Print

Print


Oops, my mistake, I meant 1994-5 not 2004-5. That's what I get for typing
while making masters.....
All the best,
-mark

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Shai Drori <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I started including CDText earlier than that, around 1998, but it was
> limited and most reader ignored it altogether.
> Cheers
> Shai
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Mark Donahue <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> > One or two quick comments.
> > The first I saw of CDText in the mastering business was around 2004-5.
> You
> > supplied a .bin file on a floppy with your 1630 master and Sony DADC was
> > the only one doing it. It was crude and only allowed for 2000 characters
> > total.
> > A few years later when the 1630 went the way of the Dodo along with most
> of
> > the old replication hardware, we started encoding CD+Text info on all
> > masters supplied for replication. Most of the record companies
> immediately
> > stripped this information out during replication. Warner was still doing
> > this as late as 2005.
> > All the best,
> > -mark
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Shai:
> > >
> > > My understanding is that CDText was always available in Red Book. It
> > > doesn't matter what the original players could display, that's my
> point.
> > > Anyone who was using a Commodore or Apple computer in the early CD era
> > > could see where media was going. Metadata was going to be very
> important
> > to
> > > digital media. My contention is, by surrendering control of their
> > metadata,
> > > the CD producers, owners, manufacturers and sellers surrendered a key
> > part
> > > of marketing -- clear, uniform explaination of the product. Depending
> on
> > > booklet text and/or physical packaging was short-sighted. To this day,
> > the
> > > metadata released from the record companies to such massive retail
> forces
> > > as Amazon are inconsistent, often confusing and often incomplete,
> because
> > > it's usually a job left to interns and clerks instead of being a
> topline
> > > responsibility of project producers. This is a really important
> > discussion
> > > that should have been had at the beginning, but should still be had. It
> > > would behoove the copyright owners to come up with standards and
> release
> > > all media going forward with uniform naming of artists, songs, etc, and
> > > uniform formats for how to express, for instance, classical works'
> > > movements or other track-title information.
> > >
> > > And by the way, the sloppy metadata has now spread into the streaming
> > > services, because they just use the same gobbledygook that is on Amazon
> > and
> > > iTunes. If we want "the kids" to use music as something beyond
> background
> > > noise, it is necessary for them to have a clear understanding of what
> > they
> > > are listening to. In the purely digital realm (streaming and
> downloads),
> > > the only clue beyond sound is good metadata.
> > >
> > > -- Tom Fine
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shai Drori" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 9:34 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A case in point why CDText should have been
> used
> > > for metadata from Day 1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom, you're forgetting that the original red book didn't even have a
> > > provision for the text addition. Players were very crude with just a
> four
> > > digit numerical display that could show time or track. All the other
> > > additions that came later were additions that some players were not
> even
> > > aware of. Case in point, the CD can actually be 4 channel from day one
> > > (part of the red book), but have you ever seen a 4 channel CD or
> player?
> > On
> > > the other hand there was never the foresight to change bit depth or
> > sample
> > > rate. Can you imagine what the CD road map would look like if there
> was a
> > > provision for 20 or 24 bit recordings and even 88.2kHz sample rate? And
> > > yes, the original authoring software was terrible. I still remember by
> > > heart most of the PQ code rules for track placement and spacing. I'm
> more
> > > of an old fart than I care to admit. haha 😉
> > > Cheers
> > > Shai Drori
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > The 1995 Smithsonian collection "Big Band Renaissance: the Evolution of
> > >> the Jazz Orchestra" is a great example of group-source metadata FUBAR.
> > >> dBPowerAmp's CD ripper program allows use of multiple metadata
> sources,
> > >> and
> > >> by default does some sort of amalgam of whatever sources you've told
> it
> > to
> > >> check. The amalgam on this set is comical! So I manually checked
> > metadata
> > >> from each source. They are all different, and only GD3 (whatever that
> > is)
> > >> is anywhere near accurate. I find this often happens with compilations
> > --
> > >> for instance freedB and/or AllMusic will have different top-level
> stuff
> > >> like titles and whether or not it's a compilation for different
> > individual
> > >> CDs in the same box set.
> > >>
> > >> All of this could have been prevented if the industry embraced CDText
> > from
> > >> the get-go and agreed on uniform naming standards for artists and song
> > >> titles. I remember the arguments back in the 80's --  it's hard enough
> > to
> > >> enter PQ codes into these balky Sony editing systems, and no CD
> players
> > >> have displays for CDText, so why bother. Very short-sighted. The
> net-net
> > >> today is that anyone who wants uniform naming and accurate information
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> digital library has to spend a lot of time editing the crappy metadata
> > >> that's out there in group-source land. And, copyright owners have
> ceded
> > >> control of their metadata to a group-source no-QC
> cluter-you-know-what.
> > >>
> > >> -- Tom Fine
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Shai Drori
> Expert digitization services for Audio Video
> Hi Res scanning for film 8mm-35mm
> www.audiovideofilm.com
>