SHARE
TWEET

Untitled

a guest Sep 14th, 2015 1,228 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. This is Google's cache of http://pastebin.ca/raw/1282977. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 5 Sep 2015 08:20:47 GMT.
  2. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
  3. Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
  4. [19:27] * Care (Johnny_Bra@whatnet-91db6123.res.rr.com) has joined #what.cd-interview1
  5. [19:27] <@umfreemcgee> Hello, I am one of the Elite members of What.CD who has been entrusted with inviting users I deem worthy of receiving an invite.  I have several questions for you, the more detailed your responses the better.  Do not use Google, Yahoo, etc. to research during this interview, I am interested only in the information you currently possess.  
  6. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> In the case that you are not prepared to become a What.CD member at this time, rest assured that will you will have another opportunity to interview after you possess the information needed to be a What.CD user.  Answer the questions in order, keeping in mind IRC has a line-length limit which usually works out to 3-4 sentences.
  7. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Any questions/comments before we begin?
  8. [19:28] <Care> Nope
  9. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> There are 22 questions standing between you and an invite to What.CD.  Good luck!
  10. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Section I: Audio Codecs, Bitrates, Transcoding
  11. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Doing well on this section will allow you to advance further in the interview.
  12. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> 01.  Are the following conversions "good" or "bad".  If a conversion is "good", there is no loss in quality beyond going to a lossy format and it is not a  lossy to lossy transcode.  If a conversion is "bad", the conversion is a lossy to lossy transcode or results in a lossless format sourced from a lossy format.
  13. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> a. CD -> MP3
  14. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> b. CD -> FLAC -> V0 MP3
  15. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> c. FLAC -> WAV (PCM) -> CD
  16. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> d. 320 kbps MP3 -> FLAC -> 320 kbps
  17. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> e. V0 MP3 -> V1 MP3 -> V2 MP3
  18. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> f. FLAC -> ALAC -> WAV (PCM) -> CD
  19. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> g. 192 kbps MP3 -> FLAC -> 320 kbps MP3
  20. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> h. FLAC -> AAC -> ALAC -> CD
  21. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> i. WAV (PCM) -> FLAC -> ALAC -> V2 MP3
  22. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> j. FLAC -> FLAC -> FLAC -> FLAC
  23. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> k. MP3 -> MP3 -> MP3 -> MP3
  24. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> l. FLAC -> V1 MP3
  25. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> m. V3 MP3 -> FLAC
  26. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Please answer as follows:
  27. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> a. "good/bad"
  28. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> b. "good/bad"
  29. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> c. "good/bad"
  30. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> etc...
  31. [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> If you do not understand the question or have a question regarding one of the formats, tell me NOW.
  32. [19:30] <@umfreemcgee> Do you understand the question?
  33. [19:30] <Care> yeah
  34. [19:30] <Care> working on it
  35. [19:30] <Care> should i just enter as i go?
  36. [19:30] <@umfreemcgee> You can enter them one at a time.
  37. [19:30] <Care> a. Bad
  38. [19:30] <Care>  b. bad
  39. [19:30] <Care> c. good
  40. [19:30] <Care> d. good
  41. [19:31] <Care> e. good
  42. [19:31] * Tal_Work is now known as Tal
  43. [19:31] <Care> f. bad
  44. [19:31] <Care> g. good
  45. [19:31] <Care> h. bad
  46. [19:31] <Care> i. bad
  47. [19:32] <Care> j good? i suppose it doesnt make sense
  48. [19:32] <Care> k bad
  49. [19:32] <Care> l bad
  50. [19:32] <Care> m good
  51. [19:33] <Care> v0 mp3s are 320/kbps no?
  52. [19:33] <Care> I assumed that was still considered "bad"
  53. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> V0 MP3's are not 320 kbps...
  54. [19:33] <Care> oh and e. was bad
  55. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> You Failed the Interview!
  56. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> Unfortunately, you have failed the interview.  While you have failed this interview, it is still possible to become a member of What.CD.  Come back after you have read the links below and feel prepared for the interview.
  57. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://xs.vc/eac/Spectral/spectral.html
  58. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transcoding
  59. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame
  60. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless
  61. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossy
  62. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Topic_Index#Audio_Codecs_2
  63. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=CBR
  64. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=VBR
  65. [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> Please copy down the links and "/part" from this channel.  You will be able to interview again 48 hours.
  66. [19:34] <Care> oh
  67. [19:34] <Care> its 245
  68. [19:34] <Care> thats right
  69. [19:34] <@umfreemcgee> Yup, around that...
  70. [19:35] <Care> and if i failed because you considered ALAC truly lossless that sucks
  71. [19:35] <@umfreemcgee> Is it not?
  72. [19:35] <Care> no
  73. [19:35] <Care> it isn't
  74. [19:36] <@umfreemcgee> How so?
  75. [19:36] <@umfreemcgee> If you had read the question, you probably wouldn't have failed.
  76. [19:37] <Care> The question was dumb, quality was loosely defines
  77. [19:37] <@umfreemcgee> e. V0 MP3 -> V1 MP3 -> V2 MP3 ...that's acceptable?
  78. [19:38] <Care> i made a typo
  79. [19:38] <Care> i corrected it
  80. [19:38] <Care> <Care> oh and e. was bad
  81. [19:38] <Care> thats why i didnt wanna go one by one
  82. [19:38] <Care> i was afraid id repeat one or something
  83. [19:39] <Care> anyways fuck it, i thought this was an interview not an examination
  84. [19:39] <@LogicalUser> 192mp3 to flac to 320kbps mp3? sounds awesome for quality
  85. [19:40] <Care> erm, if the source is a 192mp3
  86. [19:40] <Care> it doesnt matter what you do with it
  87. [19:40] <Care> any extra encoding/processing will just result in more loss, even if you set it to a higher bitrate
  88. [19:40] <@LogicalUser> so why is that a good thing?
  89. [19:41] <Care> it isnt
  90. [19:41] <@LogicalUser> it defines "good" and "bad" right there
  91. [19:41] <Care> did i say it was?
  92. [19:41] <@LogicalUser> yes you did
  93. [19:41] <Care> thats why examinations sorta suck ;)
  94. [19:42] <Care> well, if you really want to know what someone knows
  95. [19:42] <@umfreemcgee> ?
  96. [19:42] <@LogicalUser> indeed, you likely know most this stuff
  97. [19:42] <@LogicalUser> but we wouldnt know it from the log
  98. [19:43] <Care> its pretty easy to make an error here and there, especially when you ask me to list things and scroll up at the same time :P
  99. [19:43] <@LogicalUser> try back in two days, and give those URLs a look, and take your time net time :P
  100. [19:43] <@LogicalUser> *next
  101. [19:43] <Care> Why all the rules?
  102. [19:43] <@LogicalUser> because we want people who know what they're doing
  103. [19:43] <@LogicalUser> or are willing to learn what they dont know
  104. [19:43] <Care> Yeah, and you need to establish a bunch of bullshit redtape to find that out?
  105. [19:43] <Care> I feel like im at the post office.
  106. [19:43] <@LogicalUser> its not bullshit
  107. [19:44] <@LogicalUser> lossy to lossy is bad for quality
  108. [19:44] <Care> You can just ask me.
  109. [19:44] <@umfreemcgee> Ask you what?
  110. [19:45] <Care> well the couple errors I made I corrected
  111. [19:45] <@LogicalUser> i wish those were your only mistakes
  112. [19:45] <Care> And even amongst "lossless" codecs
  113. [19:45] <Care> There is a difference in "quality"
  114. [19:46] <@umfreemcgee> Would you like a more thorough interview?
  115. [19:46] <Care> No lossless codec has better traction than FLAC
  116. [19:46] <@umfreemcgee> Differences in Lossless Codecs?
  117. [19:46] <Care> ALAC doesn't even come close.
  118. [19:46] <@clockoutx> mmm..traction
  119. [19:46] <Care> No, not really, I don't know THAT much.
  120. [19:46] <Care> I just like my music.
  121. [19:46] <@LogicalUser> but is there something inherently wrong with the decompressed output of that ALAC?
  122. [19:46] <Care> And I know enough to be useful and not a noob
  123. [19:47] <Care> erm
  124. [19:47] <Care> of ALAC?
  125. [19:48] <@LogicalUser> yes, ALAC is only mentioned above as a format being converted to/from
  126. [19:48] <Care> what do you mean by "inherently"?
  127. [19:48] <Care> I don't think so
  128. [19:48] <@LogicalUser> your saying ALAC is poor quality, why?
  129. [19:49] <Care> I never said it was poor, I said it was worse than FLAC and I figure that you'd get some encoding artifacts converting anyways
  130. [19:50] <Care> So overall you end up with a poorer quality track
  131. [19:50] <@LogicalUser> FLAC is a superior codec, definetly, but its not an audio quality issue
  132. [19:50] <Care> No, it isn't.
  133. [19:51] <Care> But if you ask me whether or not encoding a bunch of tracks from FLAC to ALAC is good or bad
  134. [19:51] <Care> The answer is bad
  135. [19:52] <@LogicalUser> you have 4 correct answers above, including your correction
  136. [19:53] <Care> ehm you sure?
  137. [19:53] <@LogicalUser> quite
  138. [19:56] <Care> Meh, maybe, but that's because the question sucked again. For example on question m it was asked v3 MP3 -> FLAC and I said good but it might be bad according to the way you worded your question since it is a lossless format sourced from a lossy format
  139. [19:57] <@LogicalUser> each interviewer has their own worded question
  140. [19:57] <@umfreemcgee> I apologize for question sucking...
  141. [19:57] <@LogicalUser> sometimes there are interpretation issues, but its a bitch to phrase em
  142. [19:57] <@LogicalUser> umfremcgee, simple fix. tack CD -> in front of all of em
  143. [19:57] <@LogicalUser> so its clear they all start w a lossless original source
  144. [19:58] <Care> That would of worked a lot better
  145. [19:58] <@LogicalUser> unfortunetly, you got those ones incorrect as well
  146. [19:58] <@LogicalUser> :/
  147. [19:58] <Care> I did not.
  148. [19:58] <@LogicalUser> CD to MP3
  149. [19:58] <Care> I said CD to MP3 was bad
  150. [19:58] <@LogicalUser> how?
  151. [19:58] <@LogicalUser> its a single lossy encode, direct from the source
  152. [19:59] <Care> Do I really need to explain that MP3s are a lossy format?
  153. [19:59] <@LogicalUser> "there is no loss in quality beyond going to a lossy format "
  154. [19:59] <Care> Does it matter if it is a single lossy encode or not? There is a loss of quality no matter what you say
  155. [19:59] <@LogicalUser> from the question itself
  156. [19:59] <Care> And you didn't even mention the bit-rate
  157. [19:59] <Care> If you go CD to 192MP3, sure
  158. [20:00] <Care> there is a loss in quality
  159. [20:00] <Care> I could probably even hear it
  160. [20:00] <@LogicalUser> of course, but its intended
  161. [20:00] <Care> If the question is quality in terms of what we can here
  162. [20:00] <@LogicalUser> is there a better way to get 192 mp3?
  163. [20:00] <@LogicalUser> ugh
  164. [20:00] <Care> oh, so it is a relative comparison?
  165. [20:00] <Care> like
  166. [20:00] <Care> is CD to MP3 better than...?
  167. [20:00] <Care> Because if its a relative thing
  168. [20:01] <Care> they all suck
  169. [20:01] <Care> and I say CD to FLAC
  170. [20:01] <@LogicalUser> is there excessive loss due to transcoding
  171. [20:01] <Care> Define excessive? For me excessive could be very very small.
  172. [20:01] <Care> You should of just kept it at do you end up with something better or worse?
  173. [20:02] <Care> Instead of do you end up with something more or less the same or worse?
  174. [20:02] <Care> Because then you should of asked me to type
  175. [20:02] <Care> "more or less the same"/bad
  176. [20:02] <@LogicalUser> i've rephrased this question 30x
  177. [20:02] <@LogicalUser> this is the 20th time ive had this exact same convo
  178. [20:02] <Care> anyways
  179. [20:02] <Care> so obviously you should retire this question
  180. [20:03] <@LogicalUser> theres a reason we offer 3 attempts
  181. [20:03] <@LogicalUser> and provide links
  182. [20:03] <Care> it shouldn't even be this hard to join a torrent site :\
  183. [20:03] <@LogicalUser> most people do just fine
  184. [20:03] <Care> and why 2 days apart?
  185. [20:03] <@LogicalUser> its not, get invited by your buddy who already a member
  186. [20:04] <Care> I'd be fine with that but I feel like I'm at a night club
  187. [20:04] <@LogicalUser> because otherwise when we say a "day" they're back the next morning, in 8hrs
  188. [20:04] <@LogicalUser> 48hrs works well
  189. [20:04] <Care> lol, why not, you know, give more than one question?
  190. [20:04] <@Tal> Care: You /are/ at a nightclub. And you didn't get in. :)
  191. [20:04] <@LogicalUser> we do
  192. [20:04] <Care> thats how normal tests work
  193. [20:04] <@LogicalUser> thats just #1
  194. [20:04] <Care> you get a chance to complete the test
  195. [20:04] <Care> and then they tally up everything at the end
  196. [20:04] <@LogicalUser> and he felt your 4/12 success rate was not good enough
  197. [20:05] <@LogicalUser> on the opening question
  198. [20:05] <Care> it wasn't 4/12
  199. [20:05] <@LogicalUser> im not kiddin
  200. [20:06] <Care> If it was it's because the question was vague and you consider CD to MP3 to be a good conversion
  201. [20:06] <@Tal> That's because it is.
  202. [20:06] * keanu is now known as keanu|movie
  203. [20:06] <@Tal> It's not a bad transcode.
  204. [20:06] <@Tal> Because going from lossless (CD) to lossy (mp3) is acceptable according to /our/ standards.
  205. [20:07] <Care> So what constitutes as a bad transcode? There is a loss of quality
  206. [20:07] <Care> And you didnt even define the bitrate
  207. [20:07] <@LogicalUser> bitrate is irrelevant in this case
  208. [20:07] <@Tal> Bad transcode = lossy (mp3) to lossless (FLAC)
  209. [20:07] <@Tal> For example.
  210. [20:08] <@Tal> Anytime you convert to a lossy format, the chain has to /stop/ there.
  211. [20:08] <Care> I see
  212. [20:08] <Care> So its more
  213. [20:08] <Care> Useful conversions
  214. [20:08] <Care> and Useless conersions
  215. [20:08] <@Tal> No.
  216. [20:08] <@LogicalUser> conversions without unneeded loss
  217. [20:09] <@Tal> It's acceptable transcodes and unacceptable transcodes. 'good' and 'bad'
  218. [20:09] <@LogicalUser> the lineage of the end result, is it lossless?
  219. [20:09] <Care> Like I said, acceptability is meaningless without giving me a measure for how you guys define it.
  220. [20:09] <Care> LogicalUser, that makes more sense.
  221. [20:09] <@LogicalUser> he did give a definition
  222. [20:09] <Care> If you phrased the question like that, I probably would of passed.
  223. [20:10] <Care> His definition mentioned quality
  224. [20:10] <@LogicalUser> and you missed the single lossy format conversion
  225. [20:10] <@LogicalUser> in his "good" definition
  226. [20:10] <Care> It did not mention necessity
  227. [20:10] <@Tal> Define 'good transcode'. Any conversion that originates with a lossless source.
  228. [20:11] <@Tal> Define 'bad transcode'. Any conversion that originates from a lossy source.
  229. [20:11] <@Tal> Pretty cut and dried.
  230. [20:12] <Care> ok so FLAC -> MP3 -> FLAC is good
  231. [20:12] <Care> according to you
  232. [20:12] <Care> interesting
  233. [20:12] <Care> :)
  234. [20:12] <@LogicalUser> no, the end result originated from a lossy source
  235. [20:12] <@Tal> Yep. That's exactly what I said.
  236. [20:12] <@Tal> -_-
  237. [20:13] <@Tal> You failed, chief. Come back in 2 days and try again.
  238. [20:13] <@Tal> End.
  239. [20:13] <@Tal> Or not. We like new members that know their shit, but if you don't want to do it again, it's not a huge deal.
  240. [20:13] <Care> lol
  241. [20:14] <@Tal> Please /part the channel.
  242. [20:14] <Care> probably not, this place seems too stuck up :\
  243. [20:14] * Care (Johnny_Bra@whatnet-91db6123.res.rr.com) has left #what.cd-interview1
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
 
Top