Open Year of Release visibility

[Stephen Healy]

The release year of an album is only shown on the single album screen but not on the album overview screen, queue screen or 'now playing' screen.

The suggestion would be to have the release year more visible preferably in all screen modes.

 

[thebiglebowski]

Think this was my request from the old site so

bump

 

[Stephen Healy]

I believe this feature is planned for the next major update

 

[Fitman-NJ]

I believe this feature is planned for the next major update

May I ask -- by "release year," is this referring to the year a CD/HighRes recording was released, or is it when the originally-recorded material was released? I'm not too fond of Beatles/other classic rock recordings having release years of 2014...

 

[Malc.]

May I ask -- by "release year," is this referring to the year a CD/HighRes recording was released, or is it when the originally-recorded material was released? I'm not too fond of Beatles/other classic rock recordings having release years of 2014...

I think this issue is not really all that straightforward, a release by say the Beatles will have the original year of release, the year that alternative formats, CD/hi res, became available, the various remasters dates, then the re imagined/restructured releases. With somebody like the Beatles this could be quite a list with potential for error. To me these dates are of interest because some masters/remasters are more desirable than others and it may not be the most recent that's best. Also interpreting available metadata is a bit of a minefield.

 

[Stephen Healy]

May I ask -- by "release year," is this referring to the year a CD/HighRes recording was released, or is it when the originally-recorded material was released? I'm not too fond of Beatles/other classic rock recordings having release years of 2014...

In the case of local files, this will be down to the metadata on the music files themselves. The good news is that you can edit this to how you please.
As for streaming service, i checked with an artist on Qobuz. The year of release was faithful to the original year, so even 10th/20th anniversary/re-releases of albums were still assigned the original year.
Remasters, anniversaries and so on, are better off signposted in the album title.

 

[Malc.]

In the case of local files, this will be down to the metadata on the music files themselves. The good news is that you can edit this to how you please.
As for streaming service, i checked with an artist on Qobuz. The year of release was faithful to the original year, so even 10th/20th anniversary/re-releases of albums were still assigned the original year.
Remasters, anniversaries and so on, are better off signposted in the album title.

I think you will find Qobuz are inconsistent in terms of assigning the original year of release and remasters/anniversaries are not always sign posted in the album title. For example if you look at Chicago's self titled first album Qobuz has three versions, 1) 16/44 version assigned correct release year of 1969, also signposted as a 2002 remaster in title, 2) 24/192 version assigned release date of 2013, nothing signposted in title, 3) 24/192 version assigned release date of 2019, 50th anniversary remix signposted in title.
The last version should be avoided at all costs, a dreadful remaster. I could give you other examples from my saved Qobuz albums, it really isn't as easy as it seems.

 

[Fitman-NJ]

In the case of local files, this will be down to the metadata on the music files themselves. The good news is that you can edit this to how you please.
As for streaming service, i checked with an artist on Qobuz. The year of release was faithful to the original year, so even 10th/20th anniversary/re-releases of albums were still assigned the original year.
Remasters, anniversaries and so on, are better off signposted in the album title.

Thanks for the specifics on this. I'm dealing with purely local files and have indeed done some release date editing (original), but I wish I didn't have to do the research to determine what that is when it's clearly something else. I understand that the metadata determines which date appears, though...

 

[Fitman-NJ]

I think you will find Qobuz are inconsistent in terms of assigning the original year of release and remasters/anniversaries are not always sign posted in the album title. For example if you look at Chicago's self titled first album Qobuz has three versions, 1) 16/44 version assigned correct release year of 1969, also signposted as a 2002 remaster in title, 2) 24/192 version assigned release date of 2013, nothing signposted in title, 3) 24/192 version assigned release date of 2019, 50th anniversary remix signposted in title.
The last version should be avoided at all costs, a dreadful remaster. I could give you other examples from my saved Qobuz albums, it really isn't as easy as it seems.

I totally agree regarding Chicago I...that 2019 version was a total bomb! I purchased a second version, 24/96. It's better mastered, but still not great in my estimation. I don't recall where I purchased it off-hand, though. I don't know of a reliable source for information on master quality, and I guess that could become quite subjective depending on who's judging the quality. Perhaps you can go on reputation -- Steven Wilson seems to be respected in the field, and his Yes remixes sound pretty good to me. But in general, I don't know of anywhere to go to get reliable information of the quality of masters...and in my experience, this has been much more telling than bit depth and sampling rates. Do you? I don't stream, so I'm dealing purely in digital file downloads.

 

[Malc.]

I totally agree regarding Chicago I...that 2019 version was a total bomb! I purchased a second version, 24/92. It's better mastered, but still not great in my estimation. I don't recall where I purchased it off-hand, though. I don't know of a reliable source for information on master quality, and I guess that could become quite subjective depending on who's judging the quality. Perhaps you can go on reputation -- Steven Wilson seems to be respected in the field, and his Yes remixes sound pretty good to me. But in general, I don't know of anywhere to go to get reliable information of the quality of masters...and in my experience, this has been much more telling than bit depth and sampling rates. Do you? I don't stream, so I'm dealing purely in digital file downloads

Yes the second version, 2013, is really the best I know of download/streaming wise. I have a rip of a gold disc version that goes way back which I tend to play. Steve Wilson did remaster the second Chicago album and that's widely available, in general I like what he has done with King Crimson, Jethro Tull etc.
You raise the very pertinent issue, where is a reliable source for information on master quality ? I tend to use past knowledge and friends input but recently I have been having some interesting conversations with my new friend Mr A.I. You have to have your wits about you in terms of detail but in terms of trawling all available information on who mastered what and when plus feedback ob success or otherwise, it's a useful source to be treated cautiously. I also agree that the quality of a remaster is much more than increasing bit depth and sampling rates.

 

[Fitman-NJ]

Yes the second version, 2013, is really the best I know of download/streaming wise. I have a rip of a gold disc version that goes way back which I tend to play. Steve Wilson did remaster the second Chicago album and that's widely available, in general I like what he has done with King Crimson, Jethro Tull etc.
You raise the very pertinent issue, where is a reliable source for information on master quality ? I tend to use past knowledge and friends input but recently I have been having some interesting conversations with my new friend Mr A.I. You have to have your wits about you in terms of detail but in terms of trawling all available information on who mastered what and when plus feedback ob success or otherwise, it's a useful source to be treated cautiously. I also agree that the quality of a remaster is much more than increasing bit depth and sampling rates.

Ok, at least AI is something that I haven't tried myself. I'll have to explore this further.

Actually, now that I think of it, there are posts by "Headphonesty" on Facebook that often provide recommendations for well-recorded music. They usually present the recommendations in the form of a theme: "Top 25 great jazz recordings," "20 unforgettable Hi-Res recordings," etc. Ironically, I've seen comments speculating that "Headphonesty's" posts are actually generated by AI, but I don't know if that's true. I also can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of their recommendations, but I did buy Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" after having seen it mentioned several times by "Headphonesty," and it is indeed a superbly recorded album.

Just to be clear, despite their name, "Headphonesty" isn't focused only on headphone listening, but it does come up occasionally. If I see another artist that I might like in one of their lists, I'll probably take a chance. By the way, they often refer to specific releases (as you've mentioned before) that either are or aren't mastered well. Using the music file sources that I'm most familiar with (Qobuz, ProStudioMasters, and HDTracks), however, it's usually not possible to link specific "Headphonesty" recommended releases to the available music files as these sites typically don't provide much mastering/release date information. Oh, well, maybe someday...

 

[Womaz]

I would love the album release date to show the actual date and not just the year.
I think this is a pretty basic thing for a music app to have and it helps when sorting the album display order.

 

[Malc.]

Ok, at least AI is something that I haven't tried myself. I'll have to explore this further.

Actually, now that I think of it, there are posts by "Headphonesty" on Facebook that often provide recommendations for well-recorded music. They usually present the recommendations in the form of a theme: "Top 25 great jazz recordings," "20 unforgettable Hi-Res recordings," etc. Ironically, I've seen comments speculating that "Headphonesty's" posts are actually generated by AI, but I don't know if that's true. I also can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of their recommendations, but I did buy Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" after having seen it mentioned several times by "Headphonesty," and it is indeed a superbly recorded album.

Just to be clear, despite their name, "Headphonesty" isn't focused only on headphone listening, but it does come up occasionally. If I see another artist that I might like in one of their lists, I'll probably take a chance. By the way, they often refer to specific releases (as you've mentioned before) that either are or aren't mastered well. Using the music file sources that I'm most familiar with (Qobuz, ProStudioMasters, and HDTracks), however, it's usually not possible to link specific "Headphonesty" recommended releases to the available music files as these sites typically don't provide much mastering/release date information. Oh, well, maybe someday...

Yes I'm familiar with Headphonesty, they seem to be popping up on social media more these days with their best of lists, can be an interesting read especially if don't have much knowledge of the genre. Like AI their content can be interesting but has to be seen for what it is, somebody else's point of view not fact. You do get some good recommendations, Donald Fagan is a good example, if you like Nightly check out Sunken Condos, maybe lesser known but I prefer.
So I think we are broadly in agreement, there is a information out there, it's fragmented and has to be viewed with caution.

 

[Fitman-NJ]

Yes I'm familiar with Headphonesty, they seem to be popping up on social media more these days with their best of lists, can be an interesting read especially if don't have much knowledge of the genre. Like AI their content can be interesting but has to be seen for what it is, somebody else's point of view not fact. You do get some good recommendations, Donald Fagan is a good example, if you like Nightly check out Sunken Condos, maybe lesser known but I prefer.
So I think we are broadly in agreement, there is a information out there, it's fragmented and has to be viewed with caution.

Yes, we're seeing/thinking a lot of the same stuff -- nothing definitive in this area, but a few sources to consider with caution. Thanks for mentioning Sunken Condos. I'll definitely check it out.