Topic: Misspelling of 'color'

[kode54]

I don't know how you managed to hear mp3 better, but there's a considerable flaw in this test of yours: instead of comparing these formats to each other, you should have compared them to the original

That is correct, and the comparison should be performed using a blind testing tool. I believe one such tool is called WinABX, and the Foobar2000 player has an ABX component.

UMX is actually a form of Impulse Tracker, IIRC.

UMX is actually a generic Unreal archive containing one module file. Unreal and Unreal Tournament use a mix of .MOD, .S3M, .XM, and .IT. Deus Ex uses .IT exclusively.

[Torkell]

Yes, we still drive in miles per hour, and we drive on the left too! And the 3-2-1 signs at junctions are 300, 200 and 100 yards respectively from the junction.

About flame wars: the all-time funniest one I saw was on the GameFAQs message board, and had about 140 posts (3 pages at 50 posts per page). I should have saved it but didn't at the time, as GameFAQs don't keep topics for ever.
Anyway, this one is still good-natured. No-ones rested their elbow on the shift key yet.

[Philidor11]

That is correct, and the comparison should be performed using a blind testing tool. I believe one such tool is called WinABX, and the Foobar2000 player has an ABX component.

There's no such thing as a 'blind testing tool'.  The standard of measurement has been selected and built into the tool.  A blind test, or double blind test has to do with how the test is conducted.  In a drug test, for instance, a double blind test means that the people doing the testing do not know whether they're giving any given patient the drug being tested or a placebo.
The basis for comparison is also under the control of the tester.  For example, if I'm to compare the experience of listening to music compressed in the mp3 and mpc formats using a specific piece of equipment, then what is required is the equipment and the same piece of music in each format with similar bit rates.  If the admittedly subjective standard of my response to the music results in a finding that the two formats produce indistinguishable results or give the superiority to mp3, then that is a successful result.
Comparison to the original source, the music before compression, would use a different standard and constitute a different test.  If the standard were how the music sounds to me on a given piece of equipment, then a reasonable finding would be that the compressed version sounds better than the original because there is better software capability to play music on the hard drive than on the CD.
If the standard were some kind of technical measurement of the sound output regardless of the listening equipment used and the experience of the listener, then that would be a different test and could produce a different result.  A different result from this test would not invalidate the other.
If I had similar equipment to that used in the 'how the music sounds' test and just wanted to play music, I could very reasonably prefer the 'how the music sounds' test in choosing a compression format.

[Tsorovan]

Come again?

[Pike84]

Philidor11:

Regarding the choosing between different file formats, by considering which one sounds better, and not which one sounds closer to the original, I get your point. Yet, I don't see how software could affect how the music sounds, if you play them all through your computer anyway. If you think they play differently from hd versus CD, then you can always rip the CD to the unpacked wav format, and do the comparison then.

Anyway, I personally want my music to sound as close to the original as possible, because that's how it's meant to sound. Also I find that it sounds best for me that way .

[Brightguy]

Now, Kynes, who could be angered by the ideas that the French language doesn't exist and that nobody uses the metric system when the accuracy of these observations is so self-evident.
And then notice Brightguy asking what miles, yards, and miles per gallon mean?  He knows them very well; they're part of the only system of measurement in actual use.

Okay, first of all, I do use the metric system, and no other system.  I'm actually surprised to hear that miles, yards and gallons are still used in Britain.  Over here, we use kilometres, metres, and litres - nothing is measured in imperial anymore.  Call me dumb, but I really do not care that there are 1700-some yards in a mile.  Okay, I'll admit some people measure their height in feet, and some bathroom scales are still in pounds, even though kilogram is the unit for mass.  It is true that some people do not want to change systems.

Secondly, my country has two national official languages: English and French.  I really can't speak French very well, unfortunately, but I know it is used heavily in Quebec.  As well, all commercial products are labelled in both English and French here.

And now, I believe we have strayed off topic...  This is the XMPlay board, after all.

[Philidor11]

Philidor11:

Regarding the choosing between different file formats, by considering which one sounds better, and not which one sounds closer to the original, I get your point. Yet, I don't see how software could affect how the music sounds, if you play them all through your computer anyway. If you think they play differently from hd versus CD, then you can always rip the CD to the unpacked wav format, and do the comparison then.

Anyway, I personally want my music to sound as close to the original as possible, because that's how it's meant to sound. Also I find that it sounds best for me that way .

I'm glad there's an understanding on the different types of tests.  And please note that I did follow your suggestion and rip the CD to the unpacked wav format before compressing it to mpc and mp3 for comparison purposes.
Someone more knowledgeable than I should confirm, but I believe there's a substantial difference between the way a pc plays a file on the hard drive and the way it plays a CD, even with the wire connection to the sound card.  XMPlay needs a plug-in to play cda's.
I agree with you that the CD is closer to the intended sound when played on good, dedicated equipment rather than a pc, and in fact does sound better.

[Philidor11]

Okay, first of all, I do use the metric system, and no other system.  I'm actually surprised to hear that miles, yards and gallons are still used in Britain.  Over here, we use kilometres, metres, and litres - nothing is measured in imperial anymore.  Call me dumb, but I really do not care that there are 1700-some yards in a mile.  Okay, I'll admit some people measure their height in feet, and some bathroom scales are still in pounds, even though kilogram is the unit for mass.  It is true that some people do not want to change systems.

Secondly, my country has two national official languages: English and French.  I really can't speak French very well, unfortunately, but I know it is used heavily in Quebec.  As well, all commercial products are labelled in both English and French here.

And now, I believe we have strayed off topic...  This is the XMPlay board, after all.

Just as a historical note, there was an attempt to introduce the metric system in the US.  It failed with a few exceptions, and the committee in charge of the effort was disbanded awhile ago.  The popular response was quiet satisfaction.
For me, I have a sense of the size and weight of things associated with numbers in the Imperial system.  Changing the system would remove that understanding, and I couldn't see an advantage to learning a new one.
Chacun a son gout.

[Torkell]

I belive it succeeded partially - correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Americans use kilometres and kph?

[Olego]

I belive it succeeded partially - correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Americans use kilometres and kph?

Sorries, but not at all.  On some road signs there is a distance in kilometres every now and then, and in cars, below the speed in MPH there is KPH in a harder-to-see colouration, but America is mostly Imperial.  All maps are in miles, for example, and only the scale in the corner is of any use if you don't know what a Mile is.

<edit>It's late and I cannot spell!</edit>

~Olego~

[Zarggg]

Sadly, Olega is fully correct. American cars only have km/h as an afterthought, and about the only place you'll find roadsigns with "km" are near the Canadian border. I'd gladly go metric personally, but my brain has been hardcoded with the imperial scale. :-/

[Torkell]

I know mainland Europe uses kph & kilometres from my holidays in Spain, France and Portugal.

[Olego]

Sadly, Olega is fully correct.

My name's Olego, by the way.  Well, to those who can pronounce it, it's Oleg; but to others, it's Olego.

Unless you want to be Alpho.  
~Olego~

[Ralesk]

Well, I don't know about you, but if I can sense the temperature in °F, human-measurable lengths in inches and feet, and I have grown up in a fully metric country, I don't think it's so much of a problem to try a much much easier to calculate with system.
The problem lies within the willpower and the acceptance of new things.  Or rather the lack of them

And you evil evil things you steal almost one decilitre from a pint!  A real pint is more than half litre fluid, not less!

Oh, and UMX is merely a module embedded in the Unreal class system so that the music can be accessed in the object oriented language of Unreal.

PS: anyone can point me to a good grammar rule about merging the -able/-ible suffix to nouns?  When does it consume the trailing e?

[Philidor11]

Well, I don't know about you, but if I can sense the temperature in °F, human-measurable lengths in inches and feet, and I have grown up in a fully metric country, I don't think it's so much of a problem to try a much much easier to calculate with system.
The problem lies within the willpower and the acceptance of new things.  Or rather the lack of them

Of course, if someone said that a place was X kilometers away, I would ask, 'How far is that?'  People sense distances, volumes, etc. based on past experiences that correlate to the units of measurement they've used frequently.  Thus, kilometers is a meaningless number; I have never experienced a kilometer.  When I was asked, 'What's a kilometer?' I answered, 'It's a short mile.'  Similarly, a 2 liter bottle contains just over 2 quarts of fluid.  The liter is a name included so the same bottle can be used internationally without change, but the quart is a unit of measure.
The oddity is that there are people in the world whose experience has been such that they actually can think in terms of kilometers and liters.  Doesn't seem quite real, just an arbitrary construct, because the human expectation is that everyone is the same at some level.  They breathe, their heart beats, they measure in feet and pounds and pints/quarts/gallons.
Very hard to accept the difference between biology and culture, let alone consider a change in measuring systems.  If you wanted me to change measuring systems, I suppose that some day you'd decide to have me stop breathing, too.
By the way, calculating on base 16 (or base 12 or whatever) is just as easy as calculating in base 10, once you get used to it.  Some of the programmers here probably can think easily in base 2.  This doesn't connect to distance travelled or amount of fluid to be purchased, it's just a self-contained mathematical model.

[DanaPaul]

By the way, calculating on base 16 (or base 12 or whatever) is just as easy as calculating in base 10, once you get used to it.  Some of the programmers here probably can think easily in base 2.  This doesn't connect to distance travelled or amount of fluid to be purchased, it's just a self-contained mathematical model.

This self contained mathematical analogy is no more visible than in cost accounting.  Example, a fixed cost for the amount of energy expended to travel a specific unit of distance can be calculated using either system.  Either mathematical model can be used to reconcile out of pocket expenses for these energy units per distance units. The cost doesn't change, just the units.

Likewise, in the past decade or two, industry has adopted either both of these mathematical models for diversity, or the metric model exclusively within their own products.  Especially those industries that trade or depend on metric influenced technologies and nations.

The problem however, or this reluctance to throw the old mathematical model completely out of the window, is simple, cost.  Older and existing systems, technologies, and designs carry a heavy expense to redraft work orders, retool, redefine specifications, quantify quality assurance, litigation oversight, and (purchasing) governance, when these systems are mission critical, life support, or just utterly expansive and encompass many industries or technologies within a particular infrastructure or system.

On a smaller scale, I recall a teacher in High School answering a fellow students question regarding the usefulness of algebraic theory in our daily lives outside of the class room. His answer simply stated that some folks will need this mathematic theory in their jobs.  For decades following High School I plotted 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional coordinates for computer numerically controlled machining centers using a calculator and a pencil. (yes, the slide rule had already been obsolete by the pocket calculator) But I never forgot this instructors wisdom and to his credit I made a comfortable living because I listened.

Low and behold, a few years later we (the industry) had to absorb a new mathematical system to utilize the metric system that was already ingrained in our computer controlled equipment along with the older mathematical system so that we may (ultimately) compete on a wealth of new contracting opportunities.

IMHO, environment, commerce, and industrial trade will eventually bring about this accepted change and standardization.  Useful employment and the removal of remaining obstacles (stubborn industry leaders as well as the occasionally stubborn employee on the plant floor) will guarantee enthusiastic acceptance and understanding.

[Philidor11]

Low and behold, a few years later we (the industry) had to absorb a new mathematical system to utilize the metric system that was already ingrained in our computer controlled equipment along with the older mathematical system so that we may (ultimately) compete on a wealth of new contracting opportunities.

IMHO, environment, commerce, and industrial trade will eventually bring about this accepted change and standardization.  Useful employment and the removal of remaining obstacles (stubborn industry leaders as well as the occasionally stubborn employee on the plant floor) will guarantee enthusiastic acceptance and understanding.

As you say, the machinery incorporates conversion from system to system where appropriate.  The person using the equipment may be enthusiastically anti-metric, but the machinery will do a conversion.  Where this creates difficulty is in a case like the lost Mars lander, where  calculations using each system clashed.  Someone decided incorrectly that the numbers generated must of course be non-metric (or maybe metric), so the space craft was steered into the ground.

We're dealing with expectations, the 'of course' in this example.  There could never be an enthusiastic change in systems.  An attempt to force change politely failed.  On the conversion of experience into numbers, people will maintain only one system.
We're dealing not with a choice, I believe, but with a hard-wired part of human mentation.  Betraying the measuring system that's part of our conception of distance, volume, etc. is possible only with coercion, and adaptation would be long and difficult.

[DanaPaul]

There could never be an enthusiastic change in systems ... We're dealing not with a choice, I believe, but with a hard-wired part of human mentation.  Betraying the measuring system that's part of our conception of distance, volume, etc. is possible only with coercion, and adaptation would be long and difficult.

In many ordinary aspects of everyday life, conversations by the water cooler, and impulsive thought processes perhaps.  But opportunity will breed enthusiasm, eh? Case in point, programmers learning a mathematical system based on 2, or an integer storage capacity based on 16, it just makes more sense and it is necessary, therefore it eventually becomes second nature.  

Likewise, better communication across cultures, efficient information sharing across systems, and an even commerce exchange could breed this enthusiasm as well?  And eventually an understanding then develops that becomes second nature?

I will agree that a complete change is unlikely to complete its course in our life times.

[Philidor11]

In many ordinary aspects of everyday life, conversations by the water cooler, and impulsive thought processes perhaps.  But opportunity will breed enthusiasm, eh? Case in point, programmers learning a mathematical system based on 2, or an integer storage capacity based on 16, it just makes more sense and it is necessary, therefore it eventually becomes second nature.  
...
I will agree that a complete change is unlikely to complete its course in our life times.

As mentioned above, people can think in terms of closed mathematical models without changing the way they perceive distances, volumes, etc.

Give you an example of instinctive resistance to change.  In chess (whence Philidor), there's been an attempt to replace descriptive notation (P-K4) with algebraic (e4) in order to save money on republishing books from abroad.  It's become a lingua franca.  Fair enough; I can read the system, use it online, have for 20 years.
But of course I still think in descriptive, and the translation process in my mind is still slow and ungainly.  If algebraic disappeared tomorrow, there would be only a sense of relief.

The 'u' added to color in England has a good chance to be around for a long time, even if a silent 'u' has no purpose.

[Tsorovan]

Last time I heard, the SI units (think: metric) were THE adopted standard for scientifical applications. I haven't heard the cause of this "lost Mars lander" (I presume you're talking about Mars Observer?) to be a miss in number conversion; that sounds rather far-fetched, but if that's true then I guess it's just common human stupidity, and I won't be surprised. However, to me, it sounds like a mythic excuse for explaining away the space people's retardation and imperfection.

Feel free to prove me wrong though, I generally don't feel like following up on failed projects so I haven't actively sought out any information regarding Mars Observer, I just know it failed and AFAIK it was due to mechanical malfunction.

[Tsorovan]

The 'u' added to color in England has a good chance to be around for a long time, even if a silent 'u' has no purpose.

Pardon the French, but what on Earth have you been smoking? British English hasn't had any letters added, it's American English who has had them removed.

[Philidor11]

Pardon the French, but what on Earth have you been smoking? British English hasn't had any letters added, it's American English who has had them removed.

The removal of vestigial traits can only improve the breed.

Admission: I was stung for the extra 'u' in the spelling bee I mentioned awhile ago.

[Tsorovan]

Even if it did improve the language (which I don't fully agree with, but that's neither here nor there), it still makes your statement erroneous. :)

[Philidor11]

Even if it [dropping superfluous u's] did improve the language (which I don't fully agree with, but that's neither here nor there), it still makes your statement erroneous.

The change here does not have a major impact, is written, not spoken, and people have had a chance to get used to it.

That comma before the 'and' reminds me of an example of a change which, while widespread, has a good chance of failing.  A comma represents a pause, and you wouldn't be comfortable saying, 'For breakfast, I had bacon, eggs and coffee', so a comma after eggs has a use.  Style dictators want to drop it, but I suspect they'll fail.
Another example is different than.  If I said 'Your view of language is different than mine' you'd be entitled to think me trendy and shallow.  It grates.  The style dictators will probably fail on this one, too.

Languages are different from measuring systems; they can change.  But no matter how authoritarian the source, there are limits to acceptable deviation from established standards.

[Torkell]

Tsorovan: I believe what happened was that the US assumed everything was in one unit system, and we assumed it was the other (I can't remember which way round), and no-one bothered to do a conversion routine in the program, which would have been easy to do (for something like miles <-> kilometres, where 0 mph = 0 km/h, it's just a matter of multiplication. Celsius <-> Farenheit requires addition/subtraction as well because 0^oC = 32^oF). Since the differences are not too great at small speeds, this went unnoticed until the lander went into the ground at the wrong speed, and the subsequent investigation spotted the mistake.

S.I. units are metric as it is a nice system to use and program for (base 10 is alright, but base 2, 8 or 16 is much nicer to make computers work with). There are 6 S.I. base units: metres (distance), kilograms (mass), seconds (time), moles (amount of substance), Kelvins/Centrigeade (delta-1^oK = delta-1^oC but 0^oK is about 273^oC) (temperature) and lux (light). I'm not sure about the last one but it's either that or lumens.

<edit>>:(Why is it that YaBB doesn't support Unicode? It's part of the HTML 4 DTD>