Madder Mortem - Mercury (1999)
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Report errors & omissions here
Forum Description: Seen a mistake in a band bio etc then please tell us
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35808
Printed Date: December 01 2024 at 23:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Madder Mortem - Mercury (1999)
Posted By: Draconean
Subject: Madder Mortem - Mercury (1999)
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 18:09
|
When doing my review on Madder Mortem’s album “Mercury” I encountered the following:
• On the PA album page the total time of the album is said to be 50:33. This is not correct. It should be 51:58 ------------- I'm running still, I shall until, one day I hope that I'll arrive |
Replies:
Posted By: Fassbinder
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 18:20
I count is as 51:53...  Please check out who's wrong -- me or you.
But it's not 50:33, for sure. I know how they get those 50:33, though...
|
Posted By: Draconean
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 18:42
With great reluctance I have to say that I think you're wrong. 
IMO opinion the following is the case: Each track time is given in minutes and seconds. The seconds however are rounded of. So there can be split seconds but we don't see them. We only notice them when we add up several track times and the split seconds together are more than 0,5 second (because that is rounded up to 1 second). And about the 50:33 : I think that we both have got the same idea. When you add up the minutes of each track the result is 48. Adding up the seconds of each track gives 233 seconds. That is 3 minutes and 53 seconds, not 2:33 (48:00 + 2:33 = 50:33)! Cheers. ------------- I'm running still, I shall until, one day I hope that I'll arrive |
Posted By: Fassbinder
Date Posted: March 21 2007 at 19:01
|
I may be wrong. But look at the times for each track, separately. Looking at the seconds we see that their sum ends in 3, not in 8. And the total time should fit the sum of separate tracks' lengths.
As for 50:33 -- I just summed it up by the microcalculator, that was the result.
Anyway, for a while I corrected the total time to 51:53...
|
Posted By: Draconean
Date Posted: March 22 2007 at 13:02
|
OK, I understand that the "total time" should fit the sum of separate tracks' lengths. In that case 51:53 is indeed correct.
I was under the idea that the "total time" was the time displayed as the total playing time in the display of my CD-player (which was 51:58). ------------- I'm running still, I shall until, one day I hope that I'll arrive |
Posted By: Fassbinder
Date Posted: March 22 2007 at 13:10
|
Strictly speaking, you're right from the point of view of physics -- the overall time is 51:58, in our case.
But for a person who looks at the track listing it should seem very unlogical -- where do they have a 5 seconds gap from?
Therefore I preferred the mathematical sum of tracks' lengths, for consistency.
|
Posted By: Draconean
Date Posted: March 22 2007 at 14:02
|
OK, understood. Fine by me.
I'll stick to that definition/explanation from now on. ------------- I'm running still, I shall until, one day I hope that I'll arrive |