2. digital
  3. 1322553479

Can the copy sound better than the original?

Ridiculous question on the surface, I know. Here are the particulars:
I burned a copy of Mike Patton's "Mondo Cane" to listen to at work. I played the cd-r to verify that it was functional and it seems to sound significantly better than the original manufactured disc. More cohesive performance, better detail in inner voices, a sense of being in the space with the performers, and soundstage depth that is unusual for this system. Nonsense, right? I will state upfront that I have no affiliation with Memorex whatsoever. The cd-r I burned was a Memorex
"Black" cd-r. The only explanations I can come up with are that a) there was some compression in the transfer into i-tunes b) there is something about the way a laser might read a cd that would cause a typical silver cd to reflect garbage light onto the laser, whereas a black cd has less spurious reflective emission. Anybody else care to try this and confirm/de-bunk my perception?
ths364

Showing 1 response by geoffkait

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
"If your burner is doing it's job the copy should be exact."

The problem, if I can be so bold, is that even if the files were to be compared and found to be exactly the same, I.e., no errors or differences, the sound of the copy will be better than the original. In short, it is a Strawman argument that the files must be different for there to be a difference in sound. Also, let's say the burner is not doing its job perfectly for some reason and there are errors or differences in the copy - that in itself would not explain why the sound of the copy is better although it could explain why the sound is worse. Does anyone not see where I'm going with this?
More to discover