MFSL Ultradisc finally as a series

Looks like 8 year old thread. Before that page was added, I didn't seeing anything created for it. Was there ever a consensus?

Tagging from that linked thread: Diognes_The_Fox

mkus hey brother, thanks for bringing this up. Yeah, I figured it was about time. I was doing some work that had to do with MoFi and the Ultradisc I series, and when I looked for it here in the database, it wasn't here, so I went ahead and created it. It should actually be "Ultradisc I" because that is what the series is called by the record company, and when contributors do submissions, they probably won't be looking for "Ultradisc (3)" ... just my thoughts.

Unfortunately, I do not think we can call it "Ultradisc I" if it doesn't actually say that on any release.

PeacocksRecords
mkus hey brother, thanks for bringing this up. Yeah, I figured it was about time. I was doing some work that had to do with MoFi and the Ultradisc I series, and when I looked for it here in the database, it wasn't here, so I went ahead and created it. It should actually be "Ultradisc I" because that is what the series is called by the record company, and when contributors do submissions, they probably won't be looking for "Ultradisc (3)" ... just my thoughts.

Hello! Can you link to where Mobile Fidelity calls it that? On the actual releases themselves, it is just "Ultradisc", as progcode just mentioned. There probably needs to be a consensus on this, as far as I understand...

progcode sorry, I was away from the computer. Made a phone call to the "horses mouth', and that's correct, we should just call it "Ultradisc". So then the series should be submitted as "Ultradisc (4)" [(2) and (3) already exist]. Let's all confirm that and then I'll make the corrections

oh so now it's suddenly a valid Series again?

mkus
33anda3rdRecordsmkus hey brother, thanks for bringing this up. Yeah, I figured it was about time. I was doing some work that had to do with MoFi and the Ultradisc I series, and when I looked for it here in the database, it wasn't here, so I went ahead and created it. It should actually be "Ultradisc I" because that is what the series is called by the record company, and when contributors do submissions, they probably won't be looking for "Ultradisc (3)" ... just my thoughts.
Hello! Can you link to where Mobile Fidelity calls it that? On the actual releases themselves, it is just "Ultradisc", as progcode just mentioned. There probably needs to be a consensus on this, as far as I understand...

My point exactly. As far as I'm aware the made in Japan Gold CD's were Ultradisc and when production moved to the USA they became the Ultradisc II not 2.

GroovingPict
oh so now it's suddenly a valid Series again?

GroovingPict is correct that this has been debated before. I can't say I know what the most recent consensus was. Here are some old threads about it. https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/779427?message_id=7730918#7730918

Please find the thread that says there was consensus that they are not valid series.

here is one of mine where it was removed, with a link to a discussion: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/7835064-Reckless/history#latest

GroovingPict
here is one of mine where it was removed, with a link to a discussion: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/7835064-Reckless/history#latest

It is not removed in that one. And the link is to the first of those two threads. Am I overlooking it? I do not see a consensus that says these are not valid series.

See my first post, I linked a discussion there. Mofi refers to Ultradisc as a series here:
https://mofi.com/pages/history

mkus
See my first post, I linked a discussion there. Mofi refers to Ultradisc as a series here:
https://mofi.com/pages/history

Yeah that is also the same thread I just mentioned.

By the way, on that Mofi page, only Ultradisc UHR SACD and Anadisq 200 are referred to as a series. Common sense would also apply this to the Ultradisc gold discs as well. I don't understand why not. Ultradisc II, Ultradisc UHR and Anadisq 200 all have pages here and are being actively used. I was just wondering if it should be just "Ultradisc" instead of "Ultradisc 1", that's all.

progcode, sorry I didn't check what you linked!

Ultradisc (I): Ultradisc I
Ultradisc II: Ultradisc II

Maybe Ultradisc (I) should just be called Ultradisc.

Removal of both series does not make any sense in my opinion even if not 100 % in line with the guidelines.

Kind regards

enter-disc
series

The creation of a new series and the subsequent mass edit that this implies still requires a forum

To be consistent (with II) Ultradisc also needs a series, I'm not overly concerned with the name since the ideal of 'Ultradisc' is not possible and the 'unfortunate' possibility (a few years ago) of 'Ultradisc (2)' is also now taken.

I don't think 'Ultradisc (4)' is ideal either, but it's better than nothing.

Any chance to change "Ultradisc" to "Ultradisc (4)" apart from changing all 60 releases?

Thanx in advance.

Kind regards

enter-disc

Ultradisc (4) better than Ultradisc I?

Thanx in advance.

Kind regards

enter-disc

enter-disc
Any chance to change "Ultradisc" to "Ultradisc (4)" apart from changing all 60 releases?

Thanx in advance.

Kind regards

enter-disc

No. And it should not be changed as it’s a established and correct page.

It’s not called a series on the linked mofi page.

Every word you wrote is nonsense in my opinion.

Thanx in advance.

Kind regards

enter-disc

Regardless of the question whether such a series makes sense or is correct in of content, in my opinion it cannot be that a series bears an addition ("I") that doesn’t exist either in the logo or on a release.
Therefore, I propose to invalidate the series.

enter-disc
Every word you wrote is nonsense in my opinion.

Thanx in advance.

Kind regards

enter-disc

Why do you think it is reasonable to move a company from Ultradisc just to make Ultradisc a series? What guidelines do such a move? Why is a series more deservant of a unnumbered possision in the database than a company?

Why is it nonsense to point out that mofi don’t call Ultradisc a series on the linked page? Please quote where it is in fact called a series if I missed it.

F56
Regardless of the question whether such a series makes sense or is correct in of content, in my opinion it cannot be that a series bears an addition ("I") that doesn’t exist either in the logo or on a release.
Therefore, I propose to invalidate the series.

Very much this.

Regardless the series, it should be called Ultradisc without "l,". So, I agree with PeacocksRecords's initiative.
On the other hand, the Original Master Recording series (or banners) - and so on - already exist.. So it makes sense to me.

However, I reiterate that a created series implies a mass edit: that's why it should be discussed first.

enter-disc
Every word you wrote is nonsense in my opinion

Please deal with the rules. Thx

enter-disc
Ultradisc (4) better than Ultradisc I?

why not? An example: Jazz Classics (4)

jooprm
Regardless the series, it should be called Ultradisc without "l,".

This

Guys… I don’t know why these things always have to turn into something so “exhausting”, I mean discussion is a good thing, but especially after a solid answer has been given, there’s no need to even debate anymore.

Ultradisc II is a series (according to MoFi)
If UD II is a series, then so is “Ultradisc”
“Ultradisc” is also a series according to MoFi
Ultradisc UHR is a series (SACD)

EnergyAudio is correct in his differentiation

The company changed from Ultradisc to Ultradisc II when the process used in the Japanese mfg. changed with the move to a slightly different process and higher 24kt gold application with a different company here in the U.S. … calling it Ultradisc II

For those saying that it says nothing about it on the Mobile Fidelity webpage, why would it? These series are not currently in production and haven’t been for a while.

For those not seeing my second post here in this thread and for those who “need proof”, I simply made a personal phone call to the person(s) who could give me clear definition (people who have been at the record company at the time Ultradisc was a current thing) and I got the answer

It’s so simple
Ultradisc is a series like any of the others.

But, since “Ultradisc” has already been taken by another entity, I believe the only option is to create “Ultradisc (4)” and then put all the information (including a valid image for reference) on that page, and then when people are doing submissions for an “Ultradisc” release, they’ll be able to see which is the right one to choose.

100% perfect but Ultradisc (4) better than Ultradisc I?

PeacocksRecords
But, since “Ultradisc” has already been taken by another entity, I believe the only option is to create “Ultradisc (4)” and then put all the information (including a valid image for reference) on that page, and then when people are doing submissions for an “Ultradisc” release, they’ll be able to see which is the right one to choose.

Now you are on a good way

PeacocksRecords
“Ultradisc (4)”

exactly +1

enter-disc
Ultradisc (4) better than Ultradisc I

it's not a question of better or not. The next option is Ultradisc (4) and not Ultradisc l. That's simply Ultradisc as reported on the official logo.
So Ultradisc (4): nothing more
See pics >> https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/2343470-Cannonball-Adderley-Somethin-Else/image/SW1hZ2U6MjY3MzE4MDU=

enter-disc
100% perfect but Ultradisc (4) better than Ultradisc I?

mkus brought to my attention that technically Ultradisc I is simply referred to as Ultradisc (on all respective MoFi releases) and so it should only be called Ultradisc

I then confirmed that with MoFi themselves. :-)

jooprm
enter-discUltradisc (4) better than Ultradisc I
it's not a question of better or not. The next option is Ultradisc (4) and not Ultradisc l. That's simply Ultradisc as reported on the official logo.
So Ultradisc (4): nothing more
See pics >> https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/2343470-Cannonball-Adderley-Somethin-Else/image/SW1hZ2U6MjY3MzE4MDU=

jooprm YESSS exactly.

F56
33anda3rdRecords
Now you are on a good way

;-)

PeacocksRecords
I believe the only option is to create “Ultradisc (4)”

+1

Or rename both series to Ultrad!sc as per logos :-)

luetgewatz
Ultrad!sc

I never noticed that and I've owned a lot of these for over 20 years... just shows a new pair of eyes can lead to surprising observations.

luetgewatz
Or rename both series to Ultrad!sc as per logos :-)

would be a nice finesse, but many would be wrong :-)
Any way, it would be necessary to describe the serie's profile in detail

jooprm
So Ultradisc (4): nothing more

Yesss

PeacocksRecords
“Ultradisc (4)”

+1
Ultradisc (4) seems to be the consensus.

luetgewatz

Or rename both series to Ultrad!sc as per logos :-)

That would be cool LOL... but, no one would even think of searching it that way.. Cool idea though

Ultradisc (4) it is

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/de/search/?q=ultrad!sc&type=all

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/de/search/?q=ultrad!sc&type=all

..and yes: the normal word Ultradisc in the "series" field accompanied by Ultrad ! sc in the notes would be perfect

I sincerely doubt that Mobile Fidelity actually meant the i in Ultradisc to be an "!" .... this is just a design thing. It looks that way across every Ultradisc logo, so this is not special, and therefore doesn't need to be explained or pointed out in an entry's release notes. But, like almost everyone else, I never really noticed that before!

Anyway, thank you PeacocksRecords !

Correction: it is a solid "I" in the post-2000 Ultradisc (new owner) discs.... see Fragile. So I stand corrected! I guess that would be fine to point out in the notes, but I don't think it's hugely important. In other words, probably not good to add only that info as part of a mass edit, but maybe as part of other edits to a single entry. But again, I don't see adding this info to notes as critical. It would be better to point out in the series page instead.

mkus
point out in the series page instead.

+1

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/de/release/1826274-Joe-Jackson-Will-Power

EDIT: Went ahead and moved info over from Ultradisc (4)

mkus
We should have just edited what was already there

You can't change the name of a profile on Discogs, you have to create a new one and invalidate the old one,

The profile will need to be copied over.

* deleted *

Yeah, I believe (maybe someone can confirm) that when there ceases to be any release associated with a "page", it deletes itself. Am I correct on that?

F56
Regardless of the question whether such a series makes sense or is correct in of content, in my opinion it cannot be that a series bears an addition ("I") that doesn’t exist either in the logo or on a release.
Therefore, I propose to invalidate the series.

Silvermo
Very much this.

+1

PeacocksRecords
Yeah, I believe (maybe someone can confirm) that when there ceases to be any release associated with a "page", it deletes itself. Am I correct on that?

Yep, that's what happened after editing in the new series page to the handful of entries that used the old page. The old page was instantly deleted.