891 lines
63 KiB
HTML
891 lines
63 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
|
|
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>2007_MP3v1.1-rebuttal.nfo</title>
|
|
<style type="text/css">
|
|
@font-face {
|
|
font-family: nfo;
|
|
font-style: normal;
|
|
font-weight: normal;
|
|
src: url(nfo.eot);
|
|
}
|
|
.nfo {
|
|
padding: 12px;
|
|
font-family: nfo, courier new;
|
|
font-size: 11px;
|
|
line-height: 1em;
|
|
}
|
|
</style>
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<pre class="nfo"> An Independent Critic presents
|
|
A Rebuttal of......
|
|
Official MP3 Release Rules 1.1
|
|
|
|
__________________________________________________________
|
|
INTRO:
|
|
-The rebuttal of TDX2K5 inspired me to take a look at the current MP3 rules
|
|
and scrutinize all the points I felt were inconcise and vague. The current
|
|
rules are adequate, though they could be much better. In no way is this
|
|
intended to disrespect or offend any of the honorable crews that signed the
|
|
current ruleset. With that said, some of the points I make may seem anal, but
|
|
I personally care about the future of the audio scene and would like to
|
|
ensure its continued operation to provide HQ Audio to its members.
|
|
-In contrast to the author of the TDX2K5 rebuttal, I am NOT a previous
|
|
signee of previous MP3 rulesets, nor am I part of an old and legendary crew.
|
|
Despite this, I fully understand why many of the rules were implemented in the
|
|
ruleset. I just felt that someone outside of the big groups should have the
|
|
opportunity to address any issues and concerns they may have. I hope this
|
|
will encourage anyone who agrees with my points to speak their mind and
|
|
cause much needed vigor in the MP3 scene. Any groups and all groups are welcomed
|
|
to include this in their .nfo, as well as make their own rebuttal. I also
|
|
dont want to make it seem I want the MP3 scene to be something extremely
|
|
difficult to be in, but many of the suggestions I make should
|
|
not be hard for most groups to integrate into their normal routine. I know MP3s
|
|
aren't as difficult to do as XviDs, DVDR re-encodes or X264 encodes, but
|
|
I feel they deserve a ruleset that's clear and eliminates any questions,
|
|
free of any grammatical errors and has a professional appearance.
|
|
-Note: Yes I know the standard for nfos/txt is 80 char wide, but I'm doing this
|
|
late in the night since I have insomnia and have nothing else to do, so don't
|
|
dismiss this as pre spam/fake on those grounds. I wrote this article with
|
|
serious intentions.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
__________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
1. No Dupes !
|
|
Complete albums/releases are checked, not single tracks. So a release
|
|
is not a dupe if it has different or more tracks.
|
|
|
|
Exceptions:
|
|
1. It's also a dupe if the complete release is included in a
|
|
previous one. For example CDM is released, now someone releases
|
|
the CDS and all tracks of the CDS were already included on the
|
|
CDM (excactly the same tracks).
|
|
2. You are allowed to create a duplicate release from a release
|
|
that has a source of lower quality (a different source!).
|
|
Example: if vinyl is out then a CD-release is allowed.
|
|
If you do that then please add this info to NFO and dirname. For
|
|
online bought MP3s (-WEB-) we assume the best source quality
|
|
(CDDA or better).
|
|
3. All MIXED cds should be ripped as one track supplied with a
|
|
.cue. If they are not, they may be duped by another group that
|
|
releases it as one track with a .cue supplied.
|
|
4. If a WEB version has been released then a CD RETAIL version is
|
|
allowed if the CD version has scans/photos.
|
|
|
|
For all LIVE sources:
|
|
+ If a show has already been released (e.g. another name, but the
|
|
mix is the same), no dupe of that same show is allowed. If the
|
|
show is included in another release (for example, as a guest
|
|
mix), then it is not allowed either.
|
|
+ If a show, containing a guest mix, is a partial dupe (either the
|
|
regular part of the show, or the guest mix), it is allowed to
|
|
release them both as a set. However, it is encouraged to release
|
|
only the new part if the other part is available in equal or
|
|
better quality, denoting in the nfo why the other part was
|
|
omitted.
|
|
+ If a show contains the broadcast of a commercially released CD,
|
|
it may not be released if the CD has already been released.
|
|
|
|
Note: if you want to release an import-album or some "extendend
|
|
edition" then check rule 7 as well !
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Point 1.1 contains a typographical error (excactly).
|
|
-Point 1.2 is vague in respect to DVD, SACD, and DVD-A releases. What if
|
|
an album is released both in CDDA and DVD-A format? Could a proper rip
|
|
from a DVD-A disc dupe a CDDA one? Also, what exactly does the dupe
|
|
order look like? If I understand correctly, it should be as follows.
|
|
|
|
Bootleg<Tape<Live<Vinyl<DAT<WEB<CDDA<DVD<SACD<DVDA<BD/HD DVD
|
|
|
|
Correct? Y/N?
|
|
|
|
-The Mixed CD rule should be tossed. Many devices, notably the iPod,
|
|
support gapless playback, along with many of the popular Media Players
|
|
these days. It's quite annoying to put a single .mp3 rip onto your
|
|
MP3 player or hard disk and not have direct access to the track you want,
|
|
isn't it? I have read many-a-NFOs from groups complaining about this rule ;P.
|
|
-The note section contains a typographical error (extendend).
|
|
-Another point that comes up are CDs that only have 1 track, and the entire
|
|
track is a mix. I recently heard someone say that all single mp3 rips require
|
|
a .cue file. The rules as they stand don't actually require this. Clarification
|
|
is needed for this type of CD. It should be noted in the rules that a tracklisting
|
|
for such rips would be very helpful, though not required.
|
|
-Would a dupe of a previous release be allowed if the average bitrate was higher?
|
|
If seen a couple groups do this; A retail over a promo with the exact same
|
|
tracks, except the average bitrate is higher.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
2. An .SFV and .NFO file must be included in every release.
|
|
If you release a CUE file for multitrack mp3s then the CUE file must
|
|
include artist and tracknames if they are available on the cover or
|
|
inlay.
|
|
|
|
3. Directoryname must at least contain:
|
|
1. Artist Name - Title - Published Year (decimal) - Group name
|
|
(extra info is allowed of course)
|
|
2. All bootleg releases must have the word BOOTLEG in dirname.
|
|
(check bootleg rule 14)
|
|
3. If you release magazine CDs then you must tag them as -MAG-.
|
|
Don't tag them -PROMO-, -ADVANCE- etc..
|
|
4. The directory name of an INTERNAL release must end with _INT.
|
|
Example: Someone_Something-2007-GROUP_INT
|
|
5. For all LIVE sources:
|
|
It is not necessary to include the name of the station the show
|
|
is broadcasted on (if it is not included in the directory name,
|
|
it is strongly encouraged to include it in the nfo instead). The
|
|
date must be the date of the broadcast. Both USA (-MM/DD-) and
|
|
EU (-DD/MM-) date format are allowed.
|
|
|
|
Exception:
|
|
If a vinyl/cd has no title then it's allowed to replace the title by
|
|
labelname+catnumber (both!). If there is only one artist on the
|
|
vinyl/cd then you must add the artistname.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Why should both USA and EU dating formats be allowed? Sounds like a
|
|
recipe for confusion. I'm not a Live ripper and most Live rippers/crews
|
|
probably already know who/what/where of a particular release, but since
|
|
the scene is based on standards, why not stick to a single standard dating
|
|
format to minimize confusion? Perhaps the ISO 8601 dating standard?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
4. Filename must at least contain:
|
|
Track Number - Song Title
|
|
If it's an album with different artists (one artist per track) then
|
|
you must add the artist name as well ("VA-tracks" like mixes don't
|
|
need artistnames).
|
|
The song title for the filename must include the full title as it's
|
|
written on the cover/cd/inlay with all additional infos like
|
|
remixed/featured stuff as long as it doesn't exceed the 128 char
|
|
limit.
|
|
Make sure that your filename is unique otherwise some sites might
|
|
dupeskip.
|
|
|
|
Exception:
|
|
If no tracknames are supplied by the source (cd,vinyl,..) then you
|
|
*must* provide proof that these tracks have no names. Either by a
|
|
scan of the original cover of the record company/label (no selfmade
|
|
cdr or bootleg covers) or a link to an official or trusted webpage
|
|
with proofs. If these "untitled tracks" are part of a big mix (no
|
|
silence between the "tracks") then it's considered as one track and
|
|
you must rip it as one mp3/cue and give this track same name as the
|
|
"album".
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Reword 'Filename must at least contain' to sound less awkward.
|
|
-"VA-tracks" like is grammatically incorrect.
|
|
-Clarify the dupe filename rules. Does a release with duped filenames
|
|
get nuked and require a repack with unique filenames or a proper by
|
|
another group? Most veterans know about dupeskipping but I've seen
|
|
many of the new groups repack a release or release another rip of
|
|
an album and not take the time to make sure they have unique filenames.
|
|
Does this mean the release is wrong?
|
|
-Does missing the extra info of features, remixed, etc. constitute a
|
|
nuke and a valid proper reason?
|
|
-I've encountered some bootleg mixtapes without track names. The rules as
|
|
written state not to use bootleg covers. Does this mean it's not allowed
|
|
to release? Should a ripper attempt to name the tracks to his/her best
|
|
ability if a release has no track names?
|
|
-See section 1 rebuttal regarding mp3/cue.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Files/directories must only contain characters a-z A-Z 0-9 _ . - ()
|
|
This is to avoid problems with windows/linux-filesystem and
|
|
ftp-servers.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Some releases how trailing dots in their names. For example,
|
|
This Is Me...Then. Is it allowed to include the 3 trailing dots in the
|
|
dirname, or should they be replaced with 3 underscores or omitted entirely?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
6. Self-made releases
|
|
1. Self-made compilations are not allowed !
|
|
A self-made compilation is when you select tracks from other
|
|
sources, put them together and release that as something new.
|
|
2. A self-made MIX or completely self-made music is allowed if it's
|
|
good. Sites decide if it's shit by nuking it.
|
|
If you are releasing self-made stuff then that must be clearly
|
|
visible in your nfo.
|
|
If it's not possible to see that it's self-made then it will get
|
|
nuked as bad pack.
|
|
Exception: if the selfmade release is free available at release
|
|
time or when you obviously know that it will be available soon
|
|
then it's not allowed to release it.
|
|
|
|
If it's not clear if it's selfmade or not and it's not possible to
|
|
find any information about the release/artist/label then it's up to
|
|
the group to prove that this release is not selfmade (coverscan, url,
|
|
...). If they are not able to prove that it's real it will get nuked
|
|
as bad pack.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Clarify and re-write this entire section. When you make a homemade
|
|
mix/release of mainstream music, wouldn't you be taking tracks from
|
|
various sources? Or does this mean taking tracks from other scene releases?
|
|
I know what this section is trying to say, but it should be re-written
|
|
to omit all ambiguity.
|
|
-'If it's not clear if it's selfmade...' should be re-worded to sound less
|
|
awkward. Try 'If it's not clear *that* it's selfmade...'
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
7. The entire CD,Vinyl,etc. must be released (not individual tracks)
|
|
If you think it's too much work to rip all tracks you better don't
|
|
rip at all. Releasing the complete CD/Vinyl/.. is necessary because
|
|
otherwise it would be possible to make several (different) releases
|
|
of the same cd/vinyl/etc..
|
|
|
|
Exception for albums:
|
|
If a RETAIL album has been released and you have a different edition
|
|
of the same album (foreign/promo/advance/..) then it's allowed to
|
|
release the new/bonus tracks only. But you may NOT re-release an
|
|
entire inital edition within the first three months except if ... :
|
|
... it's a 1disc release and more than 30% of the tracks of your
|
|
version are not on the previous retail version.
|
|
... it's a multi disc release and either more than 30% of the tracks
|
|
or at least 6 tracks of your version are not on the previous
|
|
retail version.
|
|
|
|
Moreover, it is NOT allowed to re-release a new edition of an retail
|
|
album EVER if the different/extra/bonus tracks are already included
|
|
in one (!) previous release. For example, USA album is released and
|
|
four months later japanese with simply a remix from an old CDM/CDS
|
|
still wouldn't be allowed.
|
|
|
|
Example1: album released in US with 10 tracks, japanese edition with
|
|
11 tracks (1 bonus track that is a new song) then you MUST release
|
|
the jap bonus track only (without including previously released
|
|
tracks of the US album) during the first three months after first
|
|
full retail release. If it's more than 3 months later then you are
|
|
allowed to do either the bonustrack-only or the full album.
|
|
|
|
Example2: After the retail you got a promo with 1 different track.
|
|
Then it's not allowed to release this full album within 3 months. If
|
|
the bonus track was already out on a different release then it's not
|
|
even allowed to release it bonus-only.
|
|
|
|
Example3: Your different edition has 13 tracks of which 9 were on the
|
|
first retail release and 4 (= more than 30%) are new. Then you are
|
|
allowed to release the full album even within first 3 months. Except
|
|
when the 4 new tracks were already all on ONE previous release. Then
|
|
a release isn't allowed at all.
|
|
|
|
For DVD(A) releases check Rule 10.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Typographical error (inital).
|
|
-'you better don't rip at all.' Try 'you should not rip it at all.'
|
|
-Clarify this new edition rule. What if you have a new edition with of a
|
|
certain album and it's bonus tracks spread over 2 or more old releases,
|
|
CDM/CDS/etc. Would it be allowed to release it then? I know the 3rd example
|
|
says ONE, but I have my doubts about releasing bonus tracks of a particular
|
|
album when all of them are already out on older releases.
|
|
-Have respect for the Japanese. All countries/nationalities should be
|
|
capitalized. My professors have given me -50 for each instance they are not.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
8. Current maximum directory/filename-length is 128 characters
|
|
Exception: Dirfixes that reach the limit by adding "-DIRFIX-"
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Speaking of dirfixes, they shouldn't be allowed in the MP3 scene because
|
|
MP3s have ID3 tags, and a dirfix does nothing to correct any mistakes there.
|
|
A dirfix may technically fix a misspelled Justin Timberlay in the db's,
|
|
but your media player/digital audio player is going file it under
|
|
Justin Timberlay, not Justin Timberlake. At this point could either edit
|
|
the tags, which will invalidate your .sfv, or keep 2 copies of it. One with
|
|
the typo, and one with proper tagging. Yes, dirfixes save space and credits,
|
|
but to me it's like a temporary fix that should be permanently fixed, which
|
|
is always better in the long run. Repack/Proper it instead. And don't be such
|
|
wuss to take the nuke for a repack :P. Dirfixing saves credits, bandwidth, and
|
|
a nuke, but do really want your files to be mistagged?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
9. No fake-releases
|
|
It's a fake release when artist, title, group or source is incorrect
|
|
(different).
|
|
|
|
examples:
|
|
- Some_Artist-Crappy_Music-2004-GRP not released by GRP
|
|
- Another_Artist-Lots_of_Noise-CDM-2004-GRP was ripped from TV or
|
|
downloaded from a paysite
|
|
- Madonna-Something_New-2004-GRP really containing some tracks by
|
|
Marilyn Manson
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-In the html notes version of the rules, it says '...a release tagged DVD
|
|
and "source: CDDA" in NFO is not allowed).' There are quite a few
|
|
releases out now that have this error. Does this constitute a nuke? Would
|
|
group be able to proper for this reason?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. DVD/DVDA Ripping
|
|
A DVD/DVDA release must contain all music tracks. Additional tracks
|
|
(interviews etc.) are optional. If those extra tracks are not
|
|
included then a proper (with ALL tracks) or an additional release
|
|
(extra tracks only) is not allowed.
|
|
|
|
If tracks are available in several audio formats then you must use
|
|
the "best" version.
|
|
Priority is:
|
|
- PCM stereo (doesn't matter if DVDA or CDDA quality)
|
|
- PCM 3+ channels
|
|
- AC3 (dolby digital) stereo or DTS stereo
|
|
- AC3 (dolby digital) 3+ channels or DTS 3+ channels
|
|
- MPG
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
- DVD contains AC3 5.1 and AC3 2.0 => you must rip the AC3 2.0 tracks
|
|
- DVD contains PCM and AC3 2.0 => you must rip the PCM tracks
|
|
- DVD contains MPG and AC3 2.0 => you must rip the AC3 2.0 version
|
|
|
|
Normalizing the sound volume is allowed but optional.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-See Section 1 rebuttal regarding the dupe rules.
|
|
-I assume if a group doesn't choose the best soundtrack, a proper with the
|
|
best soundtrack is allowed?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
11. Encoding Quality
|
|
1. For releases made from MP3s (online bought) and which are not SBD:
|
|
VBR (all combinations, but no maximum bitrate limit) and CBR is
|
|
allowed. The minumum bitrate for CBR is 192kbit.
|
|
|
|
=> You release the MP3 as is. It is NOT allowed to re-encode! If
|
|
the source is below 192 kbit CBR it's not allowed to release it.
|
|
Release the MP3 unmodifed as you downloaded it. Only
|
|
adding/changing ID3 tag is allowed.
|
|
|
|
If you want to release a -WEB- mp3 file with constant bitrate
|
|
(CBR) then you must choose the best version (320->256->224->192
|
|
kbit) available at the shop.
|
|
|
|
2. For ALL other sources (CD, Vinyl, DVD, SBD, CABLE, LINE, etc.):
|
|
You must use either:
|
|
- LAME 3.97 (final version!) with preset V2 and VBRNEW
|
|
("-V2 --vbr-new") or
|
|
- LAME 3.90.3 (modified version preferred) with preset APS
|
|
("--alt-preset standard").
|
|
For both LAME versions additional switches which would affect
|
|
the mp3 quality are forbidden, especially no minimum or maximum
|
|
bitrate limits.
|
|
|
|
If you use LAME 3.90.3: preset must either be stored in mp3
|
|
header (= modified LAME version) or be part of info in your nfo
|
|
file.
|
|
(If you are going to change your encoder now then switch to
|
|
3.97. LAME 3.90.3 will probably be removed from this rule in
|
|
next rules version)
|
|
|
|
3. The sampling rate must be either 44.1khz or 48khz. 32khz is not
|
|
allowed. Downsampling to 44.1 or 48khz is allowed (if source is
|
|
better), upsampling to 44.1 or 48khz is not allowed.
|
|
|
|
4. For all LIVE sources: Straight-to-mp3 encoding is allowed, but
|
|
discouraged. The header of the mp3 file must be correct at all
|
|
times.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Typographical error (minumum).
|
|
-Point 11.1 should be re-written. I don't think -WEB- releases are made from
|
|
MP3s, are they? If so, that sounds like a re-encode, which would violate rule
|
|
13 below as well as the note directly below 11.1. Section 1 had it right
|
|
assuming CDDA or better, or do you mean releases *consisting* of MP3s
|
|
purchased online?
|
|
-Typographical error (unmodifed).
|
|
-Lame 3.98 offers better encode quality over 3.97 (high bitrate too!). See:
|
|
|
|
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=55767
|
|
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=56778
|
|
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=55697
|
|
|
|
When this encoder becomes final, rules should be re-written to allow it to be
|
|
used, in order to produce the best quality MP3s.
|
|
Lame 3.90 as much as it is historic and revolutionary, considering it allowed
|
|
us to utilize the -aps system, should be retired at this point. It's a dinosaur
|
|
in the land of encoders these days.
|
|
-Point 11.2 would be a spot to emphasize rippers to check their encoding
|
|
parameters. Many people mess up in EAC by choosing LAME MP3 Encoder in the
|
|
encoder section, causing a minimum bitrate to be applied. It should be
|
|
User Defined Encoder.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
12. Promos
|
|
If a release is considered not to have every track from the source
|
|
then it must be labeled as a promo and can be duped by any legitimate
|
|
retail release that DOES contain all tracks. The legitimate release
|
|
can be identified by the CAT number, or more suitable proof.
|
|
|
|
Promos do not have to contain track listings, they are promotional
|
|
material, they are not considered legitimate releases, and are still
|
|
governed by quality rules.
|
|
|
|
If you release a promo when the retail is already out then you must
|
|
provide proof that this promo is real to make sure this is not a
|
|
selfmade "promo".
|
|
|
|
to reduce amount of fakes:
|
|
A one track promo single release must include cover scans/photos.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Clarify one track scan/photo rule. Does this apply to promos only?
|
|
What about one track retail releases or a single bonus track for
|
|
a retail album? I've seen some unnukes stating that the scan/photo
|
|
rule for a single track release only applies to Promo releases,
|
|
which shows the confusion regarding this rule. Also note this
|
|
scan rule is under the 'Promos' section, further causing
|
|
confusion.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
13. Re-encodes are not allowed.
|
|
Exception: releases of following sources are currently allowed if
|
|
they are tagged correctly:
|
|
DVD, DAB, DVBC/DVBS/DVBT/SAT (compressed digital tv/radio
|
|
sat,cable,terrestrial), MD (live)
|
|
|
|
14. All bootleg releases must have the word BOOTLEG in dirname
|
|
A bootleg recording is a cd/vinyl/dvd that was not officially
|
|
released by the person/company owning the rights to do that (for
|
|
example streetmixes, pirate live cds, etc).
|
|
|
|
Because very often it's not 100% clear if something is bootleg there
|
|
are conditions when we assume something is or isn't bootleg. This is
|
|
not a defnition of "bootleg" and if a condition is not true then it
|
|
does not mean the opposite is true. This only helps nukers and groups
|
|
to decide if a bootleg tag is needed and hopefully leads to more fair
|
|
nuking.
|
|
|
|
conditions for:
|
|
[records done completely by the artist] (no samples from other
|
|
artists)
|
|
It's bootleg if ...
|
|
- there are no signs that the label really released this
|
|
- the "label" has no connection to the artist
|
|
(independent releases (no label, own label) are allowed and don't
|
|
need a bootleg tag)
|
|
|
|
even if the conditions above are true it is NOT bootleg if:
|
|
- the record is available at at least 3 major retail shops
|
|
|
|
conditions for:
|
|
[mixes] (samples of other artists included)
|
|
It's not bootleg if ...
|
|
- the record is available at at least 3 major retail shops
|
|
- the label exists and lists the record and the label never released
|
|
any bootlegs and released stuff that was available at major retail
|
|
shops
|
|
- the artist or label of the samples confirms this release is valid
|
|
(on their webpage or some other trusted place)
|
|
|
|
"major retail shops" currently are:
|
|
www.amazon.com (.de, .fr ...)
|
|
www.bestbuy.com
|
|
www.walmart.com
|
|
www.cduniverse.com
|
|
www.virginmegastores.co.uk (.gr, .fr, .jp) (US shop excluded)
|
|
www.sonymusicstore.com
|
|
www.juno.co.uk
|
|
www.deejay.de
|
|
www.ukdancerecords.com
|
|
www.dancegrooves.com
|
|
www.threebeatrecords.co.uk
|
|
www.4djsonly.com
|
|
|
|
The shop itself must sell the record (no private sellers).
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-This section needs to be clarified so everyone understands what exactly
|
|
bootleg is. From what I understand, it's a cd/vinyl/dvd that was not
|
|
officially released by the person/company owning the rights, as stated
|
|
in the first paragraph. But many people just seem to skip over this
|
|
and go to the latter part of this section and check if it's available
|
|
at the listed http sites. If it is not, a release gets nuked as
|
|
mislabeled bootleg. Someone might want to highlight the indie
|
|
label/artist section in caps, bold, asterisks, etc.
|
|
-The 2nd paragraph is a mess. '...if a condition is not true then it
|
|
does not mean the opposite is true.' Opposite of what? There are too many
|
|
pronouns causing ambiguity. Also, there is a typo (defnition).
|
|
-Typographical error (available at at).
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
15. FREE MP3s
|
|
If music in mp3 format in acceptable quality (CBR 192kbit minimum) or
|
|
files in a lossless format (wav/flac/...) are legally available for
|
|
download on the net at no cost (artist / record company allows it)
|
|
then it's NOT allowed to release those files or mp3s of the same
|
|
tracks you made from this or other sources (cd/vinyl/...).
|
|
|
|
16. SOURCE
|
|
The tracks of a release must all be from the same source and have the
|
|
same quality/cbr-bitrate/vbr-setting/encoder/setting. Taking tracks
|
|
from other scene releases or internal group releases of other groups
|
|
is strictly forbidden.
|
|
If the source is not a pressed CDDA then the directory name needs a
|
|
valid source tag. Valid tags are listed below.
|
|
|
|
=RETAIL SOURCES=
|
|
[CD SINGLE] (pressed CDDA)
|
|
dirtag needed: -CDS- or -CDM-
|
|
|
|
[CD ALBUM] (pressed CDDA)
|
|
dirtag needed: none
|
|
dirtag suggested: -CDA- (-2CDA- -3CDA- etc.)
|
|
|
|
[CD OTHER] (pressed CDDA)
|
|
dirtag needed: none
|
|
dirtag suggested: -CD- (-2CD- -3CD- etc.), -CDEP-
|
|
|
|
[VINYL SINGLE]
|
|
dirtag needed: -VLS- or -VINYL-
|
|
dirtag suggested: -VLS-
|
|
|
|
[VINYL ALBUM]
|
|
dirtag needed: -LP- or -VINYL-
|
|
dirtag suggested: -LP-
|
|
|
|
[VINYL OTHER]
|
|
dirtag needed: -VINYL-
|
|
|
|
[DVD] (pressed video DVD)
|
|
dirtag needed: -DVD- (-2DVD- -3DVD- etc.)
|
|
extra nfo info needed:
|
|
- codec of source (AC3, PCM, MPG, DTS),
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
[DVD SINGLE] (pressed video DVD)]
|
|
dirtag needed: -DVDS- or -DVD-
|
|
dirtag suggested: -DVDS-
|
|
extra nfo info needed:
|
|
- codec of source (AC3, PCM, MPG, DTS),
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
[DVDA] (PCM data of a pressed DVDA, not audio of a video DVD!)
|
|
dirtag needed: -DVDA- (-2DVDA- -3DVDA- etc.)
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
[SACD]
|
|
dirtag needed: -SACD- (-2SACD- -3SACD- etc.)
|
|
|
|
[HD DVD] (pressed)
|
|
dirtag needed: -HDDVD- (-2HDDVD- -3HDDVD- etc.)
|
|
- codec of source (AC3, DD+, PCM, MPG, DTS, DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD)
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
[BLU-RAY DISC] (pressed)
|
|
dirtag needed: -BD- (-2BD- -3BD- etc.)
|
|
- codec of source (AC3, DD+, PCM, MPG, DTS, DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD)
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
=LIVE SOURCES=
|
|
[ANALOG RADIO] (terrestrial)
|
|
dirtag needed: -FM-
|
|
|
|
[ANALOG CABLE]
|
|
dirtag needed: -CABLE-
|
|
|
|
[ANALOG OR DIGITAL SAT]
|
|
dirtag needed: -SAT-
|
|
|
|
[DIGITAL VIDEO BROADCAST SAT]
|
|
dirtag needed: -DVBS-
|
|
|
|
[DIGITAL VIDEO BROADCAST CABLE]
|
|
dirtag needed: -DVBC-
|
|
|
|
[DIGITAL VIDEO BROADCAST TERRESTRIAL]
|
|
dirtag needed: -DVBT-
|
|
|
|
[DIGITAL AUDIO BROADCAST]
|
|
dirtag needed: -DAB-
|
|
|
|
[MD] (MiniDisc)
|
|
dirtag needed: -MD-
|
|
|
|
[direct recording by the ripper from soundboard/mixer through the
|
|
LINE-in interface]
|
|
dirtag needed: -LINE-
|
|
|
|
[MP3 FILE supplied by a radio station or DJ] (and not recorded from
|
|
a webstream)
|
|
dirtag needed: -SBD-
|
|
|
|
[WEBSTREAM] (not allowed, so must be released internally)
|
|
dirtag needed: -STREAM-
|
|
|
|
=OTHER SOURCES=
|
|
[WEB] - audio files legally available on the net and not free
|
|
dirtag needed: -WEB-
|
|
extra nfo info needed:
|
|
- codec of source (MP3, PCM, ...),
|
|
- bitrate of source file (if not PCM/WAV),
|
|
- URL to some shop where it's available in that format
|
|
|
|
[CDR] (small label/artist releasing CDDA on CDR pr LIVE set supplied
|
|
on CDR)
|
|
dirtag needed: -CDR- (-2CDR- -3CDR- etc.)
|
|
|
|
[DVDR] (small label/artist releasing on DVDR)
|
|
dirtag needed: -DVDR- (-2DVDR- -3DVDR- etc.)
|
|
extra nfo info needed:
|
|
- codec of source (AC3, PCM, MPG, DTS),
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
[HD DVD RECORDABLE]
|
|
dirtag needed: -HDDVDR- (-2HDDVDR- -3HDDVDR- etc.)
|
|
- codec of source (AC3, DD+, PCM, MPG, DTS, DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD)
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
[BLU-RAY DISC RECORDABLE]
|
|
dirtag needed: -BDR- (-2BDR- -3BDR- etc.)
|
|
- codec of source (AC3, DD+, PCM, MPG, DTS, DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD)
|
|
- number of channels of source (stereo, 5.1, ...)
|
|
|
|
[DAT TAPE]
|
|
dirtag needed: -DAT-
|
|
|
|
[ANALOG TAPE]
|
|
dirtag needed: -TAPE-
|
|
|
|
[HOMEMADE] (done by a groupmember or close friend)
|
|
dirtag needed: -HOMEMADE-
|
|
|
|
[UNKNOWN]
|
|
dirtag needed: -BOOTLEG-
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other "sources" are invalid source tags (-LIVE- , -EP-, ...).
|
|
Which means you need a second tag for the source if you use those
|
|
tags (except for CDs which don't need a source tag).
|
|
|
|
A SBD release is not allowed if it could be a re-encode/repack of the
|
|
same show streamed or downloaded free from inet. If a free broadcast
|
|
or download is/was available with 160kbit CBR or better then it's not
|
|
allowed to do a SBD release.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-I know a few groups that miss some required information from the
|
|
source. For example, they may list the codec of source, but omit the
|
|
number of channels of the source, or do the opposite. Some just
|
|
forget to include this info at all. I assume a proper release with
|
|
the correct info is allowed? What about -WEB- releases omitting the
|
|
webshop url?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
17. Trackfixes
|
|
Only one trackfix per release is allowed. If the release needs a
|
|
second trackfix or more than 50% of the tracks need a fix then you
|
|
must re-rip the whole release and all previous releases+dir/nfofixes
|
|
getting nuked.
|
|
A 1-track fix for a 2-track release is allowed (=50% and not "more
|
|
than 50%").
|
|
|
|
18. ID3 Tags
|
|
All mp3 files need an ID3 v1.1 tag. This tag must include Artist,
|
|
Title and Album (see Note #3). The fields Year, Genre and Tracknumber
|
|
must be present but may not be nuked if incorrect.
|
|
An additional ID3 v2 tag is allowed and recommended.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-I don't see a reason why ID3v2 tags should not be required? The standard
|
|
is almost 10 years old now. Virtually everything supports it. Don't
|
|
you find it annoying when a track name is cut short from the ID3 tags
|
|
because the release only has ID3v1 tags?
|
|
-What if a release has the correct filenames, but the ID3 fields for
|
|
artist, tracknumber and title are all incorrect? An odd occurence since
|
|
most groups name their filenames as track-artist-title, but this recently
|
|
happened to a release, so this issue must be addressed.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
19. LIVE release quality
|
|
1. The set must be complete. This means that every part of the show
|
|
must be released, and the beginning and end must be included in
|
|
their entirety. A set may not miss more than 1 minute from begin
|
|
or end.
|
|
2. All commercials must be edited out.
|
|
3. DJ talk can be included to a certain extent: track announcements
|
|
and short lines from the DJ should not be removed; interviews
|
|
and other long talk should be removed (or included in a separate
|
|
file if it's special).
|
|
4. It is encouraged to fade-in and fade-out the set. However, lack
|
|
of fades constitutes no proper reason.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-I'm not a Live ripper, so I can't speak for any of the rules for that
|
|
segment. We'll leave it to those who specialize in them to debate the
|
|
rules.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
1. Releases with an apparently incorrect year may not be nuked. However
|
|
the year should be correct of course. Keep in mind that a lot of
|
|
sites nuke for fake year when it's incorrect. (The Year in dirname is
|
|
not the year when you released it but when the record company/artist
|
|
published it!)
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-It takes me less than 20 seconds on Google
|
|
to find the release year for many albums. Some groups will just tag
|
|
an incorrect year, most likely to the current year or something ahead
|
|
of its actual year so their stats look better/spreads more. Also, many
|
|
CDs/DVDs have a copyright year imprinted on them, which is something
|
|
to go by. I know some albums are impossible to find a release year
|
|
(I've been there), which is probably why this note exists, but I felt
|
|
it should be addressed so others can elaborate on it.
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
2. If a release labeled as "advance" is identical to the retail version
|
|
then the advance turns into a retail release. This means then it is
|
|
not allowed to dupe it and it counts as retail for ALL rules. If the
|
|
retail is different then of course it's allowed to release it.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-This note is vague. Different in what way? What if the retail has less
|
|
tracks than the advance and all the tracks in the retail version are
|
|
already included in the advance? What if it has more? What if the extra
|
|
tracks are already included in an old CDM/CDS. I understand that
|
|
rule 7 has been re-worded to include promo/advances, but they haven't
|
|
addressed the opposite situation of Promo/Advance vs. Retail. What if
|
|
the average bitrate of a retail is higher than an advance? Does this section
|
|
also apply to promos of upcoming retail albums?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
3. Typos (in dirname, trackname, id3, etc ...) are tolerated if it still
|
|
is readable and either artist or title is 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Any typos/misspelling of the artist, song title or track number should
|
|
not be allowed at all. Yes, I know people are in a rush to release things
|
|
these days, but why should we should we sacrifice the accuracy of our
|
|
typing when we spend so much time focusing on proper encoding and
|
|
packing. Seems like a weak spot in the rules. Since late 2004, RNS hands
|
|
down had the best tagging of any group; very rarely did they have typos
|
|
in their tagging. Why can't others do the same? The rules for encoding
|
|
and filenaming are already strict, why be lax on the typing? I understand
|
|
that many people who rip stuff may not be familiar with the music they
|
|
are doing, or the covers have them wrong, which is probably why this note
|
|
is here, but I just find it unacceptable when a mainstream album,
|
|
which the ripper should know is a big release, has typos in them, when
|
|
it's almost certain the covers have them correctly. This is especially
|
|
true for any album released on the big labels. Perhaps an exception
|
|
should if the covers themselves mess it up and the group can supply proof?
|
|
But seriously, I hate how some of the releases have obvious typos that
|
|
should have been corrected. A good example of this would be to do
|
|
!dupe form. Many of these releases actually mean from. Perhaps a way to
|
|
solve this issue is to allow a proper with the correct spelling and
|
|
supplied proof to make sure they didn't retag the old release and release
|
|
as their own?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
4. The audio of a normal video DVD is *NOT* DVDA ! The audio of a DVD
|
|
usually is MP2/AC3/DTS compressed (lossy) while the audio of a real
|
|
DVDA is high quality PCM (lossless, e.g. 24bit/192khz). Tagging a
|
|
normal DVD release as -DVDA- will get nuked.
|
|
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Rebuttal:
|
|
-Technically speaking, LPCM 16bit/48 KHz is a valid mode for DVD-A, which
|
|
is a format also found on DVD Video. Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-A
|
|
Perhaps omitting the 2nd sentence and replacing it with something stating
|
|
any release sourced from a DVD Video Disc tagged as DVDA will get nuked?
|
|
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
Addendum:
|
|
|
|
The ruleset should have a section describing Propers, similar to what the
|
|
TXD2K5 and TDR2K5 rulesets have. What constitutes a valid proper? An
|
|
invalid proper? What about regarding rips with flaws released under an
|
|
older ruleset? Another issue on deck, what constitutes a valid nuke?
|
|
I assume any violation of the ruleset? I know many groups get quite
|
|
grouchy when they are nuked, so I feel it should be precisely explained
|
|
what will get you nuked, and what will not get you nuked.
|
|
|
|
I hope my points spark up talk and debate amongst the MP3 Scene so we all
|
|
can make the MP3 scene a better place to be and kick up the quality another notch.
|
|
None of my points are meant to be the ultimate fixes or the final say of a point,
|
|
but I do wish to encourage change and advancement in the ailing MP3 Scene. I
|
|
probably left out a few points I wanted to mention, but considering the
|
|
fact I wrote this entire article in one sitting, I guess that's just fine.
|
|
This Took approximately 6.5 hours to complete. I believe
|
|
I have typed more than 2,800 words, a little over 3/4 of what the current
|
|
ruleset comprises of. My objective was to raise certain points and issues
|
|
in the current ruleset. Since no one else seems to have the will to say
|
|
anything and give the rules a good read, I feel that I have pointed out
|
|
most issues in the current ruleset. Perhaps next revision will see
|
|
some changes in the rules ;). May the audio scene prosper!
|
|
Yes, MP3s are probably one of the easier releases to do on the scene, but
|
|
if the MP3 scene is so easy, why is it on a daily
|
|
basis people screw up releases? I tried to keep a NPOV and address issues
|
|
as a whole, but I'm pretty sure I wandered off at a few points; for that
|
|
I'm sorry. Compared to the rest of the sections in the warez scene, MP3s
|
|
seem to hold a low quality point, which is ironic since they are quite simple
|
|
to do and should be held to higher standards. I know some rules are carried
|
|
over from tradition and old roots, kind of like how 0day still utilizes
|
|
.diz files. But I feel that some of the rules (mp3/cue for example) are quite
|
|
outdated and need to be removed. The MP3 scene also needs to keep pace with
|
|
technology and encoder development (Hydrogen Audio is a good place to start)
|
|
in order to keep our end releases at the very best quality they can be. C'mon
|
|
guys, this is the scene! Let's keep our hobby alive and the quality up.
|
|
But don't forget, nothing can replace the original!
|
|
|
|
On a side note, there seems to be a lack of progress outside of the general
|
|
audio scene other than MP3. There are other formats other than MP3, you know.
|
|
Sooner or later, a successor to MP3 will emerge. Not in the near future, but
|
|
MP3s will be surpassed by better lossy compression eventually. People should
|
|
start to experiment and keep pace with the ever-changing encoding technology
|
|
to ensure an HQ copy. As for lossless encoding, I'm surprised that FLAC hasn't
|
|
gotten any rap at all. Most people could not tell the difference between
|
|
a -V2 MP3 and a FLAC encode, but I believe the choice should be there for the
|
|
taking. I personally have some nice gear (hts.jpg) where it is quite easy to
|
|
distinguish a -V2 MP3 from it's CDDA original (I also base my quality claims
|
|
of the Lame revisions through the headphones and system pictured).
|
|
I know most people don't have such equipment, but I can compare compressed
|
|
lossless audio to what the current X264 HD scene it, simple an awesome upgrade
|
|
if you care for it. Plus, equipment gets better every year, soon today's
|
|
current standard may feel inadequate a few years down the raod.
|
|
I feel the audio scene should spread its wings and atleast
|
|
start a FLAC section, as it seems to be the most dominant compressed lossless
|
|
codec of choice. They certainly don't have to be pre-releases; just something
|
|
that is available to us. FLAC contrasts with DVD9 releases as it is actually
|
|
smaller than the original, but using lossless encoding methods it's just like
|
|
a 1:1 copy. If DVD9s are regularly traded and released on the scene, why can't
|
|
a 1:1 copy of an audio cd come out occasionally. Again, most people can't
|
|
justify the 350+MB jump in space for a single release, but it should
|
|
atleast be available for us. Let sites decide if they want to add that
|
|
section. I hope this put ideas of the brains of many people. Maybe we can
|
|
actually start to see some variety in audio choices, especially for the
|
|
discerning audiophile.
|
|
|
|
V1.1 Rebuttal active since 2007-09-21, signed by:
|
|
|
|
Me,
|
|
Myself
|
|
And I.
|
|
</pre>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|