CD Format Cheat Sheet

It means that audio-wise MQA-CD is no better than a standard 16-bit/44.1 kHz RBCD.

 

Sorry, I'm not convinced by your statement. Do you have an MQA player and disks? Have you listened to one?

You describe the specification as if you are stating that it does not work and cannot work, does not encode 24 bit data on the disk. In which case you seem to be saying that it is a outright con – and yet the industry is using it for CDs and manufacturers are paying to put it in their CD players, having somehow not noticed that it is the con as you seem to be suggesting. Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, of course.

 

Yes, I do (both MQA-CDs & MQA DAC). This doesn't make MQA-CDs Hi-Res though...

 

I edited my post. Please see above. You have a player and a DAC and yet you deny they have any advantage over redbook CDs.

 

It's on, bruh.

 

While 24/44 & 24/48 MQA is at least somewhat approximating 88 & 96 kHz HD sources, 16/44 MQA-CD is a total con, in my view...

 

Expanding on @vwestlife:

"CD Video" was a hybrid format with red book audio CD and laserdisk analogue video on the same disk. It took a laserdisk player to read the video portion, while the audio portion could be read by any CD player. It was used a lot for "video singles". The video quality was the same as any laserdisk, thus full broadcast quality analogue TV. The format launched in the late 1980s and never really took off. Confusingly, "CD Video" was also one of several marketing terms for regular laserdisks, or at least that is what I seem to remember.

"VideoCD" was an entirely digital video format containing MPEG1 compressed video at 352 x 240 pixels @30fps (NTSC) or 352 x 288 pixels @25fps (PAL/SECAM). That is considerably worse than VHS because as opposed to the latter it drops every other scan line. It enjoyed some popularity in Asia in the mid/late-1990s, many regular DVD players can play it, and you can burn your own VCDs with freeware and a regular CD burner. A variant of VideoCD called "Super VideoCD" uses MPEG2 compression and is capable of near broadcast quality resolution: 480 x 480 @30fps (NTSC) or 480 x 576 @25fps (PAL/SECAM).

The two formats have nothing to do with each other, are totally incompatible, but the similar name can cause some confusion.

 

No, a laserdisk player can't play a "VideoCD". It can play the analogue "CD video" format though.

But a DVD player can usually play the digital VideoCD format. For whatever reason, BluRay players have dropped that capability even though there is no technical reason why the codec shouldn't be included in them. It takes a regular DVD player.

 

He had a CD Video in his link.
This was the only type I was referring to in my original post.
Thanks for your breakdown in the last post, appreciated. I never delved in the others due to not having a player.

 

OK. I lost track who is referring to what format. In any case the names have been used interchangeably and in some instances wrongly. I'm just trying to prevent confusion

 

What about XRCD ?

 

XRCD has more to do with mastering and manufacturing than the CD itself. However, as it's used in marketing quite a bit, and XRCD discs usually fetch a higher price than regular CDs, it's worth a mention here:

Extended Resolution Compact Disc - Wikipedia


There's also Sony's SBM, which is similar in that it's used to dither down high-resolution analog-digital masters down to CD quality. However, it doesn't specify the manufacturing process or actual analog-to-digital process, which XRCD does.

Super Bit Mapping - Wikipedia

SBM was first used in Sony's "MasterSound" audiophile CD releases, which were on gold CDs.

 

It is High Quality CD (HQCD) and and UHQCD ( Ultra High ...) it can be read by any CD player!

The pits and lands are more accurately imprinted, which reduces reading errors by the laser.

 

^^^ HDCD & HQCD/UHQCD are entirely different things. The former is about special encoding of PCM audio on disc & the latter is about materials the disc is made of.

 

Thanks, for this correction! I thought he was referring to this

 

.
Thanks for the info. I wondered what the deal was with CD Video format. Now I remember seeing some of these discs back in the late 80s. I think I saw a KISS CD Video for some songs from the Crazy Nights album.

 

Indeed.

Just to make it really clear I hope, @testikoff is right. CD is only 16-bits. Therefore an MQA-CD does not have the 8 bits in there you speak of. And MQA will need at least 1 of the bits to embed its control stream.

Therefore, the absolute best an MQA-CD can do is 15-bits of unadulterated resolution. In practice it's actually worse than this because typically there's dithering added in as well.

With MQA-CD, there is no "true" unfolding of any embedded data (the 8-bits potential embedded content is only available in the 24-bit streams like Tidal). All they're doing is using poor quality filters to create ultrasonic frequencies which they hope you don't notice as actually distortion!

Bottom line: When presented with a well mastered regular CD vs. MQA-CD, pick the regular CD because it has the potential for better resolution. More details here as usual. It'll also likely be less expensive.

 

There is more to hi res than frequency response. It is the higher sampling rate equalling more resolution. Hence the name.

 

Yes the manufacturing process is unique, but XRCD should be included since it's Redbook playback.

 

I've only purchased one XRCD, George Szell/Cleveland and the SQ is outstanding. It's one of the best sounding CDs I own.
BUT, to make a fair judgement I would need to hear it compared to the original master or source that JVC used to produce this disc.

 

Seems like a knowledgeable article but i have reservations about it due to a clear stated bias against the mqa method almost in principle right from the opening. The article then sets out to prove its points. Also odd that the author wont reveal their identity.

> ‘pick the regular CD because it has the potential for better resolution’

Why not pick the one that is mastered from the best source and the one that sounds the best? I’ve no doubt that if i was going to play lossless 24/96 files made from dsd copy of analogue source i would choose it. I’ve no doubt if a redbook cd of an album proved to sound better than a mqa cd version of an album i would choose the redbook. But when the best-sounding cd of an album turns out to be an mqa encoded version then i’m going to listen to it.

 

Not meaning to be too picky, but the H in SHM-CD stands for High.

 

Thanks I'm well aware of that, I need to ask.. can you hear the difference between 24khz and 28khz ? I can't I don't think humans can hear anything above 20khz

 

No I can't . But I can hear the difference between DSD and 16 bit resolution from 16hz to 15khz.

 

Lol, I actually know that and for some silly reason wrote "hard". Apparently I can't edit the original post which means I've failed and this will never look correct.