[19:27] * Care (Johnny_Bra@whatnet-91db6123.res.rr.com) 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] 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] yeah [19:30] working on it [19:30] should i just enter as i go? [19:30] <@umfreemcgee> You can enter them one at a time. [19:30] a. Bad [19:30] b. bad [19:30] c. good [19:30] d. good [19:31] e. good [19:31] * Tal_Work is now known as Tal [19:31] f. bad [19:31] g. good [19:31] h. bad [19:31] i. bad [19:32] j good? i suppose it doesnt make sense [19:32] k bad [19:32] l bad [19:32] m good [19:33] v0 mp3s are 320/kbps no? [19:33] I assumed that was still considered "bad" [19:33] <@umfreemcgee> V0 MP3's are not 320 kbps... [19:33] 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] oh [19:34] its 245 [19:34] thats right [19:34] <@umfreemcgee> Yup, around that... [19:35] and if i failed because you considered ALAC truly lossless that sucks [19:35] <@umfreemcgee> Is it not? [19:35] no [19:35] 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] The question was dumb, quality was loosely defines [19:37] <@umfreemcgee> e. V0 MP3 -> V1 MP3 -> V2 MP3 ...that's acceptable? [19:38] i made a typo [19:38] i corrected it [19:38] oh and e. was bad [19:38] thats why i didnt wanna go one by one [19:38] i was afraid id repeat one or something [19:39] 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] erm, if the source is a 192mp3 [19:40] it doesnt matter what you do with it [19:40] 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] it isnt [19:41] <@LogicalUser> it defines "good" and "bad" right there [19:41] did i say it was? [19:41] <@LogicalUser> yes you did [19:41] thats why examinations sorta suck ;) [19:42] 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] 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] 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] Yeah, and you need to establish a bunch of bullshit redtape to find that out? [19:43] 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] You can just ask me. [19:44] <@umfreemcgee> Ask you what? [19:45] well the couple errors I made I corrected [19:45] <@LogicalUser> i wish those were your only mistakes [19:45] And even amongst "lossless" codecs [19:45] There is a difference in "quality" [19:46] <@umfreemcgee> Would you like a more thorough interview? [19:46] No lossless codec has better traction than FLAC [19:46] <@umfreemcgee> Differences in Lossless Codecs? [19:46] ALAC doesn't even come close. [19:46] <@clockoutx> mmm..traction [19:46] No, not really, I don't know THAT much. [19:46] I just like my music. [19:46] <@LogicalUser> but is there something inherently wrong with the decompressed output of that ALAC? [19:46] And I know enough to be useful and not a noob [19:47] erm [19:47] of ALAC? [19:48] <@LogicalUser> yes, ALAC is only mentioned above as a format being converted to/from [19:48] what do you mean by "inherently"? [19:48] I don't think so [19:48] <@LogicalUser> your saying ALAC is poor quality, why? [19:49] 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] 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] No, it isn't. [19:51] But if you ask me whether or not encoding a bunch of tracks from FLAC to ALAC is good or bad [19:51] The answer is bad [19:52] <@LogicalUser> you have 4 correct answers above, including your correction [19:53] ehm you sure? [19:53] <@LogicalUser> quite [19:56] 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] That would of worked a lot better [19:58] <@LogicalUser> unfortunetly, you got those ones incorrect as well [19:58] <@LogicalUser> :/ [19:58] I did not. [19:58] <@LogicalUser> CD to MP3 [19:58] 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] 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] 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] And you didn't even mention the bit-rate [19:59] If you go CD to 192MP3, sure [20:00] there is a loss in quality [20:00] I could probably even hear it [20:00] <@LogicalUser> of course, but its intended [20:00] 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] oh, so it is a relative comparison? [20:00] like [20:00] is CD to MP3 better than...? [20:00] Because if its a relative thing [20:01] they all suck [20:01] and I say CD to FLAC [20:01] <@LogicalUser> is there excessive loss due to transcoding [20:01] Define excessive? For me excessive could be very very small. [20:01] You should of just kept it at do you end up with something better or worse? [20:02] Instead of do you end up with something more or less the same or worse? [20:02] Because then you should of asked me to type [20:02] "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] anyways [20:02] 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] it shouldn't even be this hard to join a torrent site :\ [20:03] <@LogicalUser> most people do just fine [20:03] and why 2 days apart? [20:03] <@LogicalUser> its not, get invited by your buddy who already a member [20:04] 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] 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] thats how normal tests work [20:04] <@LogicalUser> thats just #1 [20:04] you get a chance to complete the test [20:04] 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] it wasn't 4/12 [20:05] <@LogicalUser> im not kiddin [20:06] 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] So what constitutes as a bad transcode? There is a loss of quality [20:07] 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] I see [20:08] So its more [20:08] Useful conversions [20:08] 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] Like I said, acceptability is meaningless without giving me a measure for how you guys define it. [20:09] LogicalUser, that makes more sense. [20:09] <@LogicalUser> he did give a definition [20:09] If you phrased the question like that, I probably would of passed. [20:10] His definition mentioned quality [20:10] <@LogicalUser> and you missed the single lossy format conversion [20:10] <@LogicalUser> in his "good" definition [20:10] 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] ok so FLAC -> MP3 -> FLAC is good [20:12] according to you [20:12] interesting [20:12] :) [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] lol [20:14] <@Tal> Please /part the channel. [20:14] probably not, this place seems too stuck up :\ [20:14] * Care (Johnny_Bra@whatnet-91db6123.res.rr.com) has left #what.cd-interview1