 |
 |
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 >