A differen matrix number sequence from the same company requires a new release?

Please take a look at: CDI Ltd. in Israel, have more than one mastering code. Unless there is some indication that a different company (or even a different plant owned by the same company) is responsible for mastering aren't these just variants? I think so. I believe incorrect instructions were given in the submission notes and I believe the two entries now need to be merged.

The same is making another inappropriate demand to split a release on: https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/1485929-Tibet/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest All U.S. Windham Hill CDs in the 1989-91 period (prior to the sale of the label to BMG) were done by DADC in the U.S. We've had previous discussions that adding a later date to the matrix does not generate a new release, only a variant. Windham Hill releases in particular were in some of those previous threads. If we could show a different plant then, yes, we'd have two releases. That isn't the case.

I'm inviting the participants in the comments for those releases. I'm not going to do it here because the last time I did I was accused of naming and shaming. If someone else feels a ping is appropriate I'd be just fine with that.

Let the fireworks begin... again...

Fauni-Gena
The only difference is the mastering SID code

If the mastering SID code was the only difference then I'd agree that they are variants. But the matrix is also different, resulting in two different catalogue/serial numbers for Cinram in the LCCN field. Maybe that's enough to warrant two different releases? On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing that anybody would care much which one of those variations it is that they have.

FWIW, I didn't "demand" anything. I stated "Yes, this different master # needs a new submission." We aren't talking about "mastering SID codes" here but actual different glass masters.

Based on the discussion in the thread below I believe different glass mastering #'s (again not SID codes) merit a different submission:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750

That was the conclusion...
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750?page=1#6983070

An agreement between you and Eviltoastman does NOT constitute a conclusion or a decision,. You have NO consensus and NO management/staff buy-in. These are still variants from the same plant AFAICT. Without a Guidelines change or management/staff buy-in I see no reason at all why the two submissions should not be merged.

brianvy, please stop arguing in the submission histories and bring it here as we have breen repeatedly advised to do. This is my response to your last comment on the Mark Isham - Tibet submission:

OK, this needs to be in the forum topic, not here. The 1991 date is NOT considered a separate pressing but rather an additional run of the same pressing. That was nik's decision some years back and nothing has changed that AFAICT. Also, I happen to know people intimately involved in that label at the time. In any case, the lack of any indication of a different plant means there is no reason to separate them at all. Burden of proof is on you, not me.

Here is the relevant part of the Guideline, from RSG 5.4:

RSG
One edition of a release may have many different matrix numbers on individual copies - especially for major label releases. These are considered manufacturing variations for the purposes of cataloguing on Discogs, and not unique releases, so one Discogs 'release' may contain multiple variations in matrix numbers etc

Let me begin with the Mark Isham - Tibet submission.

brianvy

Variant 2 is DADC. What leads you to believe that variant 1 is also? Please explain based on the actual matrix, not a legacy code printed on the artwork or disc silkscreen. Also note the variant 1 matrix string of 4/91 which clearly suggests a 1991 pressing.

Fauni-Gena
The 1991 date is NOT considered a separate pressing but rather an additional run of the same pressing. That was nik's decision some years back and nothing has changed that AFAICT. Also, I happen to know people intimately involved in that label at the time. In any case, the lack of any indication of a different plant means there is no reason to separate them at all. Burden of proof is on you, not me.

Well I'll ask the question again here then. There is nothing on the Mark Isham - Tibet submission is pressed by DADC.
Variant 1 matrix: WD1080 4/91 2DA2X
Variant 2 matrix: DIDX-004196 2

Variant 2 is clearly mastered/pressed by DADC based on the DIDX in the actual matrix per the DADC profile page.
Variant 1 is a mystery. I believe it is your burden to prove that Variant 1 is mastered/pressed by DADC such that Variant 2 actually belongs on this submission. I see no proof that it does.

After doing some additional research:

These #DA#X pressings appear to be by Denon (see Denon Digital Industries in Madison, GA), not DADC:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/pretty-hate-machine-1989-original-cd-pressing.483388/

DA = Denon America; plant in Madison, GA from 1987-2006:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yyQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA31&lpg=RA1-PA31&dq=denon+plant+in+madison+georgia&source=bl&ots=cvkYZPSaSu&sig=35K77kqfrz12ApE3Xh5U3nHjAv0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwiJKj1bvTAhUS-mMKHcYPDLUQ6AEIVzAJ#v=onepage&q=denon%20plant%20in%20madison%20georgia&f=false

Looks like Denon America merged with Denon Digital Industries in 1994:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HQgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=denon+america++madison+georgia&source=bl&ots=YOMC1THGZ0&sig=iEp3pEJA0U6neqCAaeg_eu_HI38&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUor-j27vTAhVX12MKHZftDbgQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=denon america madison georgia&f=false

Finally "September 1, 2006: Americ Disc announces the acquisition of Denon Digital of Madison, Georgia."
http://www.stereophile.com/content/denon-plant-closing-1

Fauni-Gena
All U.S. Windham Hill CDs in the 1989-91 period (prior to the sale of the label to BMG) were done by DADC in the U.S.

This doesn't seem to be true... See these for example. All seemingly pressed by Denon America:
Alex De Grassi - Deep At Night (1991)

Regardless, I don't see any suggestion anywhere that a matrix like that of Variant 1 is from DADC.

Fascinating. Someone who should know better than you or I got it wrong. Anyway, I accept your source and withdraw my objection to splitting the Mark Isham release. If you want to change it go for it.

Having said that, you continue to argue in the release history, something management and staff repeatedly have told us NOT to do. You say I changed it incorrectly five years ago. Did it ever occur to you that five years ago these were variants? The rules we have nowadays regarding different pressing plants being different releases didn't exist yet five years ago. Yet you made sure to stick the proverbial knife in and show me up in the release history where such discussions don't belong. So, yeah, it wasn't incorrect five years ago at all. I love the spirit of cooperation here... not. nik, or anyone else from Discogs: any thoughts on how this was handled?

Let's go back to the CSN release I linked first. You still have no Guidelines, no community consensus and no management or staff buy in. I'd be 100% right to put it up for merge but, unlike you, I'll give you the courtesy of a chance to argue otherwise and for the community to weigh in.

I wrote in the history of Mark Isham - Tibet:

brianvy
Variant 2 should be switched to Variant 1. The matrix string "WD1080 4/91 2DA2X" was incorrectly entered 5 years ago by FauniGena.
Images showing matrix of DIDX-004196 2 have been here for far longer (9 years ago) and additionally (& most importantly) are from the OS.

I put that on the release history because that's where it belongs, not to "stick the proverbial knife in and show me up in the release history". I believe you're being very defensive here.... That comment is not a "discussion"... it is a fact that I noticed and commented on because the last editor needs to fix this submission. I don't think I've handled anything inappropriately. Please (as the last editor) just take care of it and I'll be happy to give you a "Correct" vote.

I'll get around to it... eventually. It's been added to my list of old submissions to bring up to date.

On to the next issue.... regarding differing Olyphant glass mastering numbers:

Fauni-Gena
An agreement between you and Eviltoastman does NOT constitute a conclusion or a decision,. You have NO consensus and NO management/staff buy-in. These are still variants from the same plant AFAICT. Without a Guidelines change or management/staff buy-in I see no reason at all why the two submissions should not be merged.

To begin, this was omitted from your quoting of RSG 5.4.:

RSG
For smaller releases, or in special cases, the matrix variation may indicate a unique release / edition, so please ask in the Database Forum Topic if in doubt.

This is EXACTLY why I did so in the Olyphant thread (!!!) (see comment #6982851 there). Since you disagree, why don't you inquire on the other thread too? https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750

Still, I haven't heard any disagreement with this concept over there or in any previous edits (excepting Cinram, Olyphant, PA) is that the different numbers indicate not only a different point in time but also potential different audio and/or data mastering properties.

For example, each of these below are mastered/pressed by the same plant, WEA Mfg. Olyphant:

Key:
#. Link to release
Base matrix w/o SID codes
Relevant info on mastering # from: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750#7296812

1. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] W1556 1 26108-2 09 CD+G
W1556 = W4xx-W20xx: approx 1997 glass mastering

2. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X17628 1 26108-2 RE-1 02
X17628 = X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002 glass mastering

3. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X18744 1 26108-2 RE-1 03
X18744 = X186xx-X200xx: approx 2003 glass mastering

Fauni-Gena
Unless there is some indication that a different company (or even a different plant owned by the same company) is responsible for mastering aren't these just variants? I think so.

According to your argument above and your take on RSG 5.4, these should be on the same submission regardless of different mastering #'s or other matrix details.

However, Cramming these 3 "variants" into 1 submission makes no sense. Version 1 has CD+G and was glass mastered in 1997 (likely released shortly thereafter). The other 2 don't appear to have CD+G and were glass mastered (and likely released) in 2 completely different years.

You think breaking a release because of a code number makes sense and "cramming them together" doesn't? So, should we have 5000 versions of Dark Side of the Moon or 10000? These are TRIVIAL differences on a release pressed at the same plant. Get a definitive answer and get back to me. Get a community consensus or get back to me.

brianvy
Still, I haven't heard any disagreement with this concept over there or in any previous edits (excepting Fauni-Gena) by either myself

You, sir, are a liar. Read the thread I linked above. You have plenty of push back and absoluitely no community consensus or decision to work from. dreeat pointed this out after you made changes:

dreeat
^ that's true, however a consensus THEN a mass update is what is required here, not just a mass update and a thread.

You have quite the history of imposing your own standards and getting away with it with no consensus at all. This is another prime example of it.

I said I was going to opt out of entering matrix data in that thread. It was a serious mistake on my part not to stick with that. I won't make that mistake again. This time I'm sticking to what I said... Screw up the database all you like. I'm out of anything to do with the matrix and I am reconsidering my involvement in Discogs entirely.

In my opinion Fauni-Gena somebody from the staff should step in into this thread or a similar thread. And after that, if the conclusion after staff's involvement, if it is decided we should not be breaking releases according to matrix info, then I personally will think it over my involvement in here. Because if this is the conclusion then Discogs is just a Discography of an artist with no details answering the questions when or where... And that info we can find anywhere on the web.

kaynaky, thank you for the post and I agree with your sentiment. I am very interested in these details and I am indeed a perfectionist. Fauni-Gena saying I'm a "liar" or "Screw up the database all you like" is just way off base given my in-depth contributions to this site over an extended period of time.

Fauni-Gena
You, sir, are a liar. Read the thread I linked above.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about... First, you haven't linked to ANY forum thread in your previous posts here. In the Olyphant thread I started (#699750), dreeat's comment was referencing adding mastering #'s to Olyphant LCCN, which is and was totally allowed and described on both Olyphant profiles well before I undertook this project...and indeed before I decided to start that forum thread. In fact the thread was started simply because, although "approved", entering these #'s was becoming a "mass edit".

We're talking here, in this thread, about splitting releases with different mastering #'s (not simply the entry of those numbers in LCCN). There has been no disagreement about this other than yours on Crosby, Stills & Nash - Crosby, Stills & Nash.

At any rate, why haven't you addressed any of the actual content of my Olyphant post above? Do you just not care? ...Not want to think about it? ...Not want anything to do with matrix data?

Fauni-Gena
I said I was going to opt out of entering matrix data in that thread. It was a serious mistake on my part not to stick with that. I won't make that mistake again. This time I'm sticking to what I said...

Feel free. However, anyone can come along and add matrix data to one of your submissions thus changing the nature of it. As kaynaky said, these details matter.

kaynaky +1

I don't see the need to split them. There's a quite firm agreement that matrix variations should only be split when they indicate a different pressing plant. This is clearly not the case here, so it's fine if all these variants stay together in one submission.

Different pressing, the first with a wrong data release (I suppose), and being a repress. So, different releases and some corrections needed, I guess.

jweijde
I don't see the need to split them. There's a quite firm agreement that matrix variations should only be split when they indicate a different pressing plant. This is clearly not the case here, so it's fine if all these variants stay together in one submission.

Hello again; So you are saying below 2 releases belongs under 1 roof;
Fleetwood Mac - The Dance (A Repress from 2001) - (In Discogs No Release Year / Repress)

Same pressing company WEA Mfg. Olyphant different Matrix Numbers (According to you Variations)
Could you please tell me how do we put these 2 releases under 1 roof
Is it going to be a Repress / With No Release Date or Is it going to be a Initial Album Release / With 1997 Date

Yes, I think so. The pressing plant is not different. Initial release date should be fine since it's a different pressing by the same plant, not a different release.

Ok I understood your point of view.
However, if we set aside whatever the Discogs Guidelines, my point of view and logic tells me that your point of view is not "Wrong" but just "Not Complete" and "Missing The Detail".

Example;
Why do we seperate these 2 releases; they are identical one has IFPI / one has no IFPI
Jarre* - Live - Yes IFPI
We are seperating them because we can make the distinction that one is issued before and the other one we can say issued after (Because we trust Government Rules right?)

Again setting aside the Discogs Guidelines, matrix numbers in Cinram, Olyphant, PA profiles are no different than the IFPI rule. We should be splitting the releases, before/after issues if it is documented (Statistically Acceptable) well enough by companies that the numbers mean something (This should be of course Agreed Upon in the Forums).

By looking the Catalogue#s in these companies I am fully convinced that (99% of the time) we can decide which release issued before or after. You might not agree with me and I can understand that but this should be decided by voting or staff involvement etc...

I don't have a firm opinion on how to treat matrix variants where the variants contain different numbers. I can see advantages for both approaches. If they are separate releases then they will have unique positions in the catalogue of the pressing plant. Keeping them as variants means less releases to keep track of when no one(?) really cares about such tine differences.

But then there's cases like Black Celebration which I think should be merged.

kaynaky
Why do we seperate these 2 releases; they are identical one has IFPI / one has no IFPI
Jarre* - Live - No IFPI
Jarre* - Live - Yes IFPI
We are seperating them because we can make the distinction that one is issued before and the other one we can say issued after (Because we trust Government Rules right?)

Now that's a rule that I strongly disagree with. The only thing that the mould SID code tells us is that it was pressed sometime after 1994. But the CD with the missing SID code could also be pressed after 1994 if it was pressed in a machine that hadn't got tools with SID codes. And sometimes the mould SID code is almost impossible to see so you can never be sure is someone got a CD that is missing a SID code or if they might not be able to see it. If the pressing plant was pressing using machines with and without SID codes in parallel then it's possible that a CD without a mould SID code is pressed after a CD with a mould SID code.

Mastering SID codes is a slightly different matter. Those mean that a different glass master was made. That would be for a different reason.

Bong
But then there's cases like Depeche Mode - Black Celebration and Black Celebration which I think should be merged.

This is a variant for me too, should be under 1 roof if this is the only difference. Because I cannot see any explanation in MPO profile.

Another related thread:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/415150

mjb
All other details on the item being the same, once you can assign a particular date to a matrix variation, or rule out a date that's applicable to another variation, then it's fair game for a separate submission.

Still no management buy in and still no consensus. You're never going to have a consensus. A lot of things you split. IMHO, need to be merged back together. Why don't you file a request? You clearly want to change the Guidelines or apply your own standards. I love when you do that and get all bogged down in the matrix and leave errors in artists and/or labels in place, leave unlinked credits that could be linked in place... Forever parsing bits of information in the matrix that shouldn't be parsed is more important than real live human artists?

jweijde
Yes, I think so. The pressing plant is not different. Initial release date should be fine since it's a different pressing by the same plant, not a different release.

I obviously agree.

brianvy
At any rate, why haven't you addressed any of the actual content of my Olyphant post above? Do you just not care? ...Not want to think about it? ...Not want anything to do with matrix data?

You mean I haven't addressed it for the 173rd time. Here is my one short response: It's trivia and it doesn't matter. Once again we don't derive dates from a matrix, period. The Guidelines do NOT splitting releases by just a sequence number. Having a handful of s agree with you in the forums and a few others disagree does not give you license to make these changes.

Bong
I don't have a firm opinion on how to treat matrix variants where the variants contain different numbers. I can see advantages for both approaches. If they are separate releases then they will have unique positions in the catalogue of the pressing plant. Keeping them as variants means less releases to keep track of when no one(?) really cares about such tine differences.

But then there's cases like Depeche Mode - Black Celebration and Black Celebration which I think should be merged.

The back cover is different for a start, see the image at bottom

Plus CD design are different, one has a ring going round the cd, one doesn't

It's beyond me why people want to merge these ones

MusicNutter
The back cover is different for a start, see the image at bottom

You're right :-) One is mirrored and cropped. I wonder if the original submitter saw that though. At least it wasn't mentioned as a basis for a separate release. But it certainly is a reason for a separate release.

MusicNutter
Plus CD design are different, one has a ring going round the cd, one doesn't

I don't know if that's a reason for a different release? I have a vague memory of a forum thread but can't a ruling. It's not part of the artwork so it's not a different release based on that. It's more like a different pressing indent on a vinyl record and we don't create a separate release based on that.

MusicNutter
It's beyond me why people want to merge these ones

Oh, not everyone has your attention for details ;-)

The ring is a physical difference in my view

mjb
All other details on the item being the same, once you can assign a particular date to a matrix variation, or rule out a date that's applicable to another variation, then it's fair game for a separate submission.

That was a cherry-picked quote and has no weight. I actually said it in a much less definitive context. The surrounding text acknowledged the fact that nowadays we do allow more of what we used to call "manufacturing variations" to warrant separate releases than we used to, thus (it seems) we have the option taking it this far...but I also said that it is still yet to be decided (and is up to us) to just what extreme we are going to take it; i.e., do we really want all of these to be separate releases or not? The question remains open. In the same paragraph, I suggested it would be ridiculous to treat every little matrix difference as an excuse to submit a separate release, just because we can say one came before the other.

However I predict brianvy will go ahead and do things his way even when there is no here and even when it is explicitly forbidden by management (as he keeps doing when inferring manufacturers from SID codes).

MusicNutter
CD design are different, one has a ring going round the cd, one doesn't

This is a difference in the metal layer, not ink on top. I have seen it called an outer mirror band. On Discogs it was always treated as a manufacturing variation, the kind of thing that you would expect to change on an item that remains in print while the manufacturing equipment is updated... it's like the different depths and diameters of stamper rings on 12" vinyl labels. We don't treat those as significant on their own. We also used to treat plastic hubs as no different from metal-all-the-way-to-the-center, but I think we now treat those as different releases. The reason is because it was discussed and agreed to or had management . You want outer mirror bands treated this way, you have to make a case for it.

kaynaky
We are seperating them because we can make the distinction that one is issued before and the other one we can say issued after

All it means really, is that one was most likely pressed at a later point in time than the other. It doesn't mean they are in reality two different releases that were officially issued at different points in time. It can, but most often isn't the case.
The real issue here is that we create new release entries for what essentially are different pressings, not different releases. CDs usually have only one release date but pressings done at several different dates. Discogs doesn't seem to provide a good way to document this, so people tend to consider these different pressings different releases. Mostly because they only want the exact version in their collection, not some entry with various matrix variants.

mjb
However I predict brianvy will go ahead and do things his way even when there is no here and even when it is explicitly forbidden by management (as he keeps doing when inferring manufacturers from SID codes).

He already has and has made a number of changes based on that. If you read this thread through you'll see he claimed that there were no objections. (Yes, that is why I called him a liar. He clearly did and in more than one thread.) There are plenty of objections and I am glad to see the people who made the starting to come forward again.

jweijde
All it means really, is that one was most likely pressed at a later point in time than the other. It doesn't mean they are in reality two different releases that were officially issued at different points in time. It can, but most often isn't the case.
The real issue here is that we create new release entries for what essentially are different pressings, not different releases. CDs usually have only one release date but pressings done at several different dates. Discogs doesn't seem to provide a good way to document this, so people tend to consider these different pressings different releases. Mostly because they only want the exact version in their collection, not some entry with various matrix variants.

This, exactly. I believe the second version that https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4525666-Crosby-Stills-Nash/history?utm_campaign=release-update&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest is, in point of fact, the same release for Discogs and the two should be merged.

Fauni-Gena
This, exactly. I believe the second version that brianvy had a create for https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4525666-Crosby-Stills-Nash/history?utm_campaign=release-update&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest is, in point of fact, the same release for Discogs and the two should be merged.

kaynaky
Hello again; So you are saying below 2 releases belongs under 1 roof;
Fleetwood Mac - The Dance (A Repress from 2001) - (In Discogs No Release Year / Repress)

Same pressing company WEA Mfg. Olyphant different Matrix Numbers (According to you Variations)
Could you please tell me how do we put these 2 releases under 1 roof
Is it going to be a Repress / With No Release Date or Is it going to be a Initial Album Release / With 1997 Date

There are 8 contributers to this thread up until now, which is unfortunately too low for an issue which is so important if you ask me. The situation summary, as I understand is below (please correct me if I am wrong on counting);

MusicNutter - Not commented clearly on this particular issue

kaynaky
There are 8 contributers to this thread up until now, which is unfortunately too low for an issue which is so important if you ask me. The situation summary, as I understand is below (please correct me if I am wrong on counting);

I agree. We have no consensus and are clearly divided on the issue. I also would like to see a lot more community involvement. Failing that we really, really do need staff/management to step in and make a decision. Once again, politely pinging nik.

If you review the previous threads on the subject you might be able to expand your list a bit but I believe the result would be the same: a nearly evenly split community. With no clear consensus making changes to releases based on a personal standard is inappropriate. That is why this thread exists in the first place.

As per the Cinram Olyphant profile:
LCCN numbers:
Since around 1996 (when the plant was known as WEA Mfg. Olyphant), it has assigned its own catalogue number in the matrix of CDs and DVDs manufactured at the plant. These catalogue numbers begin with an X, Y or Z, and are generally 4-6 characters long. These strings only may be entered as catalogue numbers for Cinram, Olyphant, PA in LCCN fields.

In the case of Crosby, Stills & Nash - Crosby, Stills & Nash.
Different numbers in the LCCN = different submissions.

mjb
However I predict brianvy will go ahead and do things his way even when there is no here and even when it is explicitly forbidden by management (as he keeps doing when inferring manufacturers from SID codes).

Please explain... Are you referring to WEA Mfg. Commerce based on SID codes of IFPI 2U** *& IFPI 2V**?

brianvy
Are you referring to kaynaky, myself and others splitting releases glass mastered @ WEA Mfg. Olyphant but pressed at either WEA Mfg. Olyphant or WEA Mfg. Commerce based on SID codes of IFPI 2U** *& IFPI 2V**?

I seem to have missed this discussion or at least the part of it differentiating between Olyphant and Commerce. If you have documented this as meaning a different plant and have a community consensus that you are correct somewhere in the forum then this seems fine to me. A different plant is always a different release.

Do we all think the title of this thread is correct?

No, it is not correct. A "different mastering SID code" does not constitute a different submission. I think we all agree on that. A different Olyphant glass master LCCN # is what we're discussing here.

kaynaky
mjb - Says No need to Split

I guess that's my position, but I have not formed a strong opinion one way or the other. If it is going to be beneficial to split them, then we should split them. But no one has yet demonstrated that it really is helpful. It just makes things even more complicated.

We treat CDs as distinct when:
• the inked parts are not identical (it's "different artwork" even just a typo or difference in fine print)
• there are no SID codes on one, but at least one SID code on another
• different LCCN data can be inferred from matrix info (but not from SID codes alone)

As this relates to WEA Manufacturing CDs in particular, it means we can split releases quite often, based on
• The presence/absence of SID codes.
• How WEA Manufacturing is mentioned in ink on the disc face (sometimes it includes "Inc.").
• Pressing plant explicitly mentioned in hub & matrix area's plastic layer stamps (WEA mfg./CA, CI, CI/CA, etc.).
• Whether the matrix area's metal layer contains SRC, ARC, wea mfg. OLYPHANT, wea mfg. commerce [or wea Manufacturing Commerce], or CI.
• Whether the matrix area's metal layer contains codes for which there's consensus to enter in LCCN catalog# fields.
• Probably something else I am forgetting.

We have a pretty good idea of date ranges for these features.

These CDs have other metal-layer and plastic-layer differences which can be visually seen and from which date ranges can be inferred, but for which we do not have consensus to use as the basis for splitting. Examples include:
• 2U__ SID codes vs. 2V__ SID codes
• presence of mother/stamper codes
• presence of outer mirror band
• font changes in the metal layer matrix text
• font changes in the mother/stamper codes
• solid bar, asterisks, or barcode in the "unused" matrix area
• bar width in the matrix-area barcodes
• exact alphanumeric text represented by the matrix-area barcodes (bar width changes usually mean they squeeze in another character)

It is things on this list which I am ambivalent about, and which there is no consensus for splitting.

brianvy
splitting [...] based on SID codes

Yes, exactly.

My attitude about when to vote is generally based on what I perceive to be incorrect or harmful to the database, so even though those edits and submissions are forbidden, for now I ignore them. If they turn out to be wrong or irritating to enough people, they can eventually be undone. Unfortunately this just encourages you to keep splitting based on your personal preference.

I believe oceanographer is partly to blame, as his profile and his relatively recent edits to the relevant company profiles seem to say it is OK to use 2U/2V alone to identify the plant.

Can we say CD glass masters are equivalent to vinyl stampers or not really?

1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release.
For example:
Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition

Fleetwood Mac - The Dance (A Repress from 2001) - (In Discogs No Release Year / Repress)

Same pressing company WEA Mfg. Olyphant different Matrix Numbers

mjb, I am little bit confused on your last post, how do you react to above example? Do you merge them or leave them as it is, if there are no other differences on artwork etc..., Please assume the only difference between two releases is just the matrix number...

I don't know where it was decided to put these numbers in LCCN at all... but nevermind me...

Curious, what are reasons for making new glass masters?

brianvy
. A different Olyphant glass master LCCN # is what we're discussing here.

Do we have a community consensus that is what the number represents? I don't think so. I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying that there is no agreement that you are right. I honestly don't know. To me it's just a different matrix number sequence that has not been agreed on.

I did change the thread title accordingly.

truedream
I don't know where it was decided to put these numbers in LCCN at all... but nevermind me...

Yeah, that requires consensus too. Can anyone provide a link to the relevant thread? If not that is incorrect for the moment as well.

truedream
Can we say CD glass masters are equivalent to vinyl stampers or not really?

1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release.
For example:
Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition

Another excellent question. If there is no consensus on that then we have another reason not to split.

kaynaky
how do you react to above example? Do you merge them or leave them as it is, if there are no other differences on artwork etc..., Please assume the only difference between two releases is just the matrix number...

See the post by andygrayrecords above. Split based on the LCCN difference, but only because there was (presumably) consensus for entering that matrix code as the pressing plant's "catalog number". Ordinarily we would not do that, but there is an exception made for this company.

brianvy
1. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] W1556 1 26108-2 09 CD+G
W1556 = W4xx-W20xx: approx 1997 glass mastering

2. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X17628 1 26108-2 RE-1 02
X17628 = X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002 glass mastering

3. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X18744 1 26108-2 RE-1 03
X18744 = X186xx-X200xx: approx 2003 glass mastering

All three should merge IMO.

mjb
because there was (presumably) consensus for entering that matrix code as the pressing plant's "catalog number". Ordinarily we would not do that, but there is an exception made for this company.

It's pretty widespread. Usually when I bother to add matrix/plant info someone comes along soon after and tosses a number in LCCN.

Is it beneficial to _actual s_ of this site to split up CDs into hundreds of entries based on technicalities such as moving parts of the matrix into LCCN and then declaring that this now demands a new submission? CDs with no other physical or sonic differences? Does it make ANY difference in collectability or pricing? I doubt it. So please save millions of s time and effort sorting through avalanches of releases and just put them in the same entry as variations.

truedream
All three should merge IMO.

I do not buy/sell in here. But from a collector's point of view release years can be important. I am a collector and this is my straight logic... More details are needed if you are a hardcore collector. Am I mistaken?

kaynaky
But from a collector's point of view release years can be important. I am a collector and this is my straight logic... More details are needed if you are a hardcore collector. Am I mistaken?

No, you are not mistaken and this is also why I'm here @ Discogs®...as a collector and archivist (and also supposedly as an anarchist & straight-up liar...yep).

Stereolab42
CDs with no other physical or sonic differences?

How do we know there are no sonic differences?

In the example below, the 1997 LCCN has a format of: CD, CD+G, Compilation, Repress
while the 2002 & 2003 LCCN have a format of: CD, Compilation, Repress .....(no CD+G)

aamikk
1. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] W1556 1 26108-2 09 CD+G
W1556 = W4xx-W20xx: approx 1997 glass mastering

sindala32
2. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X17628 1 26108-2 RE-1 02
X17628 = X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002 glass mastering

mr.dna
3. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X18744 1 26108-2 RE-1 03
X18744 = X186xx-X200xx: approx 2003 glass mastering

So presumably there are at least data-layer/mastering property differences leading to a format difference. Real life, non-collector folks might care about this....or not. But these details matter to the point where the community decided to allow company-specific sequential LCCN #. And yes, this opens up a can of worms. Tasty to some while disgusting to others.

[Also, FYI, I didn't create or "demand" that any of these various pressings be separated. Other s (as noted above) performed this action.]

mjb
I believe Colonycollapse23 is partly to blame, as his profile and his relatively recent edits to the relevant company profiles seem to say it is OK to use 2U/2V alone to identify the plant.

With the WEA Mfg. Olyphant profile I added 'W' to the list of Olyphant catalog numbers found in the matrix.

The WEA Mfg. Commerce could use some updates and be reworded. I should have also preserved the Cinram info as was added to the Cinram Commerce profile. Before my edit it said "CD pressing plant in Commerce, California, USA. Renamed from Allied Record Company around 1997. Around Oct 2003 it was sold to Cinram." [updated]

With the Cinram, Olyphant, PA I re-add "A mould SID code of IFPI 2U** and, sometimes, a machine-stamped 'CI' also indicates that the disc was pressed at Cinram, Olyphant, PA." That information existed in the profile before my edit but was lost following another edit.

With Cinram, Commerce, CA I added the profile paralleling to purchase of the Olyphant plant by Cinram that was noted in the WEA mfg. Commerce profile. [updated]

At any rate anyone is welcome to update or vote against these profile changes. I am happy to revert any updates I have made if this information is incorrect/incomplete.

My profile page is a collection of notes I created as a reference for myself. When I first started entering LCCN & BAOI other s corrected my data. These notes come from those comments. [updated]

brianvy
How do we know there are no sonic differences?

brianvy
So presumably there are at least data-layer/mastering property differences

Presumably there will be sonic differences with different stampers, but those are variants.

brianvy
sindala32
2. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X17628 1 26108-2 RE-1 02
X17628 = X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002 glass mastering

mr.dna
3. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X18744 1 26108-2 RE-1 03
X18744 = X186xx-X200xx: approx 2003 glass mastering

Ok I suppose the CD+G version should stay separate but these two should merge and the numbers removed from LCCN. Just one great example of many of merges that should happen, since this has been going on years now...

Please stop adding "catalog numbers" extracted from the matrix to LCCN.
Please stop creating unique submissions because the matrix suggests it was manufactured later/earlier.
Thank you.

truedream
Please stop adding "catalog numbers" extracted from the matrix to LCCN.

Could you expand what you mean on this sentence?

Sure.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4525666-Crosby-Stills-Nash/history?utm_campaign=release-update&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest

See the "catalog numbers" for the pressing plant? They should be removed. These are variants not separate subs.

truedream
Sure.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4525666-Crosby-Stills-Nash/history?utm_campaign=release-update&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest

See the "catalog numbers" for the pressing plant? They should be removed. These are variants not separate subs.

Should the catalogue#s be removed on this submission only?
Or all of the releases' catalogue#s should be removed under these companies?
Sony DADC

kaynaky
Or all of the releases' catalogue#s should be removed under these companies?

yep, others too.. the only one i'm ok with is DADC when the number is printed on the disc not extracted from the matrix

truedream
yep, others too.. the only one i'm ok with is DADC when the number is printed on the disc not extracted from the matrix

Ok, I clearly understand your view on the matter, thanks... It is marginal but at least direct...

Isn't this the place to express yourself? :)

truedream
kaynaky
Or all of the releases' catalogue#s should be removed under these companies?

yep, others too.. the only one i'm ok with is DADC when the number is printed on the disc not extracted from the matrix

Why yep? Optimal Media Production at least have this information backed-up to be correct to add as company numbers. The others probably have as well, there are threads linked in histories of some where this kind of info has been added to profile text.

From the Discogs mission statement-
About Discogs
We're on a mission to build the biggest and most comprehensive music database and marketplace.

Open to interpretation for what constitutes 'comprehensive'. It seems that the more pressing versions added to the database the more comprehensive it becomes - but this is my interpretation.

Fauni-Gena
So, should we have 5000 versions of Dark Side of the Moon or 10000? These are TRIVIAL differences on a release pressed at the same plant.

Hard to say and a lot of work.

Why wouldn't each repressing constitute a unique release even if it occurs in the same factory years apart?

If this doesn't matter then pressing locations shouldn't matter either if the same company is involved. As an example, WEA, Olyphant duplicates a glass master to share with their sister plant in Commerce made with the intent to press the same release on both the west coast and east coast (most likely simultaneously and for distribution purposes). Should pressing location matter if it is for an identical release manufactured in 2 separate buildings by the same company? What if the buildings were located right next to each other but pressed using the different glass masters?

I am collecting data from different views, english is my secondary language, because of that I am asking direct questions to of the society to understand and make it simpler for myself. I hear you, I always give credit to all views, then I will elaborate on these views, and conclude at some point when the data is sufficient and elaboration period is over...
Expressed myself I hope...

oceanographer
From the Discogs mission statement-
About Discogs
We're on a mission to build the biggest and most comprehensive music database and marketplace.

oceanographer
Hard to say and a lot of work.

Thank you oceanographer for bringing this motivational/inspiring anecdote on surface at the right time/right place from the heart of Discogs community...

I'm aware. I've watched this for a while.
I don't think it's right to extract these numbers from the matrix even if they are sequential. Only if they are printed on the release as a catalog number (DADC)
Usually there is just one number for a release, but then sometimes more than one.
So when more than one, do these different #s mean different subs?
IMO no they are variants, even if different glass masters, even if we know one came before another. There's no other company/technician to credit, and no extracting release dates from matrices.
But with these numbers entered in LCCN, it's like there can only be one number per sub.
It's like making a new sub for a different stamper which the guidelines say not to do.

truedream
Curious, what are reasons for making new glass masters?

In the case of GZ Media they only keep their glass masters for two years, so if they need to do another run they need to make a new master.

jweijde
All it means really, is that one was most likely pressed at a later point in time than the other. It doesn't mean they are in reality two different releases that were officially issued at different points in time. It can, but most often isn't the case.

If that's the case, why do the guidelines contain the following section in RSG §5.3:
"A release with SID codes cannot have been made before 1994. If the date cannot be established with a citation or an adequate explanation, the date should be left blank."

If a hardly readable SID code printed into the inner hub is enough to justify a unique release pressed after 1993 (even if the same stamper had been in continuous use before that date), what about matrix changes that clearly indicate different dates ? Or vinyl runouts that contain the manufacturing date and indicate that it was made years after the initial release date? Shouldn't these things be treated in a consistent manner? In the light of this,

brianvy
aamikk
1. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] W1556 1 26108-2 09 CD+G
W1556 = W4xx-W20xx: approx 1997 glass mastering

sindala32
2. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X17628 1 26108-2 RE-1 02
X17628 = X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002 glass mastering

mr.dna
3. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X18744 1 26108-2 RE-1 03
X18744 = X186xx-X200xx: approx 2003 glass mastering

makes perfect sense. Otoh, a release like Radiohead - OK Computer indicates nothing that would justify a split, even though it currently already has 25 (stamper) variations.

I think submitting, browsing, and purchasing on this site would be far simpler if we just said that all CDs that are identical outside of the matrix and IFPI codes are to be considered variants. Can anyone present evidence that a CD is differently valued by collectors solely on the basis of the matrix and codes? If not, then I can't think of any possible advantage for them to be separate submissions. If so, then we should draw the lines where collectors draw the lines, rather than on technicalities like LCCNs.

oceanographer
If this doesn't matter then pressing locations shouldn't matter either if the same company is involved.

I actually made that argument once upon a time. truedream pointed out quite the opposite is true. It's also clear that the community is deeply divided on this. It's not the obvious thing that some make it out to be.

strummin
a release like Radiohead - OK Computer indicates nothing that would justify a split, even though it currently already has 25 (stamper) variations.

Please answer below question, if you can?
I want to listen EMI UDEN pressed Radiohead-OK Computer CD from the year 2000 / It has a sentimental value and good sense of hearing for me / I will pay top-notch dollars for it / But you should convince me that it is pressed in the year 2000 / Can you point me any sellers who can satisfy my senses?

I suppose if the community decides the LCCN cat#'s hold no merit for basing a unique pressing and creating a new submission, then the Notes field should be utilized to mention the pressing differences found in the matrix string. That is each Variant data could be commented on by a in the Notes field.

Variant 1 = pressing approx. 1997
Variant 2 = repress from unknown date
Variant 3 = Reissue repress from approx 2003

This would be in place instead of creating a new sub for each pressing. Companies like GZ Digital Media which show a definitive glass master date would be easy to add notes for

Should we distinguish between how the matrix area physically appears for unique releases? Recently barcodes found in matrices instead of company glass master #'s has been evaluated as a possible way to document separate submissions. https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/727064

I find this very interesting but along the trends of this thread matrix barcode differences would most likely qualify as Variants. Correct?

Why also should SID codes make a difference?

If a release pressed by Specialty Records Corporation for the first run came out in 1991 and then was repressed by this company again in 1996 the only difference is the presence of a SID code and typically a modified matrix string. This would still be a Variant but the community knows it was pressed in 1994 or later. Why would the later pressing with a unique submission due to SID codes not just be 'housed' with the original pressing from 1991 and Notes not added to the submission? That in a nutshell seems to be the distinguishing factor for multiple WEA pressings (a date can be extracted). So 1994 should not be an invisible dividing line just because SID codes were invented and put into market use.

andygrayrecords
truedreamCurious, what are reasons for making new glass masters?
In the case of GZ Digital Media / GZ Media they only keep their glass masters for two years, so if they need to do another run they need to make a new master.

Thanks for that. I thought it was strange they would make a new glass master so soon here:

brianvy
2. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X17628 1 26108-2 RE-1 02
X17628 = X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002 glass mastering

3. Gram Parsons - GP / Grievous Angel:
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo] X18744 1 26108-2 RE-1 03
X18744 = X186xx-X200xx: approx 2003 glass mastering

oceanographer
Why also should SID codes make a difference?

They probably shouldn't. But the madness can at least stop there.

truedream
All three should merge IMO.

I agree, they should be merged. When I entered 7494092 it was the first and only WEA Olyphant pressing. At that time GP / Grievous Angel was still an SRC pressing but has since morphed into WEA Olyphant because someone posted an incorrect image. (Please don't point out how long ago the image was posted. I don't care.) But hey, that's Discogs for you.

strummin
If that's the case, why do the guidelines contain the following section in RSG §5.3:
"A release with SID codes cannot have been made before 1994. If the date cannot be established with a citation or an adequate explanation, the date should be left blank."

In my opinion that guideline is incorrect. It is mixing up pressings and releases. Especially with releases from just before 1994, it is entirely possible that a pressing with an IFPI code simply indicates a new pressing run of a release that did not yet go 'out of print'. It does not indicate it is a new release, especially not when the appearance of an IFPI code is the only difference between that item and previous pressings. I think the word "release" got in there because it's what you create on Discogs when you submit a new entry.

All those Gram Parsons releases are different pressings. Whether or not they are really different releases - e.g. released and marketed as separate, new releases by the record company - is unknown.

jweijde
In my opinion that guideline is incorrect. It is mixing up pressings and releases. Especially with releases from just before 1994, it is entirely possible that a pressing with an IFPI code simply indicates a new pressing run of a release that did not yet go 'out of print'. It does not indicate it is a new release, especially not when the appearance of an IFPI code is the only difference between that item and previous pressings. I think the word "release" got in there because it's what you create on Discogs when you submit a new entry.

In the case of Mould SIDs, I have difficulties with that guideline too. Because they do not indicate an interruption of the production process, but just a change in the facilities to press the CDs.

The guideline central to all of this is RSG §1.4.4:
"1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release.
For example:

Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition
Manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color
Mislabelings such as: (correct) labels misapplied to incorrect sides, two of the same labels, or missing labels
Unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc.

would not count as a unique release."

The interesting point in this guideline is how to distinguish one edition from another. Unfortunately the guideline for that is missing and different s seem to have different ideas about how to do this.

mjb
the relevant company profiles seem to say it is OK to use 2U/2V alone to identify the plant.

I honestly thought this was on the company pages for a valid reason and could be utilized to infer an accurate pressing plant during the WEA era.

Further, WEA Mfg. Commerce matrices (as far as I've seen) always contain *M#S# while WEA Mfg. Olyphant matrices contain just M#S# (no preceding *). This is another indicator of the pressing facility.

mjb
As this relates to WEA Manufacturing CDs in particular, it means we can split releases quite often, based on [...]
Whether the matrix area's metal layer contains codes for which there's consensus to enter in LCCN catalog# fields.

So are we questioning whether sequential LCCN #s should be added for WEA/Cinram Olyphant?

oceanographer
1994 should not be an invisible dividing line just because SID codes were invented and put into market use.

Nevertheless, that's a line that nik decided to draw and put into the guidelines. The decision was made knowing it'd be used for splitting otherwise identical pressings. It does simplify data entry (no need for "none" SID codes alongside regular ones). No going back now. But your point is valid—this can of worms was opened back then, and stirred up even more with the advent of LCCN fields.

brianvy
So are we questioning whether sequential LCCN #s should be added for WEA/Cinram Olyphant?

No. https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750 (thanks for bumping) is where it was and can still be discussed, though these threads only came up in response to complaints about such edits already being made undiscussed and en masse, mainly by you I think. Nevertheless, you posted your mea culpa, made your case, and got varying degrees of from just a few people including me and management. There were no major objections, just some reservations about date inferences, which you have addressed through further research. IMHO, you got sufficient "consensus" for the adding of the W/X/Y/Z codes as LCCN numbers, at the very least. Just my opinion though.

brianvy
[M#S# asterisks are] another indicator of the pressing facility.

Don't forget the space frequently found before the S as well.

Look, I've noticed the pattern, too. I have no reason to doubt it indicates an Allied or WEA/Cinram Commerce pressing. Yet I have also seen some examples where this is all we have, i.e. there is no explicit "ARC" or "CI/CA" or whatever. It's no different than only having a 2V__ SID code.

If I had my druthers, I'd make the inference. But aside from what the RSG permits, it has been pretty firmly established that it is forbidden to infer pretty much anything from matrix codes without discussion and agreement. We can go as far as inferring the name of a company from an abbreviation or logo (e.g. SRC, CI, etc.), but if you want to infer Pressed By credits from mother/stamper code formats and SID code prefixes, then you have to make a case for it and get consensus. I'll offer my +1, for what it's worth, but I know there are some s who vehemently disagree with the idea.

I am not familiar enough with CD's to make any decent call here.

If it can be reduced to a clear survey question, I can add it to a voter survey I plan on sending out sometime soon-ish.

How about this:

For one particular CD manufacturer, entering a portion of the matrix number as a catalog number in the LCCN fields (not the Label field, but one of the other companies) has been OK'd in the forums. The numbers are sequential, appear to identify a glass master, and can be associated with an approximate release date. When there are two pressings which differ only by these numbers—i.e. the audio and other attributes seem to be the same—should they be submitted separately? Pros and cons and related issues are discussed in Forum Thread #740518.

I think that discogs is in a great and unique position where we have collected CD matrix information from thousands and thousands of CDs. More than any other public database no doubt.

And for the first time, we can create pressing plant discographies, and even better, we can organise these discographies based on unique

*matrix numbers / catalogue numbers / work order numbers / whatever*

assigned by these pressing plants to individual CDs. And with the evidence of hundreds or thousands of other CDs, we are able to assign an approximate date of glass master creation/CD manufacture for CDs that have no known release date, or repressed albums like the Gram Parsons example.

We as a community are building these discographies for the first time and identifying the patterns that may help us to date a given CD. For those of us interested in CD matrix variants and pressing plants, this is really informative and EXCITING data and it's really fun to see these discographies growing.

IMO, whether or not these end up being considered separate entries of variants, the important thing is that all three matrix numbers deserve the opportunity to appear sorted on the Cinram, Olyphant label page, as they are pieces of our discography. And to think that only one will have that opportunity as the other two will simply be variants of this first one is a shame.

Some s don't seem to find these pressing plant numbers interesting at all (eg. Stereolab42). That's already that case for most albums with 50+ entries and is inevitable when an album is manufactured in countless different pressings on different media in different countries over many decades. I mean, what do you think a database is for, exactly?

Not to over-dramatise a small situation, but I wouldn't want to see an outcome where we suppress the addition and analysis of matrix number variants for the sake of not "clogging up the database" or "confusing s" or creating "messy quasi-duplicates". In that case, we may as well have one submission each for the CD, LP, cassette of each album and leave it at that, with all country-specific catalogue numbers and distributors entered as "VARIANTS".

Myriad
Some s don't seem to find these pressing plant numbers interesting at all. That's fine. And yes, more entries clog up master releases and make them somewhat unnavigable. That's already that case for most albums with 50+ entries and is inevitable when an album is manufactured in countless different pressings on different media in different countries over many decades. I mean, what do you think a database is for, exactly?

Not to over-dramatise a small situation, but I wouldn't want to see an outcome where we suppress the addition and analysis of matrix number variants for the sake of not "clogging up the database" or "confusing s" or creating "messy quasi-duplicates". In that case, we may as well have one submission each for the CD, LP, cassette of each album and leave it at that, with all country-specific catalogue numbers and distributors entered as "VARIANTS".

I am also putting my signature under this statement.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/7829003-Medusa/history#latest ??

https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/7829003-Medusa/history#latest ??

Might be more useful to start a separate thread for pressing plant-specific discussion.

If this ever gets sorted out, I've seen Cinram (Canada) CDs with different glass mastering dates that have been grouped together in one submission, where the Release Date has been left blank.

My opinion is that if it's Release Date unknown (ie. pressings other than the original), it's okay to group them into one submission. I'm taking into consideration the usefulness of having them separate or together. I would pay more for an original pressing, but I wouldn't pay more between a second, third, fourth, etc pressing, if they are otherwise the same.

obs
If this ever gets sorted out, I've seen Cinram (Canada) CDs with different glass mastering dates that have been grouped together in one submission, where the Release Date has been left blank.

So have I. This happens at other CInram locations.

obs
I would pay more for an original pressing, but I wouldn't pay more between a second, third, fourth, etc pressing, if they are otherwise the same.

The Marketplace has rarely been allowed to influence database decisions. As far as I am concerned all of them, including the first, are the same if the glass mastering date is the only difference.

Fauni-Gena
As far as I am concerned all of them, including the first, are the same if the glass mastering date is the only difference.

imho, if there is a clear difference in the mastering date, say one is 2000 and the other is 2010, then they should be unique. There simply are only a handful of releases that would be in continuous press that long, so the later date would be a clear indication for a repress imho and thus separate imho.

strummin
makes perfect sense. Otoh, a release like Radiohead - OK Computer indicates nothing that would justify a split, even though it currently already has 25 (stamper) variations.

just for the record, that entry lists both EMI Uden and Mediamotion pressings. all those with AA SIDs are not done by Uden

syke
imho, if there is a clear difference in the mastering date, say one is 2000 and the other is 2010, then they should be unique. There simply are only a handful of releases that would be in continuous press that long, so the later date would be a clear indication for a repress imho and thus separate imho.

The problem here would be if "in-between" glass masterings aren't in the database. For example, we only have 2000 and 2010, but what if there are 2004 and 2006 missing?

Tough call on what to do, separate or combine. I don't feel too strongly either way.

Bumping this thread.
https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4871294-Rock-Steady/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_medium=email&utm_source=relationship#latest

Can we get some consensus regarding different sequential numbers?
Diognes_The_Fox.

Doesn't make sense that you have different pressings listed on the same release page.

I’m bouncing this tread because it was referenced in a current merge
https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4871294-Rock-Steady/history?utm_campaign=release-merge&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

My understanding of the discussion above (and it wavers off topic) at what point do you say the information gleaned from within a single pressing plant is significant enough to merit a new entry in the database

Some s such as brianvy feel that if what most of us would treat as matrix variants (within a release) can be used to identify different date or glass master they should not be treated as variants, that a new release should be created.

The rules are clear that if a different pressing plant can be identified it is a separate release, most major releases, especially in Europe were farmed out to multiple pressing plants, it is quite possible that what Discogs sees as a separate release was entrained in the same distribution chain, that you could have walked into HMV on the day of release and bought 2 CDs of the same artist and title from the same shelf which are now listed here as separate releases.

Post release date different pressing plants use different methods to resupply, some may run small amounts to demand (continuously in print), others may wait until enough demand builds and re press, when repressing they may dust off the old master or they may cut a new one, where they cut a new one, they may date it in an identifiable way, they may not. Which brings us to the problem, at what point do you say this information, is significant enough to merit a new entry in the database?

If we treat variants that are identifiable as separate releases will we end up revisiting ALL matrix variants in the future as the knowledge base deepens and splitting them all into releases? Doing so would make many master releases pretty much unusable.

However this data is significant and it is a shame that those s who take the time to identify and analyse it do not seem to have a clear structure to work in, that many of their entries get merged and data lost

IMHO these need to be treated as variants but the current system where many are being merged is not satisfactory, it would be very helpful if a field were available within a release where s can identify what each variant means.

Sub releases? Anyone?

more_music
IMHO these need to be treated as variants but the current system where many are being merged is not satisfactory

If releases are being merged then it should be the responsibility of the instigating the merge to transfer any data that would otherwise be lost.

Bong

If releases are being merged then it should be the responsibility of the instigating the merge to transfer any data that would otherwise be lost.

I wish this always happened, alas it does not and data is being lost

Fugees - The Score
Another release with conflicting pressing variations.
Pressed By – Sony DADC Austria AG – S0100184186-0101
Pressed By – Sony DADC Austria AG – S0100212705-0101

Each 'cat#" is only applicable to a certain pressing, not both.

more_music
feel free to post and give the topic a bump up again

from a already expired (Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, No, No etc.) merge request

seems it will happen again:

https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4871294-Rock-Steady/history#latest

it's already in this thread but not really

andygrayrecords
Can we get some consensus regarding different sequential numbers?
Diognes_The_Fox.

Doesn't make sense that you have different pressings listed on the same release page.

andygrayrecords
Each 'cat#" is only applicable to a certain pressing, not both.

Now I see the "different catalog number" argument but does that really make it a unique release / different edition ?
This really is a slippery slope because what we're talking about here is different pressing runs for the same release. It is really not much different from all the variants Bruce Springsteen - The Rising. Ofcourse the "catalog number" is the same for all pressings, but all of them are still unique pressings. If I have a version with a disc that has matrix "Sony Music S5080002000-0101 14 A2" then it's unique and different from all other versions.

Also, what benefit is there for the database when these are split up?

jweijde
Now I see the "different catalog number" argument but does that really make it a unique release / different edition ?

I wouldn't go that route at all. The only argument thats relevant imho is that the production code clearly shows one to be a later pressing than the other and also a different glass master. The above mentioned example is pretty clear that one is the original press from 1996 and the other is a repress from 1997ish

jweijde
Also, what benefit is there for the database when these are split up?

to be more accurate with what is an original pressing and what is not

Hi, andygrayrecords
ref:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/4871294-Rock-Steady/history#latest

Please go over, step by step why you feel this is a later repress and just part of a sequential run? I tried to understand what you said before and as far as I could tell your argument would lead to every matrix variant getting a unique entry in the DB
Thanks

@ syke's post just prior to your post..
The production numbers clearly show them to be from different glass masters.
Makes sense does it not that the different 'sequential' numbers in the LCCN section cannot apply to one pressing and are therefore not just simple variants.

andygrayrecords
@ more_music, see syke's post just prior to your post..
The production numbers clearly show them to be from different glass masters.
Makes sense does it not that the different 'sequential' numbers in the LCCN section cannot apply to one pressing and are therefore not just simple variants.

I'm really not convinced by this.

It really boils down to RSG §1.4.4 and if these different matrix numbers are sufficient to qualify this under Discogs rules as a separate entry, but has any member of Discogs staff posted on the matter?

The clearest comment I can see on the matter is in the merge history

jweijde
Different "work" numbers do not qualify for unique releases and there is no need to stretch the unique release guidelines to allow that as there is little value in creating new entries for such submissions. There is no clear consensus or management approval. There also are no guidelines, neither is it a widely accepted practice.

Currently only different plants qualify for a unique submission and let's keep it that way. A merge is justified here.

more_music
Currently only different plants qualify for a unique submission

thats not correct. Thats a completely arbitrary and made up statement. See for example the SID vs. no SID decision. Same plant, only difference the presence of SIDs equal a unique release. That decision alone shows that There are more factors in play than a pressing plant. It also shows that management thinks that as long as we can determine clearly that one is a later pressing (i.e. by the presence of SIDs) they are unique and are to be kept separate.

see also:

nik
If the edition (version) can be distinguished from the original

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/356856#3335870

nik
But when a release has moved far enough away from it's original, such as in this case where SID codes have been added, then does it mot make sense to treat that as a unique release?

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/356856#3336533

So the standard clearly lies on both the release to be distinguishable from the original press and a certain time between the pressings (as can be determined by a work number).

So all in all, what you just wrote is flat out made up and the standard "only different plants qualify for a unique submission" is fiction

https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/801109-Rock-Steady/history?utm_campaign=release-merge&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

Up for merge again.
Why we keep going through this, I have no idea.
They are clearly different pressings.