to Bernie personally, and the exact time of the formation of the ORG Music sub label – both these uncertainties are written as exactly that – uncertainties.)

Unfortunately my site has been around since I was a teenager and did not care much about exact source referencing, and it was unfortunately not properly implemented when I did the last rewrite a year ago as previously mentioned. The need for this became apparent not until some way into development, when I started to notice that this site was really starting to become accurate and more condensed than before (with less matrix wanking and blahblah). I managed to solve some of the bigger unknowns, partly through use of brainpower, partly through finally getting in touch with sources I’ve always wanted to get in touch with, and as I said, everything was rewritten.

Source referencing, a project for the future.. But right now I’m focusing on another project.

Take it for what you want!

(If anybody have any questions about sources of anything or anything else on my site, feel free to ask, my email is on the front page.)

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

ALeirvik thanks for taking time to give us a so detailed explanation.

ALeirvik
Lacquer leaving the mastering studio: BG ORG 033-A
Processed (and initial pressing) by RTI: BG ORG 033-A 18525.1(3)
Addition to mother, new stampers and pressed by Pallas: BG ORG 033-A 18525.1(3) -21920- P. USA

So is it ok to change and update the release in which RTI is credited as pressing plant? We have no “Processed at” credit at this time on discogs but i imagine that we can for the moment entered “Mastered at”, like for Greg Lee Processing.
No objections?

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

pano9000 over 6 years ago

You contacted the RTI guy directly right? I guess he didn’t respond yet?
Maybe give hime a few more days?

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

ALeirvik over 6 years ago

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

adrien2329 over 6 years ago

Войти Необходимо авторизоваться для публикаций.

]]>

Free lyft promo code for existing users 2019

SOURCE: https://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/364353


Written by admin


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *