Site Announcements

View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here:
http://www.nwoutpost.com/poll/results


Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned!

Welcome to the new forum!
If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following:

1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt
2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit
3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided
4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab
5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit.
6) That's it...you're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password.


If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at: mikepaulsen12@gmail.com

Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc.
For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?XYZ1234567), highlight it and then click the YouTube button.

Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Discuss hard-to-find or out-of-print New Wave and '80s Alternative, and share a few songs along the way.
NOTE: requesting songs that are entirely unrelated to the genres discussed here or easily found on CD is strongly discouraged and posts will be enforced as needed.

Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby Uvox » Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:16 am

MUTE Records, home to many top synth and electro pop names, re-release the full TELEX catalogue this year.

To celebrate the tribute those keyboard masters fully deserve for their 50 years long contribution to electro pop music, here is a Japanese remix EP with TELEX hits:

Image

https://mega.nz/folder/cItijZoB#CQZ6k2oTjDHRcifxzxC9Fw
Uvox
Take On Me
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 1:26 pm

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby WLR » Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:13 pm

Cool share, thank you.

Looking forward to the mute compilation, should be good, Telex are a very underated band.
WLR
Personal Jesus
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:35 am

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby Uvox » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:35 am

check my earlier posted share of Michel Moers only solo effort, Fishing Le Kiss -
https://mega.nz/folder/REUkWBLb#eG7w_Y7eoEBLo0fWw05vJA

Hope that Mute can re-release solo albums of Telex members too, at some point.
Uvox
Take On Me
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 1:26 pm

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby WLR » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:48 am

I will check that out Uvox, had no idea he had done solo stuff, I am of an age when I remembering watching the Eurovision Song Contest when Telex appeared, I think it was 1980, they were way better than the usual fodder that appear on that song contest, good to see them get recognition with some re-issues and the compilation, a good move by Mute Records.

Thanks again.
WLR
Personal Jesus
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:35 am

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby WLR » Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:19 am

Forgot to add the remixes on the Japan release are fantastic :D
WLR
Personal Jesus
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:35 am

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby PKPN » Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:31 pm

Thanks for this! I really love pretty much any version of Moskow Diskow.

The comment field says ExactAudioCopy v1.1, but the tracks are not split on CD sector boundaries. Did you use a bad cue splitter on it, or did you trim digital silence, or what?
PKPN
Take On Me
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: USA

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby Uvox » Tue Mar 16, 2021 1:23 am

perfect versions of that release with the tracks split on CD sector boundaries, good cue splitter, and digital silence not trimmed can easily be found here:

https://www.discogs.com/sell/release/387885
Uvox
Take On Me
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 1:26 pm

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby PKPN » Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:57 pm

If you were unaware that your rips might be missing samples, I was going to offer some suggestions to help, but I didn't want to assume and thought it was better to just ask what happened. There's no need for gift-horse themed sarcasm, especially considering that in another thread this week, you asked for source details about the Karl Bartos share.
PKPN
Take On Me
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: USA

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby oldwaver2 » Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:19 pm

If you two are done publicly spanking each other's bare bottoms,
I would like this shared knowledge of tips about perfect cue splits.
oldwaver2
Take On Me
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby drivel » Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:52 am

Here is a "perfect" rip of Telex - Is Release a Humour? ~We Love Telex~: https://www.filemail.com/d/cvopqjjvesdeahi
drivel
Switchin' to Glide
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:22 pm
Location:

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby PKPN » Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:54 pm

drivel wrote:Here is a "perfect" rip

Thanks!

oldwaver2 wrote:I would like this shared knowledge of tips about perfect cue splits.

The short answer, on Windows, is to use CUETools. The interface is a little cumbersome, but it "just works": you point it to the .cue file in your image+cue rip folder, and set the action to Encode, Tracks, and whatever format options you want. It doesn't matter if the original rip is WAV, FLAC, or APE, and it works even if the cue sheet refers to the wrong file type. You get a new folder with individual track files and matching cue sheet, and it copies the logs over and even verifies the rip against a couple of online databases to gauge the accuracy. You probably need to tag the files, still, but the main work is done, and the result is what you would have gotten if you had done a track-by-track rip. CUETools can also just do the verification, or fix offsets, or produce an image+cue from tracks, or repair rips of lightly damaged discs; it's very handy.

There are other options besides CUETools; for example, you could load the cue sheet into foobar2000 and then use its converter to generate individual track files from your playlist. This will work just fine.

There's one notorious cue splitter which cuts a FLAC image into chunks directly, rather than decoding the audio, cutting where it's supposed to, and re-encoding the result into new FLAC files (the way CUETools and every other sensible splitter does). Since a CD frame boundary rarely lines up perfectly with a FLAC block boundary, this crude, one could say medieval splitter is forced to write files with boundaries in the wrong places. The first and last samples of each track can be missing or duplicated, depending on where the cutting is done. It also does not write into the FLACs an MD5 hash of the sample data for each track, since it doesn't even look at the samples, so there's no way to know if the file becomes corrupted. This is the price paid for its near-instantaneous speed and high placement in search results.

Now that there's a rip of the Telex CD with correct boundaries posted, we could compare in detail, but suffice it to say some tracks on the first rip are longer than they should be, and some are shorter.

Does it matter? On a disc like this, mastered with lots of silence between the songs, no, not audibly; it's a very generous and high quality share. The crude split does prevent any errors from being detected and corrected, but the songs themselves may still be intact and error-free, and certainly nobody will notice except a small number of us extremely pedantic nerds.

(I'm hesitant to use terms like "perfect" when talking about CD rips. That kind of binary judgment is encouraged by certain snooty file-sharing communities I've never joined. If I recall correctly, they want their members to pledge to always err on the side of extreme caution when ripping, and provide extensive proof that they did, regardless of whether the audio verifies as accurate. You could share a verifiably flaw-free rip, but it would get replaced, just because the log had the "wrong" setting indicated, or you didn't name your files "correctly". /rant)

There are other ways to wind up with incorrect track boundaries and missing/extra samples. One might use/misuse some tools, including some built-in features of a very popular CD ripping app, to remove "gaps", digital silence, or nearly-silent sections of audio, and this can result in the same outcome: odd track sizes, and thus unverifiable, unrepairable rips.
PKPN
Take On Me
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: USA

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby AJWAVE » Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:30 pm

drivel wrote:Here is a "perfect" rip of Telex - Is Release a Humour? ~We Love Telex~: https://www.filemail.com/d/cvopqjjvesdeahi

Thanks for share!
あなたは注目を集めるのが好きですか、ばか?
User avatar
AJWAVE
The Jet Set
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 4:46 am
Location: Lima - Peru

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby oldwaver2 » Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:53 pm

Thank you for taking the time for the overview. PKPN.
This is what the forum should be about. Information exchange.
This explains why when I rip a CD using cue-tools I sometimes get errors even though it's directly from the CD.
But than again the track sounds perfectly fine to me.
The worst is when you take the time to rip a CD and post it and people nit-pick it and don't thank you.
Oh well. We're are not people. We are commodities.
Our worth/value is what we can do for other people.
oldwaver2
Take On Me
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby 80rulez » Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:09 pm

PKPN wrote:Thanks for this! I really love pretty much any version of Moskow Diskow.

The comment field says ExactAudioCopy v1.1, but the tracks are not split on CD sector boundaries. Did you use a bad cue splitter on it, or did you trim digital silence, or what?


I'm curious how you can tell that the splitting is not perfect?

I thought regardless of the tools, the splitting results will depend on the CUEsheet that you use?

Also, when I ripped from an analogue source, the songs are lumped into one big file. As I have no CUEsheet, I can't split them. I did it the hardway, went to discogs, check each individual track length, look at the wavelength to make the perfect match and manually create the CUEsheet. I don't know any other way. Would love to learn new things from all of you.

BTW, I use the freeware Audacity for the ripping. If there are better tools, please share. Thanks.
80rulez
Switchin' to Glide
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:08 am

Re: Share: TELEX - Is release a humour? - We love TELEX

Postby PKPN » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:47 pm

80rulez wrote:I'm curious how you can tell that the splitting is not perfect?


I have my audio player, foobar2000, configured with custom columns to display track durations in several different ways:

  • DUR: %length_ex%
  • CD DUR: $ifgreater($mod(%length_samples%,588),0,~, )$pad_right($left(%length_ex%,$sub($len(%length_ex%),4)):$num($muldiv($add($right(%length_ex%,3),1),75,1000),2),8,0)
  • SAMPLES: %length_samples%
  • SECTORS: <$ifgreater($mod($div(%length_samples%,$div(%samplerate%,44100)),588),0,~, )$div($div(%length_samples%,$div(%samplerate%,44100)),588)>

SAMPLES is the raw sample count and is the most precise measure of a file's duration. DUR shows the duration as minutes:seconds.milliseconds (milliseconds are rounded up or down, e.g. 71 frames = 71/75ths of a second = 946⅔ ms, which displays as 947). CD DUR shows the duration as minutes:seconds:frames (CD's native m:s:f format), with the frame count rounded down and the whole thing preceded by a tilde when the sample count is not evenly divisible by 588. SECTORS is simply the sample count divided by 588, rounded down and preceded by a tilde if not evenly divisible.

It is the CD DUR and SECTORS columns which tell me if a CD rip has been split improperly; I just look for my tilde characters. It also is good for spotting CD rips being passed off as vinyl rips (something I used to do, myself, ugh!).

So that's how I tell that the splitting isn't perfect. But you can also find out by trying to verify the rip in CUETools; it will give warnings and failures.

(I also have a sectors-like column showing me a count of MP3 frames, which are multiples of 1152 samples; this helped me diagnose some gapless-playback problems, and spot & identify CD sources in my MP3s.)

80rulez wrote:I thought regardless of the tools, the splitting results will depend on the CUEsheet that you use?


Sort of. The cue sheet can only express the track boundary using m:s:f timecodes. The precision is 1/75th of a second: 588 stereo samples, given the 44100 sample rate used by all CDs. This 588-sample "frame" or "sector" is the minimum unit of access for reading and writing CDs. All ripping & burning software is limited to reading and writing data in blocks which start and end on these sector/frame boundaries, so any track you rip is going to be a multiple of 588 samples in duration.

For example, the cue sheet will say in image.wav, track 01 starts at 00:00:00, track 02 starts at 05:22:71, and so on. It's slightly more complicated by the fact that each track has subtracks called indexes, but that's the gist of it. Ultimately this info goes into the Table Of Contents (TOC) in the lead-in area of the disc; this is what gets read when you first insert a disc into a drive or player, so that the system knows the number of tracks and their exact durations, and this is the key by which it looks up verification info & metadata in external databases.

From drive to drive, the overall offset of the audio relative to the track boundaries can vary, e.g. one drive delivers one set of 588 samples for a given frame, and another will give you a different set, shifted forward or backward by some number of samples. This does not change the number of samples read, but if this offset is accounted for by the ripper, then depending on how the ripper is configured or coded, it may result in the last track not being a multiple of 588 samples, but the rest will be. The standard offset correction behavior, though, is to pad the last sector with silence so it will be 588 samples and not throw off the total count.

CDs also are pressed in many separate batches, using molds derived from separate glass master discs which have their own variations in offset, as well as small differences in the boundaries (and thus durations) of each track. Some of these also have some differences in one or more samples, for various reasons. A release like this Telex disc will probably only have one batch though, so I expect there is only one valid set of track durations.

In Discogs, durations are only taken from what is printed on the release, or taken from someone's media player, and is only precise to seconds, not fractions of seconds. So those track lists are too crude to use for verification and metadata lookups, and also too crude for proper cue sheets and splitting.

However, there are other databases which can be checked. I like to go to MusicBrainz, find the release, and look under the Disc IDs to find all the track layout variations which have been found so far (I think only ones submitted via their Picard app). This will give you the precise durations right down to the sector/frame. Increasingly, though, MusicBrainz is getting relatively vague data from Discogs and elsewhere, and that's what happened so far with this Telex release: https://musicbrainz.org/release/8fa9e4e ... 2f803b2398 ... You can see they don't have the actual sector counts yet. But, freedb (now GnuDB) is another option, and has enough info to get a complete track layout: https://gnudb.org/gnudb/misc/51097906

Freedb/GnuDB data is a little less user-friendly than MusicBrainz. The duration of most tracks can be obtained by subtracting one starting offset from the next, and the last track's duration can be inferred by decoding the disc ID and subtracting the last offset. The starting frame numbers 150, 20963, 49483, 72718, 100788, 165150, with a disc ID of 5109706, means that the durations are 20813, 28520, 23235, 28070, 64362, and 16930. Converted to m:s:f timecode that's 04:37:38, 06:20:20, 05:09:60, 06:14:20, 14:18:12, and 03:45:55. Total duration is 40:25:55 (106974840 samples). (Sector 150 correlates to 00:00:00 in the cue sheet; sectors 0–149 are the lead-in area, containing silent audio + multiple copies of the TOC and barcode.)

The first rip had sector counts of ~20702 (too short), ~28504 (too short), ~23287 (too long), ~28086 (too long), ~64323 (too short), and ~17059 (too long). Total sample count was 106995320, which is too long by 20480 samples (about 464 ms). The count of samples in each track was not divisible by 588, but was divisible by 1024 or 4096 (block sizes used in FLAC), except the last track, divisible by 4 as a consequence of the last FLAC block not being entirely full.

80rules wrote:when I ripped from an analogue source, the songs are lumped into one big file. As I have no CUEsheet, I can't split them. I did it the hardway, went to discogs

Most people split their analog-source rips within the audio editor they used to capture it with, e.g. Audacity or Audition. The durations simply are whatever you got in the capture. Use the editor to look at the waveforms, and listen to the audio and figure out where it begins and ends. Maybe allow a tiny bit of margin on each end, and trim appropriately. That's what people do with their vinyl rips, typically.

It is possible to make a cue sheet by hand. It's the same process, but just make a note of where the tracks begin, don't split anything. Convert those starting points to m:s:f format and put them in the cue sheet.

oldwaver2 wrote:We're are not people. We are commodities.
Our worth/value is what we can do for other people.


Well, that is depressing... also an unsurprising sentiment from a fellow fan of New Wave music.
PKPN
Take On Me
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: USA

Next

Return to Obscure 80s Central

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: crichert, eLeMeNOhPeaQ and 13 guests