View difference between Paste ID: APCb4nXN and 3d5FLVr1

 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.
 The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
 Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
 [19:27] * Care ([email protected]) has joined #what.cd-interview1
 [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.
 [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.
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Any questions/comments before we begin?
 [19:28] <Care> Nope
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> There are 22 questions standing between you and an invite to What.CD.  Good luck!
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Section I: Audio Codecs, Bitrates, Transcoding
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Doing well on this section will allow you to advance further in the interview.
 [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.
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> a. CD -> MP3
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> b. CD -> FLAC -> V0 MP3
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> c. FLAC -> WAV (PCM) -> CD
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> d. 320 kbps MP3 -> FLAC -> 320 kbps
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> e. V0 MP3 -> V1 MP3 -> V2 MP3
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> f. FLAC -> ALAC -> WAV (PCM) -> CD
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> g. 192 kbps MP3 -> FLAC -> 320 kbps MP3
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> h. FLAC -> AAC -> ALAC -> CD
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> i. WAV (PCM) -> FLAC -> ALAC -> V2 MP3
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> j. FLAC -> FLAC -> FLAC -> FLAC
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> k. MP3 -> MP3 -> MP3 -> MP3
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> l. FLAC -> V1 MP3
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> m. V3 MP3 -> FLAC
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> Please answer as follows:
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> a. "good/bad"
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> b. "good/bad"
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> c. "good/bad"
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> etc...
 [19:28] <@umfreemcgee> If you do not understand the question or have a question regarding one of the formats, tell me NOW.
 [19:30] <@umfreemcgee> Do you understand the question?
 [19:30] <Care> yeah
 [19:30] <Care> working on it
 [19:30] <Care> should i just enter as i go?
 [19:30] <@umfreemcgee> You can enter them one at a time.
 [19:30] <Care> a. Bad
 [19:30] <Care>  b. bad
 [19:30] <Care> c. good
 [19:30] <Care> d. good
 [19:31] <Care> e. good
 [19:31] * Tal_Work is now known as Tal
 [19:31] <Care> f. bad
 [19:31] <Care> g. good
 [19:31] <Care> h. bad
 [19:31] <Care> i. bad
 [19:32] <Care> j good? i suppose it doesnt make sense
 [19:32] <Care> k bad
 [19:32] <Care> l bad
 [19:32] <Care> m good
 [19:33] <Care> v0 mp3s are 320/kbps no?
 [19:33] <Care> I assumed that was still considered "bad"
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> V0 MP3's are not 320 kbps...
 [19:33] <Care> oh and e. was bad
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> You Failed the Interview!
 [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.
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://xs.vc/eac/Spectral/spectral.html
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transcoding
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossy
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Topic_Index#Audio_Codecs_2
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=CBR
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=VBR
 [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> Please copy down the links and "/part" from this channel.  You will be able to interview again 48 hours.
 [19:34] <Care> oh
 [19:34] <Care> its 245
 [19:34] <Care> thats right
 [19:34] <@umfreemcgee> Yup, around that...
 [19:35] <Care> and if i failed because you considered ALAC truly lossless that sucks
 [19:35] <@umfreemcgee> Is it not?
 [19:35] <Care> no
 [19:35] <Care> it isn't
 [19:36] <@umfreemcgee> How so?
 [19:36] <@umfreemcgee> If you had read the question, you probably wouldn't have failed.
 [19:37] <Care> The question was dumb, quality was loosely defines
 [19:37] <@umfreemcgee> e. V0 MP3 -> V1 MP3 -> V2 MP3 ...that's acceptable?
 [19:38] <Care> i made a typo
 [19:38] <Care> i corrected it
 [19:38] <Care> <Care> oh and e. was bad
 [19:38] <Care> thats why i didnt wanna go one by one
 [19:38] <Care> i was afraid id repeat one or something
 [19:39] <Care> anyways fuck it, i thought this was an interview not an examination
 [19:39] <@LogicalUser> 192mp3 to flac to 320kbps mp3? sounds awesome for quality
 [19:40] <Care> erm, if the source is a 192mp3
 [19:40] <Care> it doesnt matter what you do with it
 [19:40] <Care> any extra encoding/processing will just result in more loss, even if you set it to a higher bitrate
 [19:40] <@LogicalUser> so why is that a good thing?
 [19:41] <Care> it isnt
 [19:41] <@LogicalUser> it defines "good" and "bad" right there
 [19:41] <Care> did i say it was?
 [19:41] <@LogicalUser> yes you did
 [19:41] <Care> thats why examinations sorta suck ;)
 [19:42] <Care> well, if you really want to know what someone knows
 [19:42] <@umfreemcgee> ?
 [19:42] <@LogicalUser> indeed, you likely know most this stuff
 [19:42] <@LogicalUser> but we wouldnt know it from the log
 [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
 [19:43] <@LogicalUser> try back in two days, and give those URLs a look, and take your time net time :P
 [19:43] <@LogicalUser> *next
 [19:43] <Care> Why all the rules?
 [19:43] <@LogicalUser> because we want people who know what they're doing
 [19:43] <@LogicalUser> or are willing to learn what they dont know
 [19:43] <Care> Yeah, and you need to establish a bunch of bullshit redtape to find that out?
 [19:43] <Care> I feel like im at the post office.
 [19:43] <@LogicalUser> its not bullshit
 [19:44] <@LogicalUser> lossy to lossy is bad for quality
 [19:44] <Care> You can just ask me.
 [19:44] <@umfreemcgee> Ask you what?
 [19:45] <Care> well the couple errors I made I corrected
 [19:45] <@LogicalUser> i wish those were your only mistakes
 [19:45] <Care> And even amongst "lossless" codecs
 [19:45] <Care> There is a difference in "quality"
 [19:46] <@umfreemcgee> Would you like a more thorough interview?
 [19:46] <Care> No lossless codec has better traction than FLAC
 [19:46] <@umfreemcgee> Differences in Lossless Codecs?
 [19:46] <Care> ALAC doesn't even come close.
 [19:46] <@clockoutx> mmm..traction
 [19:46] <Care> No, not really, I don't know THAT much.
 [19:46] <Care> I just like my music.
 [19:46] <@LogicalUser> but is there something inherently wrong with the decompressed output of that ALAC?
 [19:46] <Care> And I know enough to be useful and not a noob
 [19:47] <Care> erm
 [19:47] <Care> of ALAC?
 [19:48] <@LogicalUser> yes, ALAC is only mentioned above as a format being converted to/from
 [19:48] <Care> what do you mean by "inherently"?
 [19:48] <Care> I don't think so
 [19:48] <@LogicalUser> your saying ALAC is poor quality, why?
 [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
 [19:50] <Care> So overall you end up with a poorer quality track
 [19:50] <@LogicalUser> FLAC is a superior codec, definetly, but its not an audio quality issue
 [19:50] <Care> No, it isn't.
 [19:51] <Care> But if you ask me whether or not encoding a bunch of tracks from FLAC to ALAC is good or bad
 [19:51] <Care> The answer is bad
 [19:52] <@LogicalUser> you have 4 correct answers above, including your correction
 [19:53] <Care> ehm you sure?
 [19:53] <@LogicalUser> quite
 [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
 [19:57] <@LogicalUser> each interviewer has their own worded question
 [19:57] <@umfreemcgee> I apologize for question sucking...
 [19:57] <@LogicalUser> sometimes there are interpretation issues, but its a bitch to phrase em
 [19:57] <@LogicalUser> umfremcgee, simple fix. tack CD -> in front of all of em
 [19:57] <@LogicalUser> so its clear they all start w a lossless original source
 [19:58] <Care> That would of worked a lot better
 [19:58] <@LogicalUser> unfortunetly, you got those ones incorrect as well
 [19:58] <@LogicalUser> :/
 [19:58] <Care> I did not.
 [19:58] <@LogicalUser> CD to MP3
 [19:58] <Care> I said CD to MP3 was bad
 [19:58] <@LogicalUser> how?
 [19:58] <@LogicalUser> its a single lossy encode, direct from the source
 [19:59] <Care> Do I really need to explain that MP3s are a lossy format?
 [19:59] <@LogicalUser> "there is no loss in quality beyond going to a lossy format "
 [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
 [19:59] <@LogicalUser> from the question itself
 [19:59] <Care> And you didn't even mention the bit-rate
 [19:59] <Care> If you go CD to 192MP3, sure
 [20:00] <Care> there is a loss in quality
 [20:00] <Care> I could probably even hear it
 [20:00] <@LogicalUser> of course, but its intended
 [20:00] <Care> If the question is quality in terms of what we can here
 [20:00] <@LogicalUser> is there a better way to get 192 mp3?
 [20:00] <@LogicalUser> ugh
 [20:00] <Care> oh, so it is a relative comparison?
 [20:00] <Care> like
 [20:00] <Care> is CD to MP3 better than...?
 [20:00] <Care> Because if its a relative thing
 [20:01] <Care> they all suck
 [20:01] <Care> and I say CD to FLAC
 [20:01] <@LogicalUser> is there excessive loss due to transcoding
 [20:01] <Care> Define excessive? For me excessive could be very very small.
 [20:01] <Care> You should of just kept it at do you end up with something better or worse?
 [20:02] <Care> Instead of do you end up with something more or less the same or worse?
 [20:02] <Care> Because then you should of asked me to type
 [20:02] <Care> "more or less the same"/bad
 [20:02] <@LogicalUser> i've rephrased this question 30x
 [20:02] <@LogicalUser> this is the 20th time ive had this exact same convo
 [20:02] <Care> anyways
 [20:02] <Care> so obviously you should retire this question
 [20:03] <@LogicalUser> theres a reason we offer 3 attempts
 [20:03] <@LogicalUser> and provide links
 [20:03] <Care> it shouldn't even be this hard to join a torrent site :\
 [20:03] <@LogicalUser> most people do just fine
 [20:03] <Care> and why 2 days apart?
 [20:03] <@LogicalUser> its not, get invited by your buddy who already a member
 [20:04] <Care> I'd be fine with that but I feel like I'm at a night club
 [20:04] <@LogicalUser> because otherwise when we say a "day" they're back the next morning, in 8hrs
 [20:04] <@LogicalUser> 48hrs works well
 [20:04] <Care> lol, why not, you know, give more than one question?
 [20:04] <@Tal> Care: You /are/ at a nightclub. And you didn't get in. :)
 [20:04] <@LogicalUser> we do
 [20:04] <Care> thats how normal tests work
 [20:04] <@LogicalUser> thats just #1
 [20:04] <Care> you get a chance to complete the test
 [20:04] <Care> and then they tally up everything at the end
 [20:04] <@LogicalUser> and he felt your 4/12 success rate was not good enough
 [20:05] <@LogicalUser> on the opening question
 [20:05] <Care> it wasn't 4/12
 [20:05] <@LogicalUser> im not kiddin
 [20:06] <Care> If it was it's because the question was vague and you consider CD to MP3 to be a good conversion
 [20:06] <@Tal> That's because it is.
 [20:06] * keanu is now known as keanu|movie
 [20:06] <@Tal> It's not a bad transcode.
 [20:06] <@Tal> Because going from lossless (CD) to lossy (mp3) is acceptable according to /our/ standards.
 [20:07] <Care> So what constitutes as a bad transcode? There is a loss of quality
 [20:07] <Care> And you didnt even define the bitrate
 [20:07] <@LogicalUser> bitrate is irrelevant in this case
 [20:07] <@Tal> Bad transcode = lossy (mp3) to lossless (FLAC)
 [20:07] <@Tal> For example.
 [20:08] <@Tal> Anytime you convert to a lossy format, the chain has to /stop/ there.
 [20:08] <Care> I see
 [20:08] <Care> So its more
 [20:08] <Care> Useful conversions
 [20:08] <Care> and Useless conersions
 [20:08] <@Tal> No.
 [20:08] <@LogicalUser> conversions without unneeded loss
 [20:09] <@Tal> It's acceptable transcodes and unacceptable transcodes. 'good' and 'bad'
 [20:09] <@LogicalUser> the lineage of the end result, is it lossless?
 [20:09] <Care> Like I said, acceptability is meaningless without giving me a measure for how you guys define it.
 [20:09] <Care> LogicalUser, that makes more sense.
 [20:09] <@LogicalUser> he did give a definition
 [20:09] <Care> If you phrased the question like that, I probably would of passed.
 [20:10] <Care> His definition mentioned quality
 [20:10] <@LogicalUser> and you missed the single lossy format conversion
 [20:10] <@LogicalUser> in his "good" definition
 [20:10] <Care> It did not mention necessity
 [20:10] <@Tal> Define 'good transcode'. Any conversion that originates with a lossless source.
 [20:11] <@Tal> Define 'bad transcode'. Any conversion that originates from a lossy source.
 [20:11] <@Tal> Pretty cut and dried.
 [20:12] <Care> ok so FLAC -> MP3 -> FLAC is good
 [20:12] <Care> according to you
 [20:12] <Care> interesting
 [20:12] <Care> :)
 [20:12] <@LogicalUser> no, the end result originated from a lossy source
 [20:12] <@Tal> Yep. That's exactly what I said.
 [20:12] <@Tal> -_-
 [20:13] <@Tal> You failed, chief. Come back in 2 days and try again.
 [20:13] <@Tal> End.
 [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.
 [20:13] <Care> lol
 [20:14] <@Tal> Please /part the channel.
 [20:14] <Care> probably not, this place seems too stuck up :\
 [20:14] * Care ([email protected]) has left #what.cd-interview1