Simple MQA poll.

[Spacehound]

 

I'm going to make a 'not about how the voting goes' reply.

 

You do understand that with 100,000 plus 'members' here the small number of voters makes both those who vote  and  thus the result 'non-representative' don't you?

 

Ergo any conclusions drawn  from the result are automatically invalid.

 

Rest assured it's not just this poll. I've never  seen it NOT happen  on any forum.

[Spacehound]

15 minutes ago, realhifi said:

I’m going to go on the assumption that whatever the numbers are that it’s a fair representation of this forum seeing as that’s how polls are done. It will be more interesting to me to see how many actually vote. 

You cant under any circumstance rely on a 'self selecting' (people choose to post)  vote. Simply because only those that have a strong view will bother. And with such a tiny percentage of eligible voters  the result won't just be unrepresentative, it could well be  the  OPPOSITE of the general view - as below.

 

Do what you want of course, but if you base any comments on that poll it may be total nonsense.

 

We have a genuine 'scientist' here who as a result of his poll said Macs  were more popular for audio  than  Windows machines. Which is utter nonsense - it's that as Macs have only 4% of the market while Windows has 90% the Mac users are more vociferous where the Windows users don't feel the need to vote at all.

 

If you disagree  you just don't understand statistics at all. I don't mean to be rude, I'm just being factual..

 

As I say, it happens everywhere, so it's not just you.

[Spacehound]

Just now, Spacehound said:

You cant under any circumstance rely on a 'self selecting' (people choose to post)  vote. Simply because only those that have a strong view will bother. And with such a tiny percentage of eligible voters  the result won't just be unrepresentative, it could well be  the  OPPOSITE of the general view - as below.

 

Do what you want of course, but if you base any comments on that poll it may be total nonsense.

 

We have a genuine 'scientist' here who as a result of his poll said Macs  were more popular for audio  than  Windows machines. Which is utter nonsense - it's that as Macs have only 4% of the market while Windows has 90% the Mac users are more vociferous where the Windows users don't feel the need to vote at all.

 

If you disagree  you just don't understand statistics at all. I don't mean to be rude, I'm just being factual..

 

As I say, it happens everywhere, so it's not just you.

 

PS: I did vote, Yesterday. Long before I posted my first comment. Because I am strongly against MQA. See how it works?

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

 I jSure there might be 100K members but Chris might be able to tell us how many active members we have say in the last 6 months.  A lot of those 100k don't post.  It would be interesting to know about a % of activity this site actually has ( posters) not lurkers..

I was a lurker for years, I wouldn't have got started with computer audio in 2012  were it not for this site. I joined recently  because of MQA.

 

But if you are a member, there is no reason for you not to vote. People just don't care about much of this stuff is all. So drawing any conclusion from the self-selecting few that do vote  is nonsense.

 

I'm in the UK. Only 30% of the eligible voters voted to leave the EU. But we are leaving. The rest either voted stay or were happy with the status quo so didn't bother to vote.

 

Now imagine what might happen if we here  took 'action' on the result of RealHiFi's poll.

 

[Spacehound]

25 minutes ago, realhifi said:

 Calm down. It’s a poll. It’s just for my own curiosity. If it bothers you put it on ignore. 

I'm perfectly calm. But people often draw nonsensical  conclusions. If  you draw any, yours will be too. If that doesn't bother you, fine.

[Spacehound]

8 hours ago, Norton said:

Now comments are allowed...I'm not that surprised by the number voting nor the result.  I voted "neutral" both because I'm unconvinced about MQA, and because I find it hard to be "pro"or "anti" something  that's  just a music format when all's said and done.  Maybe non voters felt the same and more nuanced options might get different results?

 

 

He might not like what I posted, but if you look at the numbers since  (anti-MQA gone from 9 to 54) he cant say I  didn't light the blue touchpaper.  But meaningwise it's still not got off the ground.  , 

[Spacehound]

6 hours ago, mav52 said:

 Have the 30% left yet ?

 

members that vote will and like anything its a choice

They say the 70% should leave and take their too young to vote offspring with them. Syria looks nice.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Poll says 91 members have voted and when you total up the votes it comes to 79. 

Even more proof  it's a waste of space   

[Spacehound]

25 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

 

I now have enough SACDs and high resolution PCM and DSD downloads to keep me happy the rest of my life. So if MQA is the only format in the future I can refuse to purchase it.

 

I currently have zero items on my want list, and I listen to streaming audio samples of new high resolution releases every week to hear if I want to buy them. What I buy in the future will be new to me music that I discover at these download sites.

 

Also, I am happy with the sound quality of the music I own and don't automatically upgrade just for higher resolution. For example I have the 2.8MHz DSD download of Cat Stevens' Tea for the Tillerman and didn't buy the upgrade to 5.6MHz DSD download when it came out.

 

While I can't see MQA in my future, MQA must surely be superior to MP3, in which case it should be good for the masses. The sad thing (as you noted) will be if MQA replaces all downloads and physical products, in which case those with better audio systems who have music that was never released in another format on their want list will be forced to purchase the MQA version or go without.

I feel much the same, and only look for new stuff (Tidal is good for that)  because  I think I ought to, being an audiophile an' all.

 

But PLEASE don't talk about the "masses". You ARE one all the time you  aren't playing with your toy airplane, listening to music,  trying to catch a fish, or looking at your stamp collection.

[Spacehound]

PS: I don't do the stamp collection part  

[Spacehound]

10 hours ago, realhifi said:

Back off. 

I could say something with the same number of letters in both words but I wont.

[Spacehound]

43 minutes ago, mansr said:

Good question. It appears that accounts get assigned sequential ID numbers on registration, the most recent being 33336. A blank search for members returns 31184 results. The difference could be explained by deleted accounts.

There's always a lot of churn on forums. And some don't delete users even when asked, as it makes the numbers look good.

[Spacehound]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

My point was that the number is very far from 100k, even including dormant accounts.

I just vaguely remember Chris saying it in a reply to someone and I had no reason to disbelieve it at the time.

 

We could ask of course,  but who cares anyway?  And he might not now want to say, with the present  'controversy'.  "Quite a  lot" is fine. Numbers are only made up stuff anyway. They don't exist in 'reality'.

[Spacehound]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

There are obviously more site viewers than there are registered accounts. I assume there are cookies or something to track regular visitors that don't sign in.

I use Adblock Plus and Ghostery. I'm not paranoid, I just like the pleasure  of trying  to piss off the gubmint and its assorted lackeys. It's why I bought a pay as you go phone with cash, top it up with cash,  only switch it on if I want to make a call,  and never use it anywhere near where I live

 

We used to make fake Greenpeace 'assemble at XYZ'  calls, hide in the 'hills', and watch the police wasting their time.

[Spacehound]

53 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

I'm against MQA only because of the information I know about it right now.   I didn't initially start out against or for MQA, and my opinions could certainly change as more data is provided. 

I'm in their home country. The  names 'Meridian' and 'Stuart' put me off from day one.

[Spacehound]

16 minutes ago, realhifi said:

I can’t say I disagree with the recording companies wanting to protect their product.

How does selling a download of the crown jewels do any harm? Some do it already.

And a certain amount of trust is needed or the world stops.

 

As for pirates they would not buy it anyway, they don't pay for much music,  So what's lost?

[Spacehound]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

There are even studies suggesting that pirates actually spend, on average, more money on legitimate media purchases than non-pirates.

Maybe they are keener on music than we are 

[Spacehound]

31 minutes ago, realhifi said:

To be honest the cats out of the bag anyway. Once there is a 24/192 file of a recording out there then it’s pretty much “out” and can be copied and distributed freely as much as one wants. 

At IBM we put totally  spurious code in sometimes. When a rival  claimed they had not copied it but  'reverse engineered' it the court made them pay us lots of money 

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

Also let me just add that my verdict so far after listening to a substantial amount of MQA releases is a mixed bag. Some good, many the same as high res, many worse than the latest redbook (eg INXS's Kick).

 

I can fully decode MQA, btw... 

 

So my "for" vote for improved sound quality is still to pan out! 

Me too. Using the same DAC as you. But I'm too tight-fisted to buy the external clock.

[Spacehound]

5 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

It's not about "aristocracy".  It's  about transparency, accountability and the courage of your convictions.  If you prepare  an article  for publication, you should be equally prepared to put your name to it.  That's what every university I've worked at would expect. Maybe you dismiss all universities as lacking objectivity?

It's raining in my part of the New Forest. Come and have a look. Anon.

[Spacehound]

17 hours ago, Norton said:

 

it's also a tool to allow subjects to get around the truth  -fake news is built upon it.

 

 

Yes Mr Anonymous

[Spacehound]

On ‎19‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:24 PM, Norton said:

 

In the admittedly  unlikely event of my being invited and paid to contribute an article for publication on this site, I would be very happy to include my name.

 

I presume therefore you are either actually Mr Spacehound  or a hypocrite?

It just amuses me when one anonymous person 'accuses'  another of being anonymous. I never do that.

I'm not paid either. You can have my real name via PM anytime you want.

 

Chris knows it and I posted it 'publicly' a couple of days ago, though it had little  or no relevance to the rest of my post.

I'm near Southampton on the edge of the New Forest.

 

Will that do? 

 

((BTW: I think you have one of the most 'balanced' views here. It's  the reason  I'm  answering.)