FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS for
alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn
v.1.2 (5/19/2007)


INTRODUCTION

To assist newcomers, the information below was put together by Vidiot, a
long-time observer and occasional participant of the
alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn and alt.binaries.sounds.mp3 newsgroups. These
are common questions asked by many casual users and first-timers to the
group.



BACKGROUND

1. Who is Whitburn?

Joel Whitburn is a dedicated music expert, writer, and publisher in Menomenee
Falls, Wisconsin. Since 1970, his company, RECORD RESEARCH
(www.recordresearch.com, 800-827-9810) publishes dozens of reference books on
the American Pop, Rock, R&B, Country, Mainstream Rock, Disco/Dance, Albums,
and other music charted by BILLBOARD magazine over the last 100+ years. His
books are indispensable references representing many thousands of hours of
work, and are highly recommended to any and all music fans, collectors, and
historians. His biographical entry on Wikipedia is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Whitburn (Who's computer is this?)



2. What is the Top 100?

Generally, this refers to the BILLBOARD Hot 100 Pop Singles chart, published
weekly in the U.S. BILLBOARD magazine since August of 1958. Prior to that,
BILLBOARD published various kinds of Top 30 and Top 40 charts, initially
based on sales of sheet music (going back to 1890), and eventually covering
78RPM records and 48RPM hit singles in the 1940s and 1950s. The BILLBOARD
charts were initially based on various criteria including sales in music
stores, jukebox plays, radio airplay, and other factors. As of the 2000s,
BILLBOARD breaks down the most popular music by several different factors,
some of which are still arcane and subject to a lot of interpretation.

Music historians argue that the BILLBOARD Hot 100 is not necessarily an
accurate gauge of the most popular songs for each year, particularly during
the 1950s and 1960s, when payola and other problems ran rampant. Good or
bad, the BILLBOARD charts remain the only widely-circulated published report
on songs that were popular across America over the last half-century --
though competing publications like CASH BOX, RECORD WORLD, and RADIO &
RECORDS often offered widely-differing viewpoints.

For more, check the Wikipedia entry here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100 (Who's computer is this?)





3. Is this group connected in any way with Record Research?

No. The Whitburn groups (alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.pop,
alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.pop.d, alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.country, and
alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.country.d, alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.lossless
and alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.repost) were all started and maintained by
music fans and collectors. None of this is done for profit. It's an
entirely volunteer effort.

There is also an additional group, alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn, which is not
carried as widely by all ISPs. Some users choose to post there due to
political disagreements. Some non-Whitburn groups (particularly
alt.binaries.sounds.m) also often have Whitburn-related posts.



4. What is the goal of the Whitburn newsgroups?

Essentially, to preserve and provide the American pop, rock, and R&B music
listed in all of the Whitburn BILLBOARD charted singles books. Also provided
are data copies of most of the BILLBOARD chart statistics, available as Excel
files. These can used as reference in many spreadsheet programs, or
converted to text or other kinds of formats that can work with all current
database programs.



5. Where did all the MP3 files originally come from?
Roughly 20,000 of them first appeared on a Korean website,
http://2000mp3.com, (Who's computer is this?) in the mid-1990s. These have reposted many times on
different newsgroups over the past decade. Many of those files have been
replaced by other users and collectors, in an effort to post the correct
single versions and also provide missing or better-sounding copies.




6. How did the Whitburn newsgroups begin?

Starting in 1998, about 15 dedicated collectors pooled their resources and
put together an MP3 collection of every song on the BILLBOARD Top 40. They
shared three goals in common in digitizing their 45s and vinyl collections::
1) bring back the old music they loved, 2) listen to the music without
wearing out the original vinyl source, and c) share the music with other
collectors.

During the early part of the 2000s, the collectors traded their music back
and forth on a peer-to-peer file sharing network. Eventually, it was decided
that posting the entire collection on the Usenet newsgroups would be a faster
way to stimulate growth and improve the collection.





7. Where do the reference numbers come from (i.e., "1968_082")?

The first four digits indicate the Year the song peaked on the BILLBOARD
charts, followed by a three-digit number indicating the song's relative Rank
based on chart success for that year, compared to all other songs that
charted. [See "How to name a Song File," below.]




8. Does this number indicate the song's commercial success or popularity in
North America?

Not necessarily. Whitburn's POP ANNUAL and COUNTRY ANNUAL books compute the
Rank number based mostly on how high the song charted. This means a song
that charted at #1 for one week will rank higher than a #2 song that stayed
at #2 for 8 weeks. (This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the
point.) Record historians and chart fans are divided on the accuracy of the
Rank numbers, but suffice it to say, it's a convenient number to use for the
collection.

Keep in mind that just because a song charted is not an indication of real
popularity, artistic merit, or anything else. The BILLBOARD charts are only
one point of view of music history. One can make a good case that there are
many non-charted songs of immense importance (particularly during the days
when BILLBOARD had no charts relating to Album Rock stations), but this is
beyond the focus of the group. [Users can find songs outside the BILLBOARD
singles on the alt.binaries.sounds "decade" groups, elsewhere on Usenet.]




9. What do the letters mean next to the numbers, such as "1999_A012" or
"2001_S034?"

An "A" before the rank number indicates the single charted only on the
AIRPLAY charts. An "S" before the rank number indicates the single charted
on the SALES charts.

A small "b" after the rank number indicates the single was a B-side of a
two-sided hit single, such as:

1970_015b - Sly & The Family Stone - Everybody Is a Star (128K M 3.01).mp3

along with the A-side:

1970_015 - Sly & The Family Stone - Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)
(128K M 4.48).mp3


A small "s" after the rank number indicates this is a stereo version of a
mono single:

1970_015s - Sly & The Family Stone - Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)
(256K JS 4.48).mp3


an "r" before the year indicates the single charted on the R&B charts, such
as:

r1965_001 - James Brown - I Feel Good [128K M 2.45]


a "d" before the year indicates the single charted on the Dance/Disco charts,
such as:

d1974_001 - B.T. Express - Express [155 VBR S 3.32]


"nc" after the year indicates the single did not chart:

1965_nc - Beatles - Michelle [256K JS 2.39]


Opinions are divided as to whether non-charting singles belong on the group,
since technically they never appeared in Joel Whitburn's POP ANNUAL books,
nor did they chart. Others believe that as long as the song is correctly
identified as a "non-charting" single, no harm is done.


Starting roughly in the mid-1980s, record labels began releasing multiple
versions of singles, including dance mixes, "clean" mixes, "explicit" mixes,
"acapella" remixes, and other variations. There is no widespread agreement
on how to identify these, but some users use lower-case letters after the
reference number (i.e.,

1996_006a - 2 Pac featuring KC & JoJo - How Do U Want It (clean).mp3 [256K JS
4.00]

1996_006b - 2 Pac featuring KC & JoJo - How Do U Want It (explicit).mp3 [256K
JS 4.00]

and so on. As long as the version is identified in the file name, the precise
numbering is open to interpretation.

Again, ideally, this only counts for BILLBOARD CHARTED singles. Some feel a
need to occasionally upload non-charting ("n/c") singles, but hard-liners
feel this strays too far from the group's stated purpose. We strongly urge
users to avoid uploading non-charting singles. Files should be correctly
named and tagged according to the established convention. Any non-hit files
should be placed on the general MP3 and Lossless "Decade" groups, which
accept music of all kinds, not just charted singles.

For MP3s, the numbers in parentheses or brackets at the very end of the
filename refer to bitrate, mono/stereo encoding method, and running time,
respectively. Example: [256K JS 3.30] would indicate a 256K MP3, encoded in
Joint Stereo, with a time of 3:30. [128K M 2.13] would indicate a 128K mono
MP3, with a time of 2:13.

For lossless files, it's suggested that users provide details on the source
from which the file was ripped: [CD mono 2.30] indicates the FLAC or APE was
from a mono CD. [45RPM 2.10] would indicate the lossless file was made
directly from a 45RPM single.

When stereo tracks are uploaded for songs released prior to 1969, it's
suggested that an "s" suffix is added to the reference number:

1966_037s - The Cyrkle - Red Rubber Ball (stereo LP vers.) [256K JS 2.20]

to distinguish it from the hit single:

1966_037 - The Cyrkle - Red Rubber Ball (45RPM) [256K JS 2.20]






10. Why do the numbers not match the latter years listed in the HOT 100
ANNUAL 1955-2005?

Record Research recently decided to add all of the separately-charted Airplay
and Sales singles to the existing list. This means the year-by-year rank
numbers for many songs are now different from the ones in the Whitburn MP3
collection. Most regulars agree it would now be too much trouble for us to
update our list to match the published one. One could make a good argument
that the numbers are arbitrary at best anyway, and are just a good way to
distinguish one single from another in a list.

For songs prior to 1955, Record Research used several different BILLBOARD
charts to determine song popularity. Unfortunately, their methods were
inconsistent and produced different results for different books (such as POP
MEMORIES vs. POP HITS 1940-1954). Bullfrog, Lancefer, Uncle Dave, and others
have combined most of these together and recomputed the numbers to come up
with a new overall ranking for the hits from 1940-1954.

Note that recent songs for the current year are usually identified like the
following:

2007-059 - Corbin Bleu - Push It To The Limit

Note the dash after the year, rather than the usual underscore. The dash
signifies that the number is temporary, and won't be finalized until the
people working on the spreadsheets determine the correct rankings.




11. What are the BUBBLERS?

These refer to the BILLBOARD BUBBLING UNDER singles that fell short of making
the Hot 100 charts, usually between #101 and #130. The number (b01, b02,
etc.) refers to each individual song's relative chart success. The bubbler
numbering system is based a combination of when the song first appeared on
the bubbler chart and then it's relative success. Songs are listed based on
when they first entered the Bubbling Under chart. Ties were broken first by
"peak position", then "weeks charted" and finally "weeks at #101". This was
the method first used by Duke Cyber and has become the de facto standard for
the group.

The BUBBLER spreadsheet was derived from Sonat's 1959-1985 original post, but
then was completely revised by Dr. Travel, based on Duke's numbering
methodology. These Bubbler numbers are not assigned by Record Research, since
they have not yet published a BUBBLING UNDER ANNUAL.



12. What are the ROCK TRACKS posts?

These refer to the standalone "Mainstream Rock" and "Modern Rock" published
by BILLBOARD from the 1980s to the present (March 1981 for Mainstream, and
September 1988 for Modern, respectively). Record Research has published both
sets of charts as one reference book, ROCK TRACKS, in 2003. Dr. Travel has
created a new spreadsheet, Mainstream-Modern Rock Tracks 1981-2005.xls, and
is currently posting a group of corresponding MP3 files (as of 12/2006).
These are noted with the "M" prefix, as in "m81_066," etc., to differentiate
them from the existing POP files.



13. How often are songs posted on the group?

Like much of the internet, this group is chaotic and organized, and manned by
volunteers and fans. A few regulars upload entire years (or even decades) of
song files when they have the time, but nothing is scheduled. If you need
songs from a specific year, or are missing certain MP3 files, post a request
message (starting with "REQ:" in the subject). It will help if you also
provide the Prefix (Year and Rank) of the song, which is how most members
organize their personal copies of the files.

With luck, a kind soul will answer with the files needed in a few hours or
days. If they do provide your "fills" (missing files "filling" your want
list), be sure to post a 'thank you' message of appreciation, which is the
only reward the posters receive.

You might also post your request in the newsgroup
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.request, and specify where you'd like to see the
files. There's a lot of cross-pollination between the alt.binaries.sounds.mp3
(and decade) groups and the alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn groups.





14. Where does the collection exist?

Anywhere and nowhere. Like the internet itself, the Whitburn collection is
omniscient, vast, and amorphous, but also frustratingly inconsistent. No one
collector owns a complete copy of the correct versions of every song.
Because different people upload (and, in some cases, re-upload) different
versions of each year's group of MP3 files, people download different
versions at different times. To everyone's frustration, old -- often faulty
-- files get re-uploaded, perpetuating mistakes and errors.

An effort is being made to try to eliminate the worst songs from the
collection, ensuring that at some point in the future, everyone will have
access to the correct songs.



15. What are WEEDS (and the Weeds List)?

Weeds are bad MP3 files that have been mistakenly uploaded in the past, or
have since been replaced with better copies. These songs include (but aren't
limited to):

a) songs with very bad sound quality [when better versions exist]

b) songs re-recorded by the artist, creating a new version very different
from the original single

c) radically different mixes that deviate from the original single and omit
or add different elements, such as background vocals or instruments

d) MP3 files with technical problems (glitches, incomplete files, corruption,
etc.)

e) songs with incorrect running times (except for clearly-marked non-single
versions)

f) songs played at the wrong speed (too fast or too slow)

g) alternate takes, sometimes recorded around the same time as the hit
single, but a different performance

h) album versions or long versions not indicated as such in the file name

i) songs with after-the-fact sound problems, such as excessive
noise-reduction, filtering, non-standard EQ, etc.

j) "bit-inflated" MP3 files, where someone has taken a lowres file and
upsampled it to a higher KB file (such as a 256K version of an MP3 that
started out as a 96K file)


Wilberforce Snidley Twittwilly has prepared regularly-posted WEED LISTS in
Excel format, to help users remove bad or incorrect files from their
collections.



16. How should I report bad MP3 files?

Discovering weeds is a voluntary effort, dependent on the knowledge of the
user. If you hear a file that has one or more of the above problems, post a
WEED ALERT to the group, naming the specific file in the subject header,
along with a description of exactly what the problem is. Do not repost the
actual file; just describe the specific flaws with the song version or file.







MP3 FILES

1. What file format are the songs posted?

Typically 96-128Kbps MP3 for mono, or 128-320Kbps MP3 for stereo. Experts
are divided as to which bit rates are adequate and which are "not good
enough." It's clear that a 96K MP3 file made from an excellent source will
sound better than a 320K file made from a bad-sounding source.

In the early days of the Whitburn hub, keeping file sizes small was of key
importance, because many users had slow internet connections, plus hard
drives were expensive. As a result, many of the early files were done at
very low bitrates -- as little as 32K or 48K for many files. Nowadays, it
seems reasonable to expect mono files to be done at least at 128K and stereo
files to be at least 256K.

Note that a mono file encoded at 128K stereo has the same poor fidelity as a
64K mono file, in effect wasting half the space with redundant data. It's
strongly recommended that mono files are ripped in mono for posting as MP3's.

Some experts feel the advanced codecs used in Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
compression are the most efficient and provide the best sound quality in the
smallest space. VBR adjusts the compression depending on the complexity of
the music. However, some older MP3 players have problems playing certain
kinds of VBR files, and some software will not report the correct bitrate of
VBR files under certain conditions, and may even refuse to playback at all in
some cases. One can make a good argument that, assuming a fast internet
connection and lots of disk space, VBR is not as important today as it used
to be. But others insist that users should always employ VBR whenever
possible. It's a controversial area. You can read more on VBR here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_bitrate (Who's computer is this?)

and

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (Who's computer is this?)

In particular, the HydrogenAudio guys are very bright and passionate when it
comes to encoders, bitrates, and other issues relating to MP3 and other lossy
formats.


2. How can I check to see if an MP3 file is corrupted or has any technical
flaws?

A good shareware program recommended by several users is MP3Test, available
from:

http://www.shivi.de/MP3Test/ (Who's computer is this?)


Another program, MPTrimPro, provides several test functions, and will also
remove silent segments at the beginning or end of the file:

http://www.mptrim.com/ (Who's computer is this?)


And yet another good freeware utility for eliminating silent segments and
clean up MP3 files is MP3Utility, available from:

http://www.geocities.com/mp3utility/ (Who's computer is this?)




3. How long do binary music files stay on the server?

That depends on your Internet Service Provider. The good ones (like
Giganews) keep many binary files for as long as 3 months. Some smaller ones
may only have them for a few days, a week at most. If you're not satisfied
with the file retention of your local ISP, opt for another Newsgroup server.
(Thousands are available just by doing a Google search for "Newsgroup
Server.") Giganews, Supernews, and Terranews are all independent commercial
servers allowing high speed access to many groups, retaining messages for
many weeks, far longer than ISPs like Earthlink or Road Runner.

If you encounter a large number of files on the group that you want to
download, and the posts go back several weeks (or months), be sure to
download the OLDEST files first (those with the earliest posting dates).
Those are the ones that are in the greatest danger of being dropped by the
newsgroup server, and you may miss some or all parts of the files if you
download the files in a different order.




4. What is a "Flood"?

This is a large group of files, typically for an entire year or decade,
uploaded at one time, or in a relatively short period of time. This allows
newcomers to quickly amass a large library.




5. What is the best software with which to download music and access messages
from Usenet?

Dozens are reviewed and discussed here:


http://www.newsreaders.com/ (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.binaries4all.com/beginners/ (Who's computer is this?)


Many PC users appear to use commercial software like Forte Agent or
Newsleecher, or freeware like XNews, while others use the built-in Usenet
capability of mail programs like Microsoft Outlook (and Outlook Express).
Mac users are divided between programs like Hogwasher and Unison, or just
using the built-in Usenet capability of Microsoft's Entourage. Linux users
have recommended Pan for GNOME and Klibido for KDE.

The standalone programs are generally much better at assembling all the parts
of Binary files. In particular, some Outlook users have reported difficulty
in downloading multipart binary files -- reporting incomplete files when the
entire files do exist, in some cases.


http://www.forteinc.com (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.newsleecher.com/ (Who's computer is this?)

http://xnews.newsguy.com/ (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.asar.com (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.panic.com/unison/ (Who's computer is this?)



6. Is there a way to automatically rename files so that they have the
bitrate, format, and running time in the file name?

Tag & Rename, Ultra Tag, and MP3/Tag Studio can do this automatically. You
have complete control over how the file names are reconstructed, using the
existing ID3 Tags. Note that you will need the Whitburn prefix embedded in
the ID3 tag somewhere, such as the "Track Number" field (common with many
files). [Each is detailed below in the section on MP3 Tags.]

Having used all three, I think Tag & Rename is the most usable of all these
programs, but it has some annoying bugs (like putting a "0" in the running
time slot, as in "03.42"). MP3/Tag Studio is the most flexible and
full-featured of the three, but has a quirky, unintuitive user interface. In
general, Ultra Tag has some annoyances in terms of how it puts in mono/stereo
mode (like spelling out "Stereo" or "Joint-Stereo" in full). There are
workarounds to deal with most of these problems; ask in the group for
specifics.


I find using one of these programs, as well as a good renaming program like
"Better File Rename"

http://www.publicspace.net/windows/BetterFileRename/ (Who's computer is this?)

http://publicspace.net/ABetterFinderRename/ (Who's computer is this?)

can help keep large collections of MP3, FLAC, APE, and WAV files under
control. Versions are available for both Mac OSX and Windows XP/Vista.


Another useful (and free) Windows utility is Oscar's Renamer:

http://www.mediachance.com/free/renamer.htm (Who's computer is this?)

which allows renaming files just as you would in a text editor.




6. How can I avoid downloading files with formats that I don't want or need,
like APE or FLAC, assuming I just want MP3s?

A. MANUALLY: Read the headers first, and don't select the files you don't
want. Rather than downloading everything from the group, helter-skelter,
simply choose only the files you want.

I find this is often easiest to do if you sort the message threads by USER,
since most users tend to specialize in one particular kind of files. A
week's worth of messages takes less than a minute to do.


B. FILE DELETIONS: If you have a lot of bandwidth and a lot of drive space,
just download everything, look at the files afterwards, and delete what you
don't want.


C. FILTERS: Set up your newsreading software to automatically killfile any
headers with the letters ".FLAC" or ".APE" in them. Don't just create a
filter that deletes everything with the word "FLAC" by itself; the filter has
to have the dot as the file-type separator.

You could also simply delete any file header that warns that the file is
over, say, 10 megs. There are few, if any, MP3s that big (except for some
long Modern Rock songs).

The best way would be to set up the filter to work under two conditions:

1) header contains "FLAC" (or "APE")

2) file greater than 10MB

The more precise you make your Usenet filters, the better they work.







LOSSLESS FILES

1. What about other audio formats such as Lossless files (FLAC and APE), AAC,
Apple Lossless, MP3Pro, WMA, or WAV's?

WAV files are so large -- typically 30+ megs for a 3:00 minute song -- we
request that those not be posted on the regular Whitburn Pop or Country
newsgroups in order to preserve bandwidth. (They are welcome on the
alt.binaries.sounds.wav, alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.lossless,
alt.binaries.whitburn, and alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn newsgroups.)

FLAC and APE are both open-source formats that theoretically contain a
perfect copy of the original WAV file but take up around 40% less space,
since the "air" in the file -- that is to say, wasted space -- has been
removed, but none of the original sound quality has been compromised. Each
FLAC file and APE file also contains a "fingerprint" which can be used to
check that the file isn't corrupted, a feature not available in WAVs. FLAC
and APE files can also contain tag information (usually in Ogg Vorbis
format), which are generally not implemented in WAVs (though this is becoming
available through updated programs like Tag & Rename 3.3). APE files are
slightly smaller than FLACs, but take slightly longer to process, plus are
somewhat difficult to play on Mac OS and Linux systems; FLAC files play well
on Windows XP/Vista, Mac OSX, and Linux, but the file sizes are slightly
larger.

In a perfect world, assuming infinite storage capacity and lightning-fast
interconnect rates, WAVs would be preferred. But because of the realities
and limitations of transfer speeds and storage, FLAC (Free Lossless Audio
Codec files) and APE are preferred for the Whitburn MP3 newsgroups, provided
they are specifically identified in the message headers and filenames.

You can get more info on FLAC here:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/ (Who's computer is this?)


And information on APE can be found here:

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/comparison.html (Who's computer is this?)


Several longtime Whitburn collectors have spearheaded an effort to coordinate
the posting of lossless music files (both FLAC and APE), both on the
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless groups, and the new
alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.lossless group, launched in early 2007.

Because AAC, Apple Lossless, and Windows Media Audio files use proprietary
technologies that do not easily work with all operating systmes and MP3
players, those are discouraged. (The author actually prefers 320K AAC [MP4]
believing it has the best sound quality of any similar compressed file
format, but he's in the minority.) MP3Pro, created by Thomson/Coding
Techologies, currently supports only 64kbps, which many critics feel isn't
sufficient for good sound quality.

Another alternative to MP3 is Ogg Vorbis, which is not found as often on the
newsgroups due mainly to lack of support in iPods and some other portable
players. This open-source codec claims to offer superior sound to MP3s; you
can get more info at http://www.vorbis.com/. (Who's computer is this?) Another open-source lossless
codec is becoming popular: WavPack, which works on Windows, Linux, and Mac
OSX; you can get more info at http://www.wavpack.com. (Who's computer is this?)

Unfortunately, though advanced codecs like AAC (MP4) and Ogg Vorbis offer
theoretically better-sound quality than similar-sized MP3 files, MP3 has
become the defacto standard for most music collectors on Usenet.



2. How can I play back Lossless files on my computer?

For Windows users, Winamp is a good freeware player, but you'll need plug-ins
(also freeware) in order to make them work with FLAC and APE. You can get
more info here:

http://www.winamp.com/player/ (Who's computer is this?)

For Mac OSX users, you can try this freeware player:

http://sbooth.org/Play/ (Who's computer is this?)

Be warned that as of 3/2007, the Mac software is still in "Alpha" stage and
is somewhat unstable.




3. What is the best way to convert APE to FLAC, or WAV to FLAC, or <audio
format A> to <audio format B>?

One excellent Windows XP shareware choice used by many in the group is DB
Poweramp, available from:

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/ (Who's computer is this?)

Note that you need to download separate modules in order to handle different
audio formats (like APE, FLAC, and AAC, and MP3), available at no charge from
DB Poweramp's "Codec Central" (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm (Who's computer is this?) ).

The author of DB Poweramp also has a very good introduction to audio formats
and tagging, which is posted here:

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide.htm (Who's computer is this?)

The program is shareware, but a "deluxe" version is available for $14 that
adds additional features in the form of the "Power Pack," which is highly
recommended.

Another good shareware conversion utility is Easy CD-DA Extractor, available
from:

http://www.poikosoft.com/ (Who's computer is this?)

It also has excellent built-in CD-ripping and CD-burning modules, and can
handle many different combinations of WAV, FLAC, APE, and MP3. The $30
upgraded version offers extra features and accelerated performance.

And a good freeware choice for Mac OSX users is Max:

http://sbooth.org/Max/ (Who's computer is this?)





4. How can I tell if a FLAC or other lossless file was made from a CD or an
MP3 file?

For some odd reason, there are people who foolishly convert MP3 files to FLAC
(or APE), perhaps in the mistaken belief that it will make the signal "sound"
better. This is the sonic equivalent of taking a 1" square photograph and
blowing it up to 10", believing it will look as good as an original 10"
photograph.

A shareware Windows program called "AudioChecker" can analyze various kinds
of FLAC, APE, and other lossless files and then intelligently make a guess as
to whether the files are legit or just "uprezed" from an MP3 file, based on
technical factors like frequency response. AudioChecker is available from:

http://www.dester.hu (Who's computer is this?)



5. What's the best way to tag FLAC and APE files?

FLAC and APE files use "Ogg Vorbis"-type Tags (different from the ID3 tags
used in MP3s), which are not supported by most renaming programs. Versions
of Pokisoft's Tag & Rename above 3.3 do support FLAC, APE, and even WAV
files.



6. Where can I find lossless copies of the Whitburn songs?

In addition to alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.lossless (mentioned above), the
following groups are often frequented by Whitburn collectors:

alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1950s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1960s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1970s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1980s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1990s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.2000s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.flac
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.ape
alt.binaries.sounds.m




MUSIC ON A.B.S.W.:

1. What songs are posted on the Whitburn newsgroups?

Every effort is made to post the *original single release* of a song as
charted by BILLBOARD magazine in their weekly charts. For any song from
1899-1968 or so, this generally means the MONO SINGLE version, with the
running time exactly as shown in the Record Research books.



2. Why aren't more of the early songs in Stereo?

Stereo was not widespread until the late 1950s, with early stereo singles
first becoming popular around 1957-1958. The general consensus is that the
mono version best represents the original hit single that charted on
BILLBOARD. One can make arguments on either side that the mono version may
not be the best-sounding or most enjoyable version compared to stereo or
other versions. Typically, completists will want both the mono and stereo
versions; purists will insist that only the mono is correct. Some (including
this author) believe the stereo version is a welcome addition to the
collection provided it's correctly identified, and that the mono version is
always preserved. And virtually everyone agrees that good mono is better
than synthesized stereo.[See below.]



3. How do we know if the correct single version is mono or stereo?

That's a tough question. In general, all charted singles were mono, from
the time the record charts began in the 1940s, through the late 1960s.
Around that time, producers and engineers gradually began getting a handle on
how best to mix stereo so that it sounded acceptable on both stereo and mono
phonographs (and on stereo FM and mono AM radio stations). Circa 1968,
stereo singles began appearing with greater regularity, and by the early
1970s, stereo 45RPM singles became standardized, and dual-inventory
mono/stereo LPs disappeared, replaced by stereo LPs.

But there are always exceptions. There are mono singles that went all the
way up through the late 1970s (even the early 1980s), and there are some
1970s and 1980s songs still available only in mono (or the stereo mix is so
radically different, it's almost not the same song). After the late 1960s,
it's pretty much a case-by-case basis.

Note that there have been cases where incorrect MONO versions of songs exist
-- such as the original release of the 2006 Beatles' CAPITOL VERSIONS VOL. 2
CD set, where someone at the mastering department merely "folded" the stereo
mixes down to mono, creating a song that is technically mono, but is not
quite the original mono mix that matches the balance, EQ, and loudness of the
original single. One hopes that if the MP3 file is identified as (single) or
(45RPM), it's the real deal.

Group members argue constantly as to which song version is best: the
original 45RPM single, a CD recording of the single (made from the master
tape), or the stereo version. The controversy rages between "authenticity,"
"sound quality," and "mono vs. stereo," and there are collectors that make
good cases for each position. Ideally, the sound file could satisfy all
three, but we tend to doubt this issue will ever be settled to everyone's
satisfaction.




4. What about Album versions, alternate versions, long versions, or other
versions?

Like stereo, this is a controversial issue on which few agree. Some argue
that only the original single version be made part of the Whitburn
collection; others insist there is no harm having an addition version (or
versions), provided it's correctly identified and offered as an _addition to_
the collection. One can make very good arguments on either side of the
issue.

Non-single versions should be clearly identified from the single version in
the song file name:

1969_464alt - Chicago - 25 or 6 to 4 (album vers.) (256 JS 5.02).mp3


This would differentiate it from the correct single, which would be:

1969_464 - Chicago - 25 or 6 to 4 (single vers.) (256 JS 4.45).mp3


Note the addition of "alt" (alternate) in the Whitburn numbering system.
This will help further distinguish non-singles from actual single versions.



5. What are "45 Reference files"?

Some have felt it necessary to post "quick and dirty" copies of original
singles, regardless of condition, just so that they can be compared to CD
copies of songs to verify mix content and running time. These are not
considered to be part of the permanent Whitburn collection.

Any reference files uploaded should be identified as FOR REFERENCE ONLY, or
words to that effect, in the file name. Make it clear that this file is not
intended to replace the regular songs in the collection, as shown here:

1964_002 FOR COMPARISON ONLY - The Beatles - Can't Buy Me Love (orig 45RPM
mono) [128K M 2.12].mp3

or if the file sounds particularly bad, do something along the lines of the
following:

1973_043 - Carpenters - Sing [45 - poor shape] 128 S (3.18).mp3





6. What are the "Orig Mono 45" posts?

A few collectors (particularly Bullfrog) have found good copies of original
45RPM singles, copied them to their hard drives, encoded them as MP3's, and
added them to the collection. These are unquestionably the most "authentic"
version of the BILLBOARD singles, though some argue that their sound quality
makes them less desirable than clean CD versions.


7. What are "Raw 45" files (aka "Raw Rips")?

These are direct transfers made from an original 45RPM single, done as
quickly as possible just to make it available. These files may have numerous
ticks & pops, noise, and other sound flaws. They are intended to be used by
others to digitally clean-up as a final version later on (with the resultant
files labeled "CLEANED").

Any Raw rip files should be carefully identified so as not to confuse them
with MP3's that are part of the collection:

56_106 - The Teen Queens - Eddie My Love - (45)(128 M)(Mp3 Raw Rip).mp3

In general, it's strongly recommended that raw rips only go up as LOSSLESS
(or even WAV) files. Otherwise, the subsequent "cleaned" file will suffer a
quality loss from being re-encoded back to MP3 after processing.



8. What are "Cleaned" Files?

These are typically Raw 45 files that users have tried to digitally process
in order to improve their sound quality, reducing ticks & pops, noise, and so
on. This is a controversial area, since few can agree on the problem of "how
much processing is too much?" A good argument can be made that processing
should be kept to a minimum, to avoid introducing artifacts such as
distortion, "phasiness," and other problems. Good 45RPM single restorations
can arguably be as good as (or even better) than CD pressings, assuming a
good source, good equipment, and expert ability on the part of the user.
(These kinds of processes are routinely discussed on the Usenet newsgroup
rec.audio.pro.)

Important safety tip: it's strongly advised that no one try to process MP3
files, because it's not possible to directly eliminate noise, ticks, pops,
and distortion from an MP3 directly. Virtually all known programs have to
first convert the MP3 to a "raw" or WAV file first. After the processing,
then the file has to be converted back to an MP3. Because of this additional
MP3 -> WAV -> MP3 step, the resultant file will lose a great deal of sound
quality from the compression artifacts. It's recommended that only lossless
or WAV files be cleaned and de-noised instead.





9. What does "Rip" mean?

This term originated in the early 1990s, when collectors began using CD-ROM
drives to transfer music files at high speed to hard drive. Apple Computer
popularized the term with their "Rip, Mix, Burn" advertising campaign for the
original iPod, which was released in the fall of 2001.

Some have argued that the term "rip" is incorrectly used when it's applied to
vinyl. A vinyl 45RPM record or LP (or a shellac or vinyl 78RPM record) are
not exactly "ripped" in the traditional sense in that they're not done at
high speed. A record transfer is done in real time, to the sound card input
of a computer. It's fair to say that using "rip" for a vinyl transfer is
imprecise, but it's nonetheless falling into common usage. (It's one of
these things, like the word "impactful," that gets popularized whether we
want it or not.)



10. What is a Bitrate Upgrade?

Generally, this means a new file made with less compression, assumed to have
better sound quality. For example, a 256K MP3 stereo file will almost always
sound better than, say, a 96K MP3 made from the same source.

Be aware that users have encountered higher-bitrate files made from lower
bitrate songs. To use the above example, a 256K MP3 file made from a 48K MP3
file will not sound better than the old file. In fact, you can make a good
argument that it won't even sound as good as the original 48K file, because
the material has been compressed *twice*. Files like this are a total waste
of bandwidth.

The only way to tell if a song is truly an upgrade is to listen to it and
compare the sound quality to another file. Bitrate alone does not absolutely
guarantee sound quality.




11. What are Label Scans, and how can they be used?

These are regularly uploaded by Cyberbabe, Mr. M, and several others. One
way to ensure that the song file being uploaded is the true single version is
to look at the scan of the record from which the file was made. The single
usually has the correct song length on the label, so that's one way to check
the copy of the record against the Whitburn published times (though there
have been several discrepencies over the years, many noted in the spreadsheet
maintained by Bullfrog and others).

Many MP3 library programs have the ability to reference a jpg image with the
specific song. This way, it's possible to have the image from the label or
picture sleeve pop up automatically on your screen as the song plays. (This
is not recommended for portable players, at least until the day sub-miniature
hard drives have much greater capacity.)




12. What is a Placeholder, and how is it used?

There are dozens of songs that are currently missing in the Pop, Country, and
R&B MP3 collections. Users have created very small (0K) "NFO" files that are
essentially very small (1K) text files, made to take up space in a directory
of files. The file Whitburn MISSING Placeholders 1891-2004 (maintained by
SuperJock) lists which songs are currently missing. Eventually, it's hoped
that these will be replaced with correct MP3 files to complete the
collections.

To create a placeholder file, run WordPad (under Windows) or TextEdit (on Mac
OSX) and create a plain text file with the word "Placeholder" in it. Save
it. That will usually create a very small (1K or less) file, whatever the
minimum block size is for the OS.

Make however many duplicates of it that you need. Rename the files to
"year_index - Artist - Song Title - MISSING.nfo", or whatever you need them
to be. It's helpful to compose all the missing filenames in a text file, and
then use a shareware program like Better File Renamer
[http://publicspace.net/windows/BetterFileRename (Who's computer is this?) ] to rename the actual files.






13. How often are MP3 files updated?

That's totally at the whim and discretion of other users and collectors, like
yourself. An effort is being made to keep track of recently-updated files in
the text document:

Whitburn Corrections & Major Upgrades - 1950-1975.nfo


and also a larger RAR-compressed Excel spreadsheet:

Whitburn Corrections & Major Upgrades - 1950-2006


maintained by Wilberforce Snidley Twittwilly. These note the dates when a
new file (often a better-sounding or more-accurate version) were posted to
the group, and by which user.



SuperJock occasionally posts a document titled

Posting Guide.doc

available as an MS Word doc, which provides a chart showing which users have
posted which years' worth of files, and on which dates. In some cases, this
will allow newcomers to go back and retrieve old files still on local ISP
servers, or at least make a polite request for the specific posters to
re-upload the material.




14. I've faithfully downloaded the many posts of Whitburn mp3s that appear
on this newsgroup. This causes me to have many very desirable songs, and
also many duplicates. How do I know which files to keep, and which to
delete?

All of us go through the same problem, because there is no "one" version of
the collection in one place. The only thing you can do is listen to each
file (or at least the first few seconds), decide how it sounds, and delete
the one that sounds worse. That's assuming it's the right song, the correct
version, and the correct running time.

Note that just because one MP3 is at a higher bitrate than the other, that
doesn't necessarily mean that it sounds better. A very clean original ripped
to 80K mono might sound much better than a crappy original ripped to 256K.
However, all things being equal, "in theory," the higher bitrates should be
better.

Be wary of newcomers who post massive amounts of files without regard to what
has been posted earlier. They may be unintentionally reposting many
erroneous files and weeds (bad sound quality, incomplete songs, re-recorded
versions, etc.).




15. Clearly, if I have a Mono and a stereo of the samne song, the mono
should be erased. In many cases the duplicates are JS and S of the same
song. Which should I remove if they're both the same bit rates?

I don't agree that the monos should ever be deleted. In many cases (like for
most songs released prior to the late 1960a), the mono single version was the
actual hit that made the BILLBOARD charts. The stereo might be a radically
different mix, even a different performance, than the hit single, or it might
be a version that only appeared on an album.

On the other hand, drive space is cheap. I say, keep them both, assuming
they both sound good. Make different playlists to just play the versions you
prefer. But keep as many files as you can, especially if you're not 100%
certain which is the best version. You never know when a better update might
pop up later on.

Of course, if you have a JS or S file of a mono song, then a mono file of a
slightly-lower bitrate could sound much better. For example: a 128K JS copy
of a mono song should sound worse than an 80K M file made from the same
source. That's because the 128K JS is effectively only using half the
bitrate -- 64K to store each channel of the song. I try to standardize on
128K mono and 256K stereo for everything I rip, because I believe that's the
minimum bitrate you can go for reasonable sound quality. But that's a
subjective area, and with a lot of early material (particularly pre-1964),
you can make a good argument that the 96K mono or even 80K mono files
actually don't sound bad.






RIPPING & RECORDING

1. What's the best way to Rip a song from CD?

Some experts advise that Exact Audio Copy (available for free from
exactaudiocopy.de/) does the best job of pulling audio from Compact Discs,
for Windows users. This actually pulls pieces of the data off the CD, then
compares the extracted data to the CD to make sure nothing is lost when
copied to hard drive. Mac OSX users can use a similar utility called Max
(also available for free from http://sbooth.org/Max/ (Who's computer is this?) ).

Comparison copying methods take several times longer to rip songs from CD, so
they require some patience on the part of the user. For this reason, many
collectors just go with the fastest, most convenient way possible, using
freeware or other programs like iTunes or MusicMatch. Experts are divided as
to whether high-speed CD ripping (48X & up) compromises sound quality
compared to slower speeds (12X and less). These topics are discussed in
depth on these websites:


http://www.cdrlabs.com (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.cdrinfo.com (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.cdfreaks.com (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.cdrfaq.org (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.cdr-zone.com/ (Who's computer is this?)


For ripping from hundreds of CDs at once, some users have had success with
devices like Sony's VGP-XL1B2, which allows automatically loading and ripping
hundreds of CDs at a time.



2. What's the best way to copy a 45RPM record, an LP, or a 78RPM record to a
hard drive?

This is a complex subject to be dealt with in a future version of the FAQ.




3. What's the best software to use for cleaning a file (from LP, 45RPM, or
CD)?

The reality is, you can spend thousands of dollars (even hundreds of
thousands of dollars) for an actual mastering suite and related gear, or you
can spend zero and use shareware.

A lot depends on the quality of your speakers, the room you're in, and your
own skill and experience.

A few quick tips:

1) get the computer and hard drives out of the room if possible. Keep the
listening environment quiet so you can hear all the music and not get
distracted by any fan noise or other mechanical background sounds.

2) don't use cheap computer speakers. If you can't afford decent, full-range
speakers (say, in the $200/pair and up price range for a minimal bookshelf
speaker), then get a good pair of headphones and use those. I like the
Sennheiser HD-600's, and I'm told the newer HD-650's are even better. I've
also used the Sony MDR-7506's and the 7509's, but they're a little bright.
On the other hand, they're great for detecting ticks and pops and other
noise-related problems.

3) I use Pro Tools for a lot of my audio work (both the cheap Pro Tools LE
and the full-blown Pro Tools HD in my home studio). But for quick and dirty
editing and clean-up of songs from CD and vinyl, I think Sound Forge for
Windows works great, and Peak is fine for Mac OSX. Each is a "meat and
potatoes," very straightforward program that routinely sells for under $200
if you shop around. (Even cheaper if you can get a student version or a
cheap legit copy on eBay.) Both come with free no-frills noise-reduction
plug-ins, and there are also fancier ones available at an extra cost. I'm
not gonna tell you to go find a pirated version, because I think both
programs are good enough that they're worth paying for. If you want
something free, use Audacity, available for several current OS's.

4) Whatever you do, please, please try to avoid over-processing the sound.
Almost every attempt I've heard to de-hiss recordings takes away far more
than necessary. I would rather have a clean recording with some hiss than a
muddy, dull-sounding recording where somebody has EQ'd the life out of the
music. Always do a "before and after" comparison to make sure you're not
going too far.

5) Always save mono songs as mono files. It saves space, and it
(theoretically) sounds better, too.





4. Are MP3 encoders really different?

Yes. Some are better than others. Most experts insist that the latest
versions of the LAME encoder work best. Others believe that the "official"
encoders licensed by the Fraunhofer Institute are best. Fraunhofer makes
their case at their website:

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/ (Who's computer is this?)

You can also find good resources on several different codecs here, including
LAME, BladeEnc, Fraunhofer, and Xing:

http://www.mp3-converter.com/encoders/index.htm (Who's computer is this?)

as well as the HydrogenAudio discussion group:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org (Who's computer is this?)

and in the excellent book MP3: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE by Scot Hacker, published
by O'Reilly, and available from many net booksellers.


The fairest conclusion is, "listen for yourself and decide."




5. Once I've ripped a file, how should I identify the file name?

One glance at the various files on the Whitburn groups will tell you that no
two people seem to use the same system. There are three things that are
mandatory:


Year_Rank (the unique Whitburn collection "identifier" number)

Artist/Group Name

Title


Ideally, you should also add:

Bitrate (128K recommended for mono, 256K for stereo)

Mode (Mono, Stereo, Dual Channel, or Joint Stereo)

Length (in minutes and seconds)


You must avoid illegal characters not permitted in most current operating
systems. NTFS filenames can be up to 255 characters, but a few characters
are not permitted:

/ (forward slash)

\ (backslash)

: (colon)

" (quotes)

* (asterisk)

? (question mark)

< (left bracket)

(right bracket)

| (vertical bar)


It's generally not a good idea to use Exclamation Marks (!) as well, because
these can confuse search engines and some other software. Parentheses and
square brackets are fine, as are single quotes ('). We strongly recommend
that you use upper and lower case characters, which are easier to read than
filenames TYPED IN ALL UPPER CASE. Of course, any characters can be used in
the MP3 tags, because this is stored separately from the filename.

If the MP3 file is not the original charted single version, be sure to
identify it in the filename. Examples:


1962_090alt - Dee Dee Sharp - Gravy (For My Mashed Potatoes) (vers. 2) (128 M
2.04).mp3

71_067alt - Chicago - Beginnings (LP vers.) - (256 JS 7.54).mp3

1969_134alt - Neon Philharmonic - Morning Girl (LP vers.) (256 JS 4.39).mp3


If the song is in stereo but released prior to 1968, it is most likely not
the single version that charted on BILLBOARD. We suggest adding an "s' to
the Whitburn number, and highlighting the stereo content in the song name, as
shown below:


1957_003s - Elvis Presley - Jailhouse Rock (rare stereo remix) (256 JS
2.29).mp3

1959_049s - Dion & The Belmonts - Teenager in Love (stereo LP vers.) (256 JS
2.36).mp3



6. Should the year provided in the filename have four digits or just two?
I've seen both formats used on the group.

This is a controversial area. It has been suggested that, because of the
possible confusion between songs from the early 1900s (1901, 1902, etc.) and
songs from the early 2000s (2001, 2002, etc.), file names should provide the
full four-digit year. Others maintain this is not necessary. While one can
make good arguments on either side of the issue, it seems that many files
currently being uploaded to the group as of early 2007 are using 4-digit
years. This is especially true for songs charting after 1999.

There is a freeware program available, FourDigitYearPrefixer1.exe, which will
automatically add "19" to MP3 files from 1900-1999 (or "00-99," depending on
how you look at it). Users can also use commercial and shareware file
renaming utilities to do the same thing, like Better File Rename and similar
utilities.



7. Is the file-naming format important? Is there a preferred format?

Again, there is wide disagreement about this on the group, and many users
employ more than one system. My personal naming convention is as follows:

YEAR_PREFIX - Artist - Title (version) [bitrate channels length]

as in...

1965_082 - James Brown & The Famous Flames - Papa's Got a Brand New Bag (Part
1) (mono single) [256 M 2.03].mp3

The advantage of using brackets for the file information is that you can set
most of the major renaming programs (Tag & Rename, MP3/Tag Studio, etc.) to
extract the tags easier this way. I also recommend keeping the song version
info ("mono single", "mono 45," etc.) as part of the actual song title, so I
can see it in the MP3 player info screen. But not everybody agrees on this.

Adding the bitrate information is important mainly when you're comparing
duplicate files, so you can see at a glance, which is probably an old,
inferior version. Bear in mind that you may still have to actually listen to
the file to know for sure if it's worse than a previously-uploaded file.




UPLOADING FILES FOR THE GROUP

1. I want to participate by providing some MP3 files to the group. How should
my files be posted?

Before you post a song to the group, make sure that the identical song hasn't
already been posted in the past. And if it is not the original single
version, be sure to note both the file name and the MP3 Tags as discussed
above. Others user will appreciate if you can fill out both the ID3v2 and
ID3v3 tags as much as possible, particularly the Album source. It's
recommended (but not mandatory) that you indicate in the title field if the
song is not the single version, mirroring the name of the MP3 file, adding
"(LP vers.)" or "(disco mix)" or similar terms after the title. Some users
have designated the "track" field for storing the Whitburn "Rank" number,
which can be helpful for sorting specific years or groups of songs.

If they are upgrades or additions to the existing collection, please identify
them in the subject header. (See past newsgroup posts for examples.) Be
certain that the file you're uploading is superior to the existing copy. If
you're not sure, identify the post with "POSSIBLE UPGRADE."

Pop/rock songs that charted on BILLBOARD's Pop or Hot 100 charts should be
posted to the newsgroup

alt.music.whitburn.pop

Be sure to check the correct reference number of the song using the latest
Excel chart.


Country songs that charted on BILLBOARD's Country charts should be posted to
the newsgroup

alt.music.whitburn.pop.country



The "discussion" groups (alt.music.whitburn.pop.d &
alt.music.whitburn.pop.country.d) are intended for text-only discussions.
Ideally, this is not a group intended for binary file uploads. Put those in
the regular alt.music.whitburn groups instead.



2. When I try to post a song it says the file size is too large. What can I
do?

Most ISPs require that binary files posted to Usenet newsgroups be encoded
with yEnc, Base64, or UUencoding, then "split" into parts that are no longer
than 5000 lines (approximately 500K or so per part). Use the preferences of
your newsreading/posting program to limit outgoing messages to no more than
450K (6000 lines) per file. Some Newsgroup sources, like Giganews, can
handle more than 10,000 lines, but be aware that not all users will be able
to get all the parts on all ISPs.

Experts are divided as to whether yEnc or UUencoding are best for encoding
binary files for Usenet groups. Most users appear to prefer yEnc, partly
because this method takes up less space, though it arguably may take slightly
more time to upload.

Once the parts are posted, any good newsreading program can then download the
parts and automatically decode them and assemble them back into a single
file.





3. How do I post a large number of songs?

If you intend to post a large number of files (say, over a dozen), a
mass-posting program such as PowerPost is recommended. It's available as
freeware (Windows only) from several sites, including:

http://www.binaries4all.com/beginners/ (Who's computer is this?)

http://powerpost.free.fr/files/YencPowerPostA&A11b.zip (Who's computer is this?)

http://www.smr-usenet.com/tutor/ppost.shtml (Who's computer is this?)


PowerPost is old (last updated in 2002), and is a little buggy and convoluted
to some as far as set-up goes, but help is available on the Net. If you use
a mass-uploading program like PowerPost, it's recommended that you provide
PAR2 files, which can help users repair any incomplete or corrupt files.
QuickPar is one program that can repair downloaded files and remove corrupt
files; you can get more info on it from it here:

http://www.quickpar.org.uk/ (Who's computer is this?)

Another recommendation is that you include an SFV (simple file verification)
file, a plain text file that can be used to help verify that all the files
you've received have all their bytes intact. You can get more info from the
creators of the shareware program Easy SFV Creator:

http://web.utk.edu/~mmurph13/bssite/ (Who's computer is this?)

or SFVCheck:

http://www.download.com/SfvCheck/3000-2248_4-10513343.html?tag=tab_pub (Who's computer is this?)


When you do post songs, please use as short a subject header as possible, so
that people can at least read the name of the song. For example:

1972 FLOOD: 1972_001 - Roberta Flack - First Time Ever I Saw Your Face [256K
JS 4.16].mp3

1972 FLOOD: 1972_002 - Gilbert O'Sullivan - Alone Again (Naturally) [256K JS
3.39].mp3

and so on. Please avoid lengthy subject headers such as:

ATTN.: HEY, JOE SCHMOE! HERE'S THE FILLS YOU WANTED: 1972 FLOOD: 1972_001 -
Roberta Flack - First Time Ever I Saw Your Face [256K JS 4.16].mp3

which will not be easily read on many newsreading programs.




4. What songs are NOT appropriate for posting to the
alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn groups?

Those would include:

a) songs that did not chart in BILLBOARD

b) songs that do not have the correct filename structure (specifically
including the prefix number, artist name, and title) so that users can
compare it to existing files

c) live versions of songs where the hit single was a studio recording

d) re-recorded versions or other "fake" versions of the song

MP3 files of songs that fall into one or more of the above categories can be
posted to the regular MP3 music groups, including
alt.binaries.sounds.1950s.mp3, alt.binaries.sounds.1960s.mp3,
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.1960s, and so on. Make sure the songs are the
charted single versions, preferably the hit single as listed by BILLBOARD.
Be sure to check out what's been uploaded before you upload a new version,
because a better-quality version may already be in the collection.




5. What about a group for R&B/Soul/Hip-Hop songs?

Unlike Pop and Country, there is currently no Whitburn newsgroup devoted
entirely to this music category. However, you can upload such songs by
consulting the appropriate Excel spreadsheet of R&B songs and naming the
files accordingly. When in doubt, post a message asking how the songs should
be posted first.




7. What about very early recordings, such as Edison cylinders?

The Whitburn collection goes back to 1890, at the dawn of BILLBOARD magazine
(during the days when it charted sheet music as opposed to records or
cylinders). Few collectors have the equipment capable of playing old
recordings. Among the professional groups devoted to this activity, one is
The Cylinder Preservation and Digitization Project at University of
California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), and another is The Association of Recorded
Sound Collections. You can get more info on these organizations from:

http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/index.php (Who's computer is this?)

and

http://www.arsc-audio.org/ (Who's computer is this?)



8. Can I upload entire albums to the Whitburn groups?

No. These groups are only intended for collectors of the charted singles for
the respective genres (Pop, Country, Bubbling Under, R&B, and so on), not
entire albums.

Entire albums can be uploaded to the "decades" groups:

alt.binaries.sounds.1960s.mp3
alt.binaries.sounds.1970s.mp3
alt.binaries.sounds.1980s.mp3
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.1960s
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.1970s
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.1980s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1960s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1970s
alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.1980s
alt.binaries.sounds.wav.music.1960s
alt.binaries.sounds.wav.music.1970s






MP3 LIBRARIES & TAGS

1. Why do so many of the MP3 files uploaded have incomplete or incorrect MP3
tags?

The ID3 refers to a header inserted into a few bytes of the MP3 file. This
stores user-supplied information on Song Title, Artist Name, Year, and other
information.

It takes a lot of work to enter this information correctly. Also, many
collectors have different ideas on how best to identify each song, and what
to place into each ID3 tag field. If the file names are incomplete or
faulty, you'll have no choice but to re-edit them yourself.




2. How can I rename & edit all the tags myself?

There are hundreds of utilities available for Windows, Mac OS, Linux, and
other platforms, including freeware, shareware, and off-shelf programs.
Three popular ones for Windows include:


Tag & Rename, available from
http://www.softpointer.com/tr.htm (Who's computer is this?)

Ultra Tag, available from
http://www.atelio.com/ (Who's computer is this?)

and MP3/Tag Studio, available from
http://www.magnusbrading.com/mp3ts/ (Who's computer is this?)


All three have pros and cons, and are capable of automatically creating all
the MP3 tags based on file name and other information. For Mac users,
there's

Media Rage, available from
http://www.chaoticsoftware.com (Who's computer is this?)


Any of these are considerably more flexible than the basic MP3 tag editing
features provided in programs like iTunes or MusicMatch.



3. How should songs be tagged?

No two collectors seem to agree on identical methods. Obviously, the ARTIST
field should get the artist's name, and the TITLE field should get the song
title. Users are divided as to whether the artist's last name should come
first (as in "King, Carole"), but the vast majority of users appear to be
using the conventional method of "first name + last name." Users are also
divided as to whether to use "The" before group names, such as "Beatles" vs.
"The Beatles." Some also remove articles like "A," "An," or "The" prior to
the song, so that they will alphabetize correctly. One can make a good
argument either way. [The author notes that he gets real pissed off by
people who use commas in file names, like "Teenager in Love, A."]

Some want the song titles to also contain information about the specific song
version, such as:

A Teenager in Love (stereo LP vers.)

vs.

A Teenager in Love (mono single)


The advantage of this method is that if you have duplicate song titles but
each is a different version, you can see at a glance in your MP3 player
display which version is currently playing. You can also choose a specific
one for a playlist. The disadvantage is that you have to go to the trouble
to type in all this information, which may be too obsessive for casual fans
and listeners.

Common sense would seem to dictate that the ALBUMS field should refer back to
the original source for the MP3 file. If the MP3 was made from a CD source,
the CD Title should be put in the Album field. If the MP3 came from an LP,
same deal. If it came from the 45RPM single, then the ALBUM could note:

Label & Number (45RPM single)

or something along these lines, just to differentiate copies made from CD.


It's been argued that it's a waste of space to put the "Whitburn Prefix" in
the album field, which a lot of users have done in the past. One possibility
is to use the TRACK NUMBER field to store part of the Whitburn Prefix, so if
the specific song is, say, 1965_012, then the TRACK number would be "012,"
and the YEAR field would be "1965." That way, you can automatically tag the
file names correctly with a tag/rename program, and you can also use the
track numbers to play all the singles from a given year in the precise order
(top to bottom or, ala Casey Kasem's "American Top 40" countdowns, bottom to
top).

If you ripped a song from a CD, the ALBUM field should contain the specific
title of the CD, LP, or 45 (or 78) from which the song came. Merely putting
"From CD" is not nearly as helpful as, "AM Gold - 1964," or a description to
that effect. If you ripped from an LP or a 45, include that information as
well. Many users are adding (45) in the file name to indicate that this is
the original single version; if you're 100% positive that a CD rip is the
exact same single mix, you can indicate "CD of 45" in the file name.

Ideally, the SONGWRITER field should be correctly filled out, if the
information is available. (The ASCAP.com and BMI.com websites have
composer/lyricist information available for free, and it's also provided in
the Record Research TOP POP ANNUAL reference books, but you'd have to enter
the names manually.)

Again, all of this is voluntary. Some people don't care, as long as the song
titles and artists' names are spelled correctly. Ideally, whichever system
you use should be as consistent as possible.




4. What is the Whitburn Renamer?

This is a self-contained MP3 renaming program created by Xenolith and others,
called WBRenamer. It's intended to automatically generate all the ID3 tags
based on the Whitburn group Excel chart of BILLBOARD chart statistics.
Copies are uploaded occasionally to the group as freeware.

The chief benefit of this program is that it will automatically add Song
TItle and Artist tags, along with comments providing Chart Debut Date, Peak
Numbers, and other information. Its drawback is that it's Windows-only, plus
because it's a Beta version, it has some known bugs. As of January 2007,
there has not been an update of the program in some time, and its future is
uncertain.




5. Why are some MP3 files louder (or softer) than others?

There are no real standards for loudness, for either CDs or vinyl. As a
result, if you buy ten different major-label CDs in a store, some will
invariably be louder than others. Recently-mastered CDs have a bad tendency
to being overly-loud, because of the common industry misconception that
"louder is better." (For more on this phenomena, do a Google search on
"Loudness Wars.")

There are four things you can do to fix songs that are too loud or too soft:

a) re-rip the same song from a CD or vinyl source, adjust the native WAV
file's gain using audio editing software, then create a new MP3 file

b) edit the MP3 with an audio editing program, change the volume, and re-save
it again as an MP3. This is not recommended, because MP3 files have to be
converted back to regular WAV audio in order to do sound processing, then
re-encoded back to MP3 again. This will, in essence, "double-encode" the
file, greatly reducing the sound quality.

c) use a utility like MP3 gain to set the headers in the file so that your
MP3 player will automatically turn up (or down) the volume as required. This
freeware, available from:

http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/ (Who's computer is this?)

d) use the options available in some MP3 playlist software (like iTunes or
MusicMatch) to raise or lower the volume. This setting should work with
compatible players (such as an Apple iPod playing an iTunes playlist).




6. What about making FLAC or APE files louder?

In theory, if you're doing a level change (particularly a fade) in the
digital domain, you should add dither to it to help reduce apparent noise and
distortion. But for something like this, you'd convert the FLAC to WAV,
normalize, then listen to it. I'd hope there wouldn't be enough noise to
where it was a serious problem.

Generally, low-level digital audio was more a problem with 1980s CDs, where
the industry hadn't quite set any standards on how loud to make them. Plus,
early CD players from 20+ years ago had problems dealing with loud CDs,
because their analog stages would distort.

This hasn't been a problem for about the last 10-15 years. Now, pretty much
everybody has agreed that levels go almost all the way up to -0dBfs (as high
as it goes). In fact, you can make a good case that some CDs of the last 5
years are much TOO loud and distorted. (Do a Google search on "Loudness
Wars" for more info.)

So go ahead and normalize it and see how it sounds. Remember that relative
loudness is not only caused by level, but also by compression and EQ.
(Wikipedia can explain all of these things in greater detail.)




7. What is Compression?

There's two different kinds of compression. One is "lossy data compression,"
like MP3s, which throws away data in an effort to make the file size smaller
and more efficient. The problem with this scheme is that any time data is
missing, the signal that's left will have distortion and other artifacts,
which are audible under certain conditions. Only "lossless" data formats
keep all the audio information intact, like FLAC, APE, AIFF, and WAV files.

The second is "dynamic range compression," which makes the loud parts of the
song softer, and makes the soft parts of the song louder. Many music
producers & engineers intentionally compress the dynamic range to make the
song sound "louder," mainly by bringing up the level of the quiet parts.
When done to an extreme, dynamic range compression can make a song sound
distorted, even painful to listen to.

For an example of intentional dynamic range compression, listen to any of
these three songs:

1964_059 - The Honeycombs - "Have I the Right"

1965_144 - The Dave Clark Five - "Any Way You Want It"

1972_055 - The Raspberries - "Go All the Way"


These are loud, loud songs, but at least it was done intentionally, for a
creative effect. There are too many CDs coming out nowadays that have been
artificially compressed and limited, distorting the original recording; do a
Google search for "loudness wars" for more info.









BILLBOARD CHARTS

1. What charts are available?

By far the most useful for pop/rock fans is "Billboard Pop ME
(1890-2006).xls," presented as an Excel spreadsheet that is updated and
uploaded to the group every few weeks. This project was started by Lancefer
in the mid-1990s, with contributions by Bullfrog and many others. Included
is most of the combined information from the Record Research TOP POP ANNUAL
1955-1999, TOP POP SINGLES 1955-2004, POP MEMORIES 1890-1954, and POP HITS
1940-1954. This is an ongoing effort that has taken many thousands of
man-hours, and users are encouraged to spot any typos or help provide any
missing information when possible. The file is made available in RAR archive
format, and can be decompressed by virtually all recent Zip and Stuffit
decompression utilities.

Another terrific chart is "Bubbling Under Charts 1959-2004.xls," an Excel
spreadsheet that is uploaded every so often. It was reportedly created by
Duke (Charles Reh) and "someone at Sonat Services, Inc.", and is now being
maintained by Dr. Travel.

Also available is "R&B Charted V2," an Excel spreadsheet that provides all of
the charted R&B, Soul, Hip-Hop, and Rap singles from 1942-2006. Again,
information is lacking on who is currently maintaining it.

Finally, there's "Whitburn Country Collection 1944-2005 (6.23.06).xls", which
has been posted in the past by StrayGoose.


SuperJock's "Swiss Army Knife Spreadsheet" (SASS) is a zip file that contains
the "Master Updated" Excel list of the basic BILLBOARD pop charts, including
a thumbnail look of the titles, artists, and reference numbers for the
following:


YEAR (BILLBOARD Pop charts 1890-present)

BUBBLERS (BILLBOARD Bubbling Under charts 1959-present)

MISSING P (Pop songs missing from the current Whitburn collection)

MISSING C (Country songs missing from the current Whitburn collection)

FOUND (recently-found song files that were previously missing)

COUNTRY (BILLBOARD Country charts 1944-present)

R&B (BILLBOARD R&B charts 1943-present)

POP POSTING (dates for which complete MP3 collections were posted to the
group)


Also available are separate charts for ADULT CONTEMPORARY, along with PDF
scans of the Record Research TOP POP ANNUAL books. [info to be updated at a
future date]

Lastly, note that there is a spreadsheet available of hits from the U.K.,
which is

UKCharts52-69.xls

created by KirkM. This spreadsheet (christened "Britburn") contains a list
of the British charted singles from 1952-1969. While these songs do not have
any bearing on the Whitburn group hits, users may find it interesting to
compare and contrast how identical songs performed on the charts in different
countries.




2. How can I read the charts if I don't own a copy of Microsoft Excel?

You need not own a copy of the current version of Microsoft Excel in order to
open and read these spreadsheets. Two good open-source spreadsheet programs
include:

OpenOffice: http://www.openoffice.org/ (Who's computer is this?)

Gnumeric: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/ (Who's computer is this?)

There is also a free Excel viewer available from Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=c8378bf4-996c- (Who's computer is this?)
4569-b547-75edbd03aaf0&displaylang=EN

Also, Filemaker Pro users can convert any Excel spreadsheet to a Filemaker
Pro database in just a few minutes, as can several other database programs.





FOR NEWBIES

1. I'm new around here. What can I do to help?

a) read the spreadsheets. Note the "official" Prefix number, which helps
organize the Pop collection (and the others).

b) if you download a bad file (wrong song, bad quality, bad rip, bad MP3
artifacts, etc.), post a comment about it with the subject WEED ALERT.

c) if you have a better copy of an existing song, upload it, preferably
following the suggested file-naming methods discussed earlier.

d) only call the file the "single version" (or "mono single" or "45RPM") if
you're absolutely, positively sure it's really the charted single. If you
aren't sure, leave out this info.



For more info on collecting and creating MP3s, be sure to read the MP3 FAQ,
available on any of the "decade" groups (alt.binaries.sounds.mp3,1970s, etc.)
as well as here:

http://www.mp3-faq.org (Who's computer is this?)

and here:

http://www.mp3-faq.org/downloads/absmfaq.txt (Who's computer is this?)






NETIQUETTE

Some users persist in acting obnoxiously, using foul language, insults,
derision, even threats of violence. None of these have any place on Usenet
groups like the alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn groups. There is too much
stress, strife, and suffering in the world as it is without adding to it
here.

It's strongly recommended that members of the community use restraint and
tact when responding to messages. In many cases, it's better to withdraw
from the conversation, rather than persist in provoking an argument.

Users are referred to Chuq Von Rospach's "Primer on How to Work with the
USENET Community" document, revised by Gene Spafford and Mark Moraes,
available on the Usenet group news.groups and on the web at

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/ (Who's computer is this?)

Also recommended for newcomers: INTERNET FOR DUMMIES and MORE INTERNET FOR
DUMMIES, published by IDG Books.





MISCELLANEOUS
*************


HOW CAN I COMPLAIN ABOUT A USER?

There are always jerks and feebs on every newsgroup who seek more to stir up
trouble than they do offer genuine discussions or contribute in a positive
way to the group. These individuals are typically called "trolls," and their
biggest goal in life is to see how much trouble they can stir up. (Some go
so far as to drop into a newsgroup that they know nothing about, ask stupid
questions, then start up a huge screaming debate, then sit back, enjoying the
ensuing argument. The Audio and Political newsgroups are big on this.)

Because the Net is essentially disorganized chaos, there is very little you
can do about stopping other users who annoy except to send complaints to
root@<users' domain name> and comment appropriately. Unfortunately, because
many users employ false identities and fake email addresses (such as the
ever-popular "noone@nowhere.com"), it's difficult to trace such users.

Often the best thing you can is simply to ignore these people and use Filters
to automatically delete their messages before you see them. All major
Newsreading software provides the ability to flag unwanted messages. You can
do the same thing with your email software, if you're being harrassed at your
own email address. Unless the messages appear dangerous or threatening, the
best advice is to just ignore them.




WHY DO MY QUESTIONS OR ANSWERS TAKE SO LONG TO SHOW UP ON THE NEWSGROUP?

Essentially, there are tens of thousands of Usenet news servers around the
world. Normally when you post it appears first on your local server, and then
it "propogates" it to its neighbors, and they continue the distribution on
down the line. The path header records the route taken by the message. The
result is that you might be able to post a message and see it immediately
through your local ISP, but it may not be seen by others for hours or even
days.





I CAN'T FIND ALL THE MESSAGES OR FILES ON THIS NEWSGROUP. WHY ARE THEY
MISSING, AND HOW CAN I GET THEM?

All Usenet newsgroups work on the principle of being "propagated" -- bounced
from server to server all over the world, and stored on your ISP's local hard
drives. They don't exist in any one place, so there's no "local" problem
that can cause X number of messages not being available -- assuming your ISP
is getting all the messages.

A lot also depends on what specific kind of software you're using, and how
long your ISP holds on to old messages. Typically, most ISPs hang on to
maybe 2 weeks' worth (tops), then flushes them all as new messages come in to
replace them. The better independent Newsgroup providers, like Giganews and
Supernews, retain messages and files for 6-8 weeks, sometimes -- for the
text-only newsgroups -- over a year.






WHY ISN'T THERE AN ALT.MUSIC.BINARIES.SOUNDS.WHITBURN.R&B,
OR AN ALT.MUSIC.BINARIES.SOUNDS.WHITBURN.AC?

courtesy of jtbell@presby.edu (Jon Bell)

One of the more frequently posted questions is "How can I create a new
newsgroup?" Briefly, creating a new newsgroup in the comp, humanities, misc,
news, rec, sci, soc or talk hierarchies involves first proposing the
newsgroup in news.announce.newgroups, then conducting a "vote" among those
Usenet readers who have an opinion on the proposed group. The entire process
can take up to three months.

Creating a new newsgroup in the "alt" hierarchy involves proposing it
informally in alt.config, then (if the response is favorable) getting someone
to send out a "newgroup control message" for the group if you don't know how
to do it yourself.

Other hierarchies have different procedures, or perhaps no formal procedure
at all. If you want to create a new newsgroup in the (hypothetical!) podunk
hierarchy, you might look for a newsgroup called podunk.config or
podunk.general, and ask there about the proper procedure.

For more details, see the following articles. You can find copies of (or
links to) all of them at the following Web address:

http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html (Who's computer is this?)

(1) "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup", by David Lawrence

(a) in one of the following newsgroups: news.admin.misc,
news.announce.newgroups, news.announce.newusers, news.answers, news.groups

(b) by sending e-mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu, with a blank "Subject:"
line, and with the following command in the message body: send
usenet/news.groups/How_to_Create_a_New_Usenet_Newsgroup


(2) "Guidelines on Usenet Newsgroup Names", by David Wright and Mark Moraes

(a) in one of the following newsgroups: news.announce.newusers, news.groups,
news.admin.misc, alt.config, alt.answers, news.answers

(b) by sending e-mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu, with a blank "Subject:"
line, and with the following command in the message body: send
usenet/news.groups/Guidelines_on_Usenet_Newsgroup_Names


(3) "How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal", by Russ Allbery

(a) in one of the following newsgroups: news.announce.newusers, news.answers,
or news.groups


(4) "How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal", by David Lawrence and Una Smith

(a) in one of the following newsgroups: news.announce.newusers, news.answers


(5) "So You Want to Create an Alt Newsgroup", by David Barr

(a) in one of the following newsgroups: alt.config, alt.answers, news.answers

(b) by sending e-mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu, with a blank "Subject:"
line, and with the following command in the message body: send

usenet/alt.config/So_You_Want_to_Create_an_Alt_Newsgroup

by pointing your Web browser to:
http://www.math.psu.edu/barr/alt-creation-guide.html (Who's computer is this?)


(6) "How to Write a Good Newgroup Message", by Brian Edmonds

(a) in the newsgroup alt.config

(b) by pointing your Web browser to:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html (Who's computer is this?)


These articles are posted periodically (usually at least once per month) in
the indicated newsgroups. If you don't find them there, that simply means
that the most recent copies have "expired" on your news server. New copies
should be posted eventually.

Finally, the following Web addresses contain collections of information on
creating an "alt" group, including the "So You Want to Create..." article,
and a description of the actual newgroup control mesage.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/news/create.html (Who's computer is this?)
http://www.tezcat.com/~haz1/alt/faqindex.html (Who's computer is this?)

Note: for beginner's information on newsgroups, check out
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6882/ (Who's computer is this?)

Updates available at
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6882/newgroup.html (Who's computer is this?)

--------------------------------------------------------------




last updated 5/19/2007


Any and all comments or suggestions on this FAQ are greatly appreciated.
Send them to vidiot2005@yahoo.com, or as a public message on
alt.binaries.sounds.whitburn.d (the non-binary text discussion group).





--Vidiot