CD, HDCD and MQA-CD?

Audio Gear Talk MQA
1

There is always heated discussion with MQA.

To me, MQA is just a lossy format for (fake?) DXD.

CD is red-book standard. i.e. 44.1k 16 bit loseless

HDCD is similar to MQA (in terms of encoding data in red-book CD). It is lossy 20bit (?)

Why people hate MQA so much but not HDCD? is it because of the attitude of MQA’s creator?

For CD format, isn’t it lossy DXD format (i.e. MQA-CD) better than 44.1k 16 bit lossless? :thinking:

In my mind, I am thinking lossy 4k video codec vs SD analog video.

BTW, what happened to HDCD? Seems it is gone and never fly.

2

Do we want another one then?

3 Likes
3

Why not? As long as the discussion is healthy, meaningful, insightful. :rofl:

4

Trust me you won’t be getting a nice clean little discussion about MQA. It will always degrade into a wrestling match :people_wrestling:

1 Like
5

I would like to know tha current economic status of MQA. Is it dead men walking, or does it have a chance to rebound? Do new kit use MQA anymore? That sort of thing.

6

I suggest searching the forum.

7

All I know is that MQA has been bought by Lenbrook. The same company that owns NAD and Bluesound.

Tidal is dumping MQA.

So in my opinion MQA is a dead horse :racehorse:

1 Like
8

Seems it is not a dead horse. It is doing well in another region. They keep issuing new titles in MQA-CD format..

MQA streaming may be questionable (as only Tidal is/was using it?) but MQA-CD seems doing well.

Looks to me their recent event may be helping(?) them instead of killing them? I bet the new owner may have new policy to promote it.

SACD was not that popular at one point. Now, it seems much better than before.

9

This is an oversimplification, and has been discussed elsewhere, so there’s no need to revisit here. You have also made your position clear on this subject.

No, it’s not. HDCD contains 44.1 kHz 20 bit PCM, i.e., and extra 4 bits resolution over Red Book CDs. Just like MQA CD, they can be played on standard CD players, but require specific hardware to utilize the format.

No, it is not. The intended use of DXD is the editing of DSD recordings. Red Book isn’t derived from DSD. In fact, most SACD are derived from PCM because editing in DSD is difficult.

I’m sure there are longer, more precise answers, but hopefully this helps as a starting point. By all means discuss formats, but please do not go over old ground.

11

Sorry for my ignorance, is HDCD a lossy format too? i.e. it try to pack 44.1k 20 bit PCM into 44.1k 16 bit format. In terms of packaging format, isn’t it similar to MQA?

Yes, agreed, DXD (actually just 384k/24 bit PCM) is used for editing of DSD recordings.

But Red Book just 44.1k/16 bit PCM format. Correct? If I used the term “Red Book” incorrectly, let’s use 44.1k/16bit PCM instead of Red Book.

My understanding is that CD Format could be derived from DSD recording or DXD recording. Correct?

That’s why I believe the comparison of MQA-CD vs regular CD is kind of like comparing lossy hi-res format (MQA) and 44.1/16 bit PCM. Not correct?

12

Neither CD (Red Book) nor HDCD are lossy formats. HDCD is very different to MQA, which includes additional resolution in the noise floor and uses origami to unfold the additional data before applying some filters. HDCD also applies filters when played on supported hardware.

Red Book is the original CD specification, and you’ll see “Compact Disk Digital Audio” on the CD jewel case.

Yes, DXD uses a PCM signal because editing cannot be done using a single bit.

Yes, using Reed-Solomon encoding to reduce surface errors.

No, I don’t think this is accurate at all. Certainly, some recordings mastered in DSD are also available on CD. In fact, many SACD are dual layer and work in a conventional CD player. However, the vast majority of CDs are derived from PCM mastering.

This is entirely flawed thinking, and differs to your opening post, where you suggested that Red Book is also lossy. Arguably, none of the formats you mention are lossy. For ease, it is usual to refer to the type of encapsulation when referring to lossy / lossless formats.

In the examples you provided, each is a like-for-like copy of what the mastering engineer wanted on the disk. In contrast, formats such as AAC and MP3 remove detail, and are lossy formats. It would be illogical to compare MQA with a 128 kbps MP3. Furthermore, “lossy hi-res” is an oxymoron.

13

Sorry for my poor communication skills, I think there is a big gap in our communication

  1. I never said 44.1k / 16 bit is lossy format. Never.

    For CD, you get bit perfect output from the CD as the source is 44.1k / 16bit and the output is also 44.1k / 16 bit. Where the lossy could come from? Could you highlight the part when I seems to indicate/suggest CD format (aka Red Book) is lossy?

    So, CD is lossless format. period. To be exact, it is a lossless 44.1k / 16bit PCM format. I hope we can agree on this.

  2. I said MQA is lossy format because it cannot 100% represent 384k / 24bit PCM format. Correct?
    From a different angle, we can say MQA can be a loseless format as it can be uncompressed (or unfolded) bit perfectly to whatever input it was fed as source.

There is simple high-level view:

DXD (or any Hi-Res master source) ===> "MQA process" ===> MQA-CD

A bit more detailed view:

DXD (or any Hi-Res master source) ===> intermeidate input right before the MQA folding process ===> MQA folding ===> MQA-CD

The folding and unfolding is lossless.

The part “DXD (or any Hi-Res master source) ====> intermeidate input right before the MQA folding process” is lossy.

Please do let me know if my understanding is not correct.

I am totally loss here…

  1. You agreed that vast majority of CDs are derived from PCM mastering. Based on my understanding of logic, it also means you agreed that some CDs are derivied from non-PCM mastering. Correct?

  2. If you agreed that some CDs are derivied from non-PCM mastering, what made you think it is not accurate at all when I stated “CD Format could be derived from DSD recording or DXD recording”? Isn’t that is something you just agreed on point 1 above? :thinking:

14

This is what you said, emphasis mine. I accept this may be a matter of “lost in translation”. No problem.

As for MQA, I would rather not get into the debate. My point is that Roon will faithfully reproduce the original media, whether CD (Red Book), HDCD, or MQA-CD. But it can’t if the file uses a lossy format, e.g., MP3.

However, I’m not getting into arguing semantics with you, and I haven’t agreed to anything. What’s more, I’m not sure what purpose your argument serves. DXD and SACD are niche, and by definition, there are fewer releases. Most music is PCM. Whether one format is better than another is personal preference.

The best recordings are the best because the recording, mixing and mastering was well executed. IMO, the format isn’t and important factor. I have heard gorgeous MQA-CD, bad Red Book, and DSD that sounds no different to the same PCM release.

15

Thanks for your reply.

The whole purpose for me to have this post is for me to find out why people hate MQA (and MQA-CD) so much.

I like it. It is like a DSP processor from my point of view.

For me, I like MQA-CD. To me, I think lossy 384k/24 bit could be better than lossless 44.1k/16 bit.

Anyway, looks like the discussion will go nowhere.

Please feel free to close it or delete it. I am not going to reply anymore. Good luck.

16

No one wants to go there. It’s been done before, and doesn’t end well. If you prefer MQA, that’s fine. If you prefer SACD, that’s fine, too.