Do CD-R's sound the same as originals

Kthomas....was the "maybe I just need to upgrade my Pioneer receiver" a joke?

Yes it was - hence the :-)

It's obvious that Joe_coherent and Kthomas have placed a significant value on CR-Rs. It's quite possible that "better" equipment will produce a better result. Beauty is in the eyes (in this case ears) of the beholder. After all, this, the greatest hobby in the world, manufactures controversy, doesn't it? Like tubes vs. transistors. Vinyls vs. CDs. If you guys feel that you can equal or better the result of the aluminum disc, go for it. For me, I am not impressed. If I want a "better version", I could invest in a gold CD. If someone with a Pioneer receiver and Pioneer CD player tells me there is no difference whatsoever when he listens to my system, I do not argue. The Pioneer fellow has achieved a state of joy and ecstasy -- what right have I to put thumb prints on his rose colored glasses.

Well, just to be sure we keep it all straight, nobody has suggested that a CDR could "better" the original CD (aluminum, gold or otherwise) under any conditions. Rather, the basic premise is that you can make a copy of a CD onto a CDR and have the CDR be a perfect bit-image of the original. It's also very easy to make a "copy" that isn't a perfect bit-image of the original. It appears that a lot of people making comparisons between orginal CDs and CDR copies aren't sure of whether the CDR is the former or the latter. It seems safe to say that, regardless of how much difference somebody hears in the perfect bit-image copy vs. the original, that the non-perfect bit-image will sound more different, undoubtedly for the worse.

I agree with you that beauty is in the ears of the beholder, and that's what makes this a great hobby. If you place significant value on bits stored on a particular kind of CD over identical bits on another, more power to you.

I do have to disagree on the comment about the Pioneer fellow - if he listens to my system and says he hears no difference, I'm gonna tell him he's full of it - my mother could hear a difference :-) Now, if he says the difference isn't worth the cost differential, I'm not going to try to change his mind about that.

Many respect the opinions of M. Fremer of Sterophile. In the Jan. 2001 issue, Fremer compares a "consumer grade" (list $600.) JVC CD Recorder, and a more high end Marantz ($1600.-- I think). When copying CDs at 1X speed with either of these CD-Rs, he could detect "no significant difference from the originals". But when recorded at 2X he noticed some "hardening of sound". For doing analog to digital recording, the Marantz was better, ie better AD conversion. You need to read the review to get all the details of his review, but it made me feel good about my Pioneer W739 ($600. list). The Pioneer W739 is very similar in price and features to the JVC, and as I've stated above, at 1X recording, I can't tell CD-R copies from originals-- hope this isn't beating a "dead horse". Cheers. Craig