Copies Better Than Originals?

I posted a similar thread about a year ago and here are some of the more plausible explanations I received (I'm sure that someone here will poo poo both of these explanations. I am not necessarily saying this is why the Pioneer does what it does. These were just some of the better ideas IMHO):

It is possible to reduce the inherent jitter in the original cd recording by re-ripping the data prior to sending it on the copy. If the Pioneer used some sort of unique buffering circuitry, or somehow re-rips the data prior to sending it the burner, the copy could have less jitter than the original.

Most copy blanks use much more transparent and optical clear plastics that are easier for the pickup assembly of a player to read. They are also more consistent in their centering as compared to a typical cd.

A combination of both of the two above ideas leads to a better sounding copy.

This is a fabricated grand conspiracy by greedy Pioneer executives to confuse the high end crowd into selling all their expensive gear and go with a complete Pioneer based system that they can purchase from Best Buy.

I have one of the Pioneer 739 units and it DOES produce better sounding copies than the originals! As crazy as this sounds (no pun intended) it is true. I have done MANY TRUE DOUBLE BLIND comparison tests (with other reviewers present) and we ALL agree that this Pioneer's magic ability is no bunk. Each and every copy have slightly better depth and air around the instruments, basically sounding slightly more analog and closer to the master tape than the original cd. Hall decay and fluidity are more present on the copies. It is NOT a spectral shift or a frequency dependant change but an actual increase in low level ambient detail instead.

I have to say that everyone reading this thread needs to wake up and realize that this is a pretty big time discovery. In my opinion it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to spend thousands of dollars on cables and electronics and not consider trying one of these cheap Pioneer burners. You cannot improve on the recording no matter how much money you spend on your equipment! The best you can get is a replication of your source material. If you could find a way to actually improve your source material, with details closer to the original master tape, wouldn't you kill to get this technology?

Then again I could be a greedy deceptive Pioneer executive, so buyer beware! ;)

I have to strongly disagree with Chang here as I suspect he didn't actually audition copies from a Pioneer 739. Therefore he is poo pooing my experiences based SOLELY on the burner he used i.e. all burners are NOT equal!

Chang brings up the point that we do not have access to the master tapes and he is correct. What we do have access to though is a near "edge of the art" $55,000 turntable rig that is only eclipsed by the "best in the world" $70k+ Rockport. That rig has been compared to master tape we use this source as our "reference", then we all would unequivocally state that the burned cd sounds closer in space, harmonic decay, fluidity and overall sound field as compared to the original cd.

The question I have for anyone here is how the hell do you add space, fluidity or additional harmonic decay to a copy with a frequency shift? Many have speculated (including Chang here) that the Pioneer burner is just rolling off the highs or something like that... The problem with those hypothesis is that frequency related colorations never add more space or additional harmonic decay. But guess what? Almost every article ever written about cd sound compared to the master tapes speaks about the loss of the above aforementioned sonic qualities! And since the Pioneer 739 adds these qualities into the copy, I think it is a fair statement to say the copies sound closer to the master tape!

Chang also stated that he had the ability to compare the copy to the original "bit for bit". Unfortunately his statement shows his ignorance of digital. For example: Either the copy or the original could have jitter magnitudes hundreds of times greater than the other, yet both would look identical bit for bit. If you decrease jitter components in the copy, they WILL be audible! Especially if they are large in the original cd as compared to the copy. In a nutshell, it's a hell of a lot more than just bits!

I agree with Rob here that it is VERY detrimental to play with the digital record level control! I ALWAYS copy at a zero unity gain so that I am assured the burned cd will sound its absolute best. In my experience you are opening an entire can of worms if you play with the digital volume control when copying.

BTW: Rob, if you are interested in selling your Pioneer 739 burner I have a list of audiophiles as long as my arm that are looking for one of these units.

Chang,

I didn't mean to come across as defensive but I need to be VERY CLEAR how we think this is a HUGE PARADIGM for everybody to recognize (just not you). It is MORE than just my opinion.

The magic of the Pioneer 739 is an absolute breakthrough! MANY very seasoned audiophiles, along with VERY RESPECTED reviewers have ALL found that the 739's burned copies have MORE harmonic decay, MORE space and BETTER fluidity as compared to the originals CD!

The above sonic differences are EXACTLY the as stated by recording engineers themselves (the ones who actually bitch about the specific sonic losses that occur when they compare their CD releases to their original master tapes).

It should come as no surprise to anyone how excited we are about this discovery! Everyone I know to a person who has heard this difference has bought a 739. This discovery is UNPRECEDENTED in high end digital! Just imagine INCREASED space, INCREASED harmonics and BETTER depth from a copied CD as compared to the original! This has been proven again and again in TRUE DOUBLE BLIND TESTS!

You CANNOT add these sonic qualities with the latest greatest super expensive cable designs. You CANNOT add these sonic qualities with the latest greatest super expensive amplifier designs! True space, true harmonics and fluidity only come from the source, they cannot be added later!

It seems as if most serious "over the top" audiophiles are spending thousands on their digital front ends trying to extract every little detail from that shiny little disc! Here is a breakthrough that is a fraction of the cost of a single decent audiophile power cord.

To sum up the FACTS (so Chang can grasp what I've been trying state with my prior threads):

> The 739's copies have unique sonic qualities associated with space, fluidity and additional harmonics.

> The above aforementioned sonic improvements have been verified to many audiophiles (including some reviewers) in true double blind tests.

> The 739's copied discs have sonic information that cannot be replicated by changing frequency or amplitude.

> Losses in harmonics, decay, depth and space are exactly what the recording engineers have been bitching about when they compare their master tapes to their commercially released CD's, i.e the copies sound "closer to master tape" statement makes logical sense.

> No one here can actually verify if I work for Pioneer or not, so all of this may just be a grand conspiracy ;-)

False claims? All that I'm stating is that you CANNOT add harmonics or space that wasn't there in the first place! The source is the ONLY place were these sorts of sonics originate.

To clarify: I feel that a superior copy is even more important than focusing on cables or amplifiers first. BUUUUUT, I STRONGLY believe you need to put just as much research and money into cables and amplifiers too! EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT, Yet IT ALL STARTS WITH HAVING THE BEST SOURCE MATERIAL POSSIBLE!

In terms of the Pioneer link you provided, it is absolutely true that this particular burner is not as reliable as other offerings. That being said, this is still the only burner that we know of that will produce the better sounding copies.

In terms of opinions which really matter though; at last count there are 16 audiophiles, 3 high end audio manufacturers and 4 high end reviewers who firmly believe the 739 makes better sounding copies. This is much more than just my opinion. It's an entire arsenal of audiophiles!