Do CD-R's sound the same as originals

Digital music is stored as 0s and 1s. Unless there are errors in the copying process, which in general there aren't, both the original and the copy are identical. There is no other point in the chain and no other effect, whether it be jitter, or whatever, that can be any different from the original. Those who think they hear a difference may do so, but the difference is in their minds.

No, it isn't. And the "music" on a CD is not stored as "1's and 0's", it's stored using an encoding scheme called "Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation", or "EFM". It's not "just a bunch of 1's and 0's" on there, they're encoded, and then derived when they are read...to form those 1's and 0's. THIS IS TURNING INTO THE OLD "DIGITAL IS DIGITAL, AND BITS IS BITS" ARGUMENT...which is also a fool's argument. I DID MY HOMEWORK, AND I SUGGEST YOU ALL DO THE SAME. Why don't you do a survey of ALL the highend digital audio music production and mastering facilites, and ask them why a CD-R would sound exactly the same, and be a "perfect" copy of, a stamped CD? I'm sure they'll love to hear from you...Start with Winston Ma of FIM, and go from there.

Madisonears, Unless you have made copies yourself and compared the diffrences between diffrent brands and recording methods I don't see how you can presume that they don't exist. It would be like me saying that Krell amps are harsh and edgy sounding and having never owned one, because that's what I've heard. Carl I should send you the copy and the original, that I've made where the copy sounds a lot better, so that you can hear what I am, email me.

Let me put it another way, to see if it is clearer: digital information is discrete, not continuous. It is DIGITAL, not ANALOGOUS. Therefore errors in the information are also discrete, and not continuous. The errors are either there or they are not. If they are not, as is the case with most reasonable copying processes done with a computer, the sound will be the same as the original. If you disagree on scientific grounds, fine, please explain, unles, of course, you are trolling.

You are not a scientist, and I have no reason to debate you on this. You need to ask those who are experts in the field, as I suggest above, if you don't accept what I am telling you. The "digital is digital" argument doesn't apply here, because we are not talking about mere digital data, we are talking about the process of digital audio, which is far from simple. You ought to read a book or two on the subject, and consult a few reference uadio books. Like I said, ask Winston Ma if he thinks CD-R's represent perfect copies of a compact disc. Ask Kevin Halverson. Ask Madrigal Audio Laboratories. Ask any manufacturer of digital media or hardware. I'll not belabor this with someone who his blind to it, and who will not take me at my word. I owe you nothing here at all, Mr. incoherent.

Also, I notice that neither of you have feedback on file here at Audiogon. For me, that speaks volumes about YOUR credibility here. I need to adopt the policy that I'll not respond to those who have less positive feedback than I do. Perhaps that is where this agnaustic and negative attitude comes from (the fact that neither of you have bought or sold anything here). I wonder how that could be? What are you afraid of?

Well, pass me a big plate of crow to eat. After more careful comparison of CDR's to originals, there is an additional brightness and some loss of detail on the copy. On certain originals which are slightly bright to begin with, the copy is definitely brighter, almost to the point of not sounding good. Other originals seem to copy better, with very little "distortion" in the copy. This does require more investigation, as I am copying some songs from discs and then selling the originals. I'd hate to think I am losing the quality of the original to make a permanent copy that sacrifices audio quality for convenience. Trying to keep an open mind and be critical of every aspect of this hobby, or obsession, or whatever it is.

That's a complete turnaround for you Madisonears, and I admire it. Also, that's EXACTLY what I hear. I think of it as a grainy distortion, but one MFSL gold CD's copy actually was more compressed and even quieter sounding (in addition to the graininess)...which was very troubling to me, because I didn't want to buy the original (they're all out of print, and out of business now). Tell this to Ejlif, he thinks copies ALWAYS sound better!!! I CANNOT FATHOM THAT. I've never heard a copy that sounds as good as the original, much less "better". I'm trying one of his, and he wants to send me the original (since my copy is not the exact physically same disc). I say it doesn't matter, because either his original is the same as mine, or it's worse. His copy definitely is not as good as my original (this is Sarah McLachlin's "Mirror Ball"). Also, I recently opened up that Pandora's box called the "green pen". I used to think that it'd be permanent, but this one comes off with rubbing alcohol and a cotton swab, in case you want to remove the green.

Your personal attacks discredit you completely Mr. carl_eber. But I will not fall as low as you. It is clear that you do not have any explanation yourself, hence your blabbering "talk to this, talk to that". As to your supposition that I am not a scientist, that is also incorrect. I also suspect that you have a tendency to answer your posts yourself under other aliases. Enough said.

Madisonears - do you have an instance where you still own the original and the copy that sounds different (worse), and assuming you do, can you extract the song files from both and compare? I'd be very curious to know if they compare identically.

Carl, you have valid points which are not made any more valid by your cheap shots. Please keep to the task at hand. Which is effectively communicating your point and not straying into the arena of off task insults. I have had debates with you in the past. Sometimes we have agreed and other times we have disagreed. That is okay. I respect opinions other than my own. It helps me color outside the lines. Gravity is not going to stop because someone disagrees with me. Everyone has reasonable issues here and these questions need to be raised whether or not we understand or agree with them. Consider this part of the educational curve. BTW, incase you missed my above posts, I generally agree with the statement that there are differences. Why.... well, that is what this debate is for. Also, I would be really interested in the information you have gathered from some of the above sources you mentioned. Yes, I could maybe contact them, if they would give me the time. However, if you have already built the wheel.... Also, is the research validated with testing or is it subjective? Not that I don't trust subjective testing, I do. That is how I finalize my buying chioces. It is "what sounds good to me" that counts.

Look, it wasn't me that started the cheapshots, it was Joe (or whoever he is). Ramstl, If you hear a difference, then we agree. I am neither a manufacturer nor a leading music producer, so why does it matter to any of you what else I have to say on this? I refuse to repeat myself any longer. You all win. I am a terrible person who can't help but be wrong all the time, and all I do is "blather". I can't help myself, I'm a retarded idiot. By all means, come to your own conclusions, don't take anything I say seriously. There, are you happy now? AND HELL NO, I DON'T POST AS SOMEONE ELSE, AND IF I WERE THERE WITH YOU IN PERSON JOE, YOU'D BE TASTING YOUR OWN BLOOD RIGHT NOW FOR DISHONORING ME THAT WAY!!! I've said over and over again, how freaking much I hate all those pissant posters that don't use their own name, and come back and post as yet another anonymous numbskull. I AM NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE, AND YOU'RE LUCKY I'M NOT THERE WITH YOU RIGHT NOW. Damn lucky! You'd definitely be literally "incoherent" if I was. Where the hell do you get off accusing me of something like that? You're asking for it, you LOWLIFE!

Kthomas: yes, I do have several originals and their copies, but I do not know how to "extract the file". I'm not thoroughly literate with PC's, but not a dummy, either. Can you provide insight or instruction? I use a Dell, windows 98, HP burner in the CPU. I save files from CD's to the hard drive, then burn from there. Tell me what you mean, and I'll be glad to try it. My copying results do not seem consistent from one session to another, but I cannot fathom what the variable might be. I would really like to get better copies all the time (not better than the original, carl, don't go nuts on me).

Not going nuts, and it wasn't you who insulted me anyways(much, heh heh). I can help you. What software are you using? I've found a really good software for doing the read part, it's from Germany and it's called "Nero". You can download a trial version for free. But I'm still trying to figure out what the best software is, for the write process. Certainly for putting MP3's (like from Napster) on CD-R's, it's Adaptec, IMO. Anyway, what I think Kthomas means, is that of keeping the "CD image" file, and making another CD-R from it. That isn't difficult to do. Anyway, the Nero software is really awesome (provided the CD isn't copy protected, to where it reads as having over 700 megabytes of data...you have to throw tracks away to copy those)...since you cannot copy a CD a "tack at a time" with Nero. But what's awesome about it is that you can use "jitter reduction". It took around 3 hours to read my Sheffield "My Disc" test CD at 1x speed (and it's only 74 minutes long!). However, I couldn't use that image file to burn a CD, because the data amounted to a high (and in actuality impossible) 749 megabytes!! 74 minute CD-R's are 650 mB, and 80 minute ones are 700 mB. So I had to read it with a different software, and throw out the first 5 music tracks. Then I subbed in 5 Napster files for the first 5 music tracks, so the track count would be the same.

Calm down carl_eber. Your tone is not conducive to a serious discussion. I apologize if my comment on your postings was insulting to you, but in my humble view your postings in general as so incoherent that it would seem you are trolling. Also please retract your physical threats. I doubt if you saw me in person you would carry out your threats. I am a pretty big guy and not someone you'd like to get into an even fight with. Finally, if you have a clue as to what you are talking about, please explain why an exact logical replica of a CD should sound any different than the original.

Madisonears - I'll find the exact steps and software I use at home and then post them here. The software is all free, at least in trial version, and by doing so we can be sure we're comparing apples to apples. A general process I've been through several times is extracting song files to the hard drive, which can then be mixed and matched and written back to CDR's. I can extract the same file, say, 10 times using the same software and different software, and then run a compare program against any two of the resulting extracted files. The compare program doesn't know the source of the files, it just dutifully does a bit-wise comparison of the contents. I have never had any problem with getting all N copies to compare identically. Now, I admit to extrapolating from my experiments to my day-to-day copying - I don't compare the files each time I make a copy. In any case, since I typically copy whole CD's to put in a "jukebox" and since nobody but Sony utilizes the CD Text capability of CDs, I do a song-by-song extraction / copy so that I can insert title and song info. Alternatively, you can just make a straight copy of the CD in a single pass - I have never attempted to extract the whole CD image to the hard drive multiple times using different software and comparing the image, but I have little doubt that it would work as well. Another experiment worth trying (so maybe I will :-) ) would be to do the same thing using a CDR itself as the original - there has been speculation that there is something about the physical nature of a CDR vs. a CD that makes it more prone to sounding different. I can't formulate a hypothesis on why that would be, but I'd want to try it for myself first. -Kirk

For the record the gear I use to burn CDRs is outboard gear, ie not done with a computer. I notice that most guys who are dissatisfied with the sound of the CDR are using computers to make copies. Garfish uses outboard gear and he gets excellent results as well. Sterophile did a review of the Pioneer Elite CD recorder a couple of years back and they stated that the copy sounded sounded as-or better that-his digital original. The better the source player, cable, vibration free stand etc... the better the sound of the copy.

That's true Ejlif, I use a Pioneer W739 "dubbing" CDR recorder at 1X speed. It sits on vibrapods, and the signal bypasses the sample rate converter when it's 44.1. I've used Maxell, TDK, and Memorex blanks, all with excellent results. As I've noted before, sometimes I think the copies actually sound better (different, ie crisper) than the originals, but I've backed off that position and now just say they sound as good. In a blind test I'm sure I couldn't tell the difference between copy and original. Cheers. Craig.

Joe_Coherent, I certainly will not retract those, and instead demand a more suitable apology from you. And you don't want to mess with me either, I can benchpress 320 pounds.

Hey Jerko, (C-eber), fighting and benchpressing have nothing to do with each other. I see your ideas on that topic are as incoherent as those on CD-Rs and regular CDs. I'm thinking I may want to do an A-B comparison with you on both.

I'm thinking you don't. Like hell they don't, you wouldn't want to get a punch from me...You will soon be gone from here, for the name calling, anyway. I'm sure it is YOU who will (or are already) using different aliases, so you'll never be gone from here completely, I guess. Maybe you'll just have a heart attack, or something...

Please explain to us all, in your own words, why CD-Rs sound worse than the originals if (i) there are no errors in the copying process, and (ii) the information is stored in a digital (i.e. discrete) format. Unless you dispute (i) or (ii) in which case also kindly please explain.

Carl Eber is correct in many ways. He is right about digital copies not being as good as the original. Think about this. If they were exactly the same, then ALL cd players and transports would sound the same too. Jitter is a big problem on computer CD-rs. Errors are also aplenty on copies. They show up like dither.. Carl is also correct about Joe Coherents character. He was kicked out of audioasylum for using multiple names and spamming others. His system soesn't sound like its capable of revealing the flaws in CD-r copies. All of the above is true. Carl, don't get all worked up over his comments. He is not worth the effort.

Your reasoning is completely wrong. You posted "If they were exactly the same, then ALL cd players and transports would sound the same too." What does that have to do with anything? We are not discussing whether there are differences between components. Only a moron would dispute that. Read my posts and when you have taken the trouble to understand their meaning correctly please reformulate your point. As to your final comment, it is clear that you are not registered in this forum yourself or are spannig for someone else, hence the use of an e-mail as your moniker. If people like you are eber's only friends he is in trouble. Cheerio.

Wow. I'm impressed! Joe Coherent is regestered. So that makes him a audiophile authority especially with that hotmail account! Hahaha. Now that we have our credentials out in the open. I say again that Joe Coherent is and has been a troll on other audio boards. Don't take my word for it, just read his posts. Ted

OK fine, I'm a troll. Now please explain to me why CD-Rs sound different to the source material in your system. I would love to learn something I don't know.

Thanks for the support Tedr. I don't even know you. JOE, PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MEMBER FEEDBACK? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? And as far as "my only friend" on here, many of my friends on here cannot fathom why I'd even waste time LISTENING to CD's in the first place; much less debate about CD-R's. They just don't care. Also, they're mostly afraid of being associated with me on this forum, because so many of you out there hate me (and I realize that it IS a personal thing, so don't claim it isn't...you know who you are). I'm a lightening rod for jerks, and bring out the worst in people. Such is life on the net, when you have an informed opinion. I CAN LIVE WITH IT, but others seem to have trouble with it. And I'm not complaining, just stating fact..............................I tell you what Joe, you're right, and I'm wrong. I'm a total ignoramous, an idiot, a malcontent who has a heart as black as coal (oh wait a minute, that's "the grinch")....hell, I'm so stupid I was thinking I already explained HOW they sound different to me. As to WHY...well, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is enough of an explanation for me, as to why there is never a "perfect" anything. The more you know about position, the less you can know about vector, etc etc., ask any physicist..........................Joe, let me ask you this: If you really are a scientist, as you claim, then....Why does our universe move towards disorder, rather than order? Why is there no theory that unifies gravity, with quantum mechanics? Why is it, that we as humans can't simply create matter and anti-matter, out of sheer mental will (since it would provide an infinite source of "free" power)? Why is all that, I wonder???..........................And also, what's on the other side of a black hole's event horizon? I need to know, so how about taking a flying leap into one for me? I think you'd enjoy it very much...there could be a microscopic black hole in orbit within your skull, nibbling at your hindbrain right this very minute....you never know. I wish you all the best with that....Carl

Carl, earlier I asked if you could share some of the information you have gathered from the experts you mentioned. I am interested on what they had to say and why. Could you share this with me and others? Can you support this with direct statements from the "experts", via objective and subject test they have concluded. I am re-posting this because you seemed to miss this is my above post. Thanks!

Ok - it was a long weekend involving travel, etc., so it took me until last night to perform the tests I had earlier indicated I would undertake. First, just for the record, although I'm 6'2", that's my only possible advantage in any physical confrontation - I'm a wuss and would probably just stand there and get pummelled. Anyway, for these tests I used the following software - Audiograbber v1.62, RealJukeBox2 Plus v1.0.2.178 (Beta), and the slimmed down version of Adaptec's CD Creator software that came with my Dell computer. I wanted to verify that I could retrieve (ie, rip) and write identical files. I used three songs off of Hall and Oates Master Hits. First off, I read them to HD twice each using Audiograbber. I compared their 64-bit checksum using Audiograbber and each of the parallel files matched it's partners exactly. Audiograbber also has an option to compare two music files, and each of the parallel files matched exactly. Finally, using Windows Properties, each of the parallel files reported exactly the same number of bytes. Then I used RealJukeBox and read the same three files to disk and compared them in the same ways to the files I read using Audiograbber. Again, the checksums matched identically, the comparison of each to it's parallel matched identically. Interestingly, the Windows Properties showed that the RJB files were a few Kb larger than the Audiograbber files - on the order of 5K out of 50Mb. Then I did the same test using Adaptec's program. This time the checksums wouldn't calculate - according to the Audiograbber software, if a song file doesn't end in silence, a proper checksum can't be calculated and is indicated by an 'X' at the beginning of the checksum. This is what occurred with the Adapted files. The files also did not compare correctly to the original Audiograbber files. Looking at Windows Properties, the Adaptec files were all either 12 or 14 bytes larger than the Audiograbber files, and looking at the dump of "mismatched bytes" in the compare program it appeared that there were two extra bytes early in the Adaptec files, after which everything lined up perfectly. I don't know what the format of .WAV files is, and I don't know what the Audiograbber program is doing precisely when it calculates Checksums and does compares. The fact that I can repeatedly use an extraction program on a CD song "file" and get exactly the same file, even though they differ slightly from a parallel exercise with a different extraction program leads me to believe that there is a variable-length field in a header someplace that each program utilizes slightly differently, and/or a way of handling the last block of data and the end-of-file marker that would explain the slight differences encountered. Just to prove to myself that you'd get much different (and undoubtedly worse) results using the sound cards conversion, I "ripped" the same three songs using the "analog" setting in Audiograbber's config. Sure enough, the files were all different from the original digital copies, and multiple "rips" produced different files for the same songs. So, then I took my original three songs read with Audiograbber and burned them to a CDR. I then took the CDR and read each of the song files to disk using each of the three programs. I compared each of the files created by reading the CDR to the same file created from the original CD for each program. Audiograbber and RJB compared identically in all three cases. Adaptec did not. Again, I think they're doing something with a header someplace that doesn't have anything to do with the music data, but I have no proof of that. However, it is clearly possible to read/write/read/write ad infinitum with the right computer hardware / software combination and get "perfect" copies of CD and CDR data. Note that I'm not extrapolating that a CDR done in this way will absolutely sound the same as the original CD played back on a stereo system. There may be some physical properties of CDRs that are different than CDs that result in typical CD player/transports to be less reliable in reading them. I find that hard to believe, but nothing I have done here refutes it in any way. What I am definitely saying, though, is that it's easy to retrieve every data bit on a CD or CDR with extremely inexpensive hardware. I also know from professional experience that delivering data from point A to point B "perfectly" is a solved problem, so if getting the data bits to the D/A of choice in our current form is problematic, as it has been widely documented, then we should be pressing for a better interconnect technology, because it doesn't have to be that way.

Madisonears: I'd still be interested in your comparison of the CDR that you feel sounds different to the original CD. The steps would be thus: Go to http://www.sonicspot.com/audio.html and download the free copy of Audiograbber. Install it. Use it to Extract a song to disk from the CD and the CDR that you feel sounds different. After each extraction Audiograbber reports a Checksum. Take note of each checksum. Alternatively, from the main menu, you can calculate a checksum on any file, so if you miss it the first time around you can make up for it. Then, when you have the two files, go to Audiograbber's main menu and select "compare two file". Select the two parallel files and press start. If they're the same, you'll get "No differences detected" in the status box. If they're not the same, you'll get a bunch of information, none of which you'll want to read. It's hard to tell how much they differ if they differ at all, but my experience with audiograbber is that you should get repeatable results from the same file, so if there are any differences that's probably all we need to know. -Kirk

Kthomas, those comments weren't addressed to you, unless of course you are both kthomas and joe-coherent...which I have no way of knowing.

Ramstl, in the above comments, I suggest that those who are in doubt, seek out the opinion of experts. Perhaps you missed that part, or perhaps you think you need me to do your homework for you? I'll ask again, why would their comments, when repeated by me, have any meaning for you? Surely you'd doubt their truthfullness/sincerity/accuracy, when viewed thru the filter of being delievered by myself, functioning as an unnecessary middle man. Let me repeat myself.....if you really want to know the truth about CD-R's, and how "digital ain't always digital, how bits ain't always bits", YOU should ask the experts. I WONDER WHY YOU HAVEN'T E-MAILED THEM YOURSELF? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

In any case, I certainly will not speak for experts in the field.

I am going to buy a burner this week to compare for myself. All copies on CDR's (which my new Levinson will play, however, my old Muse separates would not) do NOT sound the same as original. I did not say that they sound bad, however, they are not as dynamic as the originals. I find it hard to believe that the $20 transport mechanism compares to the clocking technology and jitter reduction in the solid heavy transport of the levinson that I spent a load of money on. As audioheads have always said, "poop in gets poop out". In other words...the source is VERY important. How can a cheap plastic transport in a cd writer have the accuracy of the high end transport?? If I am wrong...then I need Mark Levinson's home address so that I can send hate mail!! ;) I also think that the discussion above is lacking information. Each of us burns (or wishes to burn) for different reasons. If for backup...for copying friends discs...for experimentation...for making mixes etc. We should also include associated equipment so that we can understand what you are listening "through". I have friends who "SWEAR" that MP3's sound "GREAT"...these are the same people with the Aiwa rack system who are listening to mp3's on $10 headphones. If I give my "bad" cdr copies to friends with run-of-the-mill systems...they can hear no tangible differences. Since I do not seek to be considered an audio "snob", I forgo the discussion with such people who are satisfied with nominal sound quality (but who are music lovers nontheless). I am a music lover and appreciate the ability to get as much as possible from my system. I found that it is very difficult (and expensive) to make digital sound like analog. Due to those that claim that there are NO DIFFERENCES I will spend the $$ and buy a burner and do more tests (worse comes to worse I need one for data backup) For now, however, I find it hard to believe that someome who could hear enough difference in sound to purchase mega-dollar CD players over the Aiwa 10 disc carousel does not hear the difference from originals to their CDR copies. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

Carl, as I posted earlier I thought that if you had the information you could pass it on. Sorry I upset you with this simple request. Believe me, I am not asking you to act as a middle man. As a matter of fact I could care less if they said it was great or if they said it was bad. I trust my ears and after nearly 20 years or recording semi-professionally, logging over 2000 of live recordings, using state of the art equipment, I consder myself a good judge of transfer equipment. I use "master" tapes recorded in a ORTF/110 degree fashion to reference from and not multi-mic'd "pop" albums recorded by who knows who. The people I know, that are in the "know" would agree that something is going on and that there is a generational loss, as I posted earlier. What I was looking for from you is a friendly exchange of information. Obiviously, information is being exchanged here but it is certainly, at this point, meaningless and unfriendly.

Carl and Joe!!!....man am I laughing!!!!....I posted my last post prior to reading about your streetfight!!! lolololol Anyway...Joe...I gotta tell you...Carl is playing this straight (and I'm not just saying that because I agree with him) C'mon Joe....if it were just x's and o's then why would different components vary so much??? Playing the donkey may require you to carry a heavy load joe! My brother...who was a pro soundman for the motion picture industry....has informed me that on the big $$$ digital equipment in the studios....they actually use a separate cable that acts as a "clock". This clock keeps the timing as precise as possible (more so than on most digital gear). So...even if you only see X's and O's (or -'s)....then wouldn't you agree that if the X's and O's aren't coming out of the digital domain at precisely the correct time that there would be a sound difference??? Forget impedence, power supplies, copper, silver etc....how about TIMING!! Now don't go crazy here...I don't mean that a CDR copy will sound like garbage altogether....I mean....it isn't a distorted garble! I like the photograph analogy. A crisp beautiful picture can be taken from a camera of the same landscape at the same time as a crappy picture from another camera. One may be held steady as a rock on tripod with right aperture settings, clean and precise lens, and meticulously maintained equipment. It seems to me that you are arguing that a multi thousand dollar camera used by a pro photographer would compare to the $10 throwaway camera that I would use if we are standing at the same place at the same point in time photographing the same image. If you look at the pixels...they may closely resemble one another under a microscope...however look altogether different when viewed as a whole. Bye the way...I am 5'7"...and the only way that I will fight either of you is over the internet. How old are we kids? hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Carl - I realize that your comments were not directed to me - I was just attempting to be funny. Mfgrep - I would encourage you to get the CDR burner and do the comparison tests for yourself. I'm curious if you doubt the ability to make "exact" copies from a pure physical standpoint - in trying to divide and conquer the problem, the first thing to do would be to determine if we're comparing apples to apples which, in my mind, is proving that the CD and CDR have "exactly" the same information. That's all I was trying to prove to myself with my tests - how they sound and if they sound different is another test. It shouldn't be surprising that this is quite possible even with a cheap CD transport - there is enough error correction / retry logic built in to insure proper reads, and the writes either work and you get a good copy or fail and notify you. In other words, it's cheap technology with a bunch of redundancy built in. Similarly, setting up a 100Mb LAN in your own home is a cheap proposition these days, again because it's cheap technology with a bunch of built in redundancy. I think the reason transports / interconnects in the audio world sound different is because they're not built with the same redundancy model - there, it is more "send and pray" that it gets there. If it doesn't, you miss it to the audible detriment of the listener. Now, if I can build a 100Mb "transport" for a digital datastream that covers my whole house for less than $1000 and deliver "bit perfect" data anywhere therein at data rates far exceeding redbook CDs (or even SACD's for that matter), then it would seem obvious to me that the future of digital interconnects is NOT what we currently have if it is so prone to error. In any case, I just wanted to clarify that I was only documenting a repeatable test for "perfect" data copies and not making any claim that the test covered the audibility of the copy vs. the original.

The reason different equipment sounds different is because there are differences in the reading and decoding (including prinbcipally turning into the analog domain) the information on a CD. As explained by others above, there is absolutely no degradation in the CD copying process (if properly done through a computer). Therefore the only explanation for sonic differences between CDs and exact-replica CD-Rs would have to come from differences in the player's ability to read one or the other, even if they both have the same information. Those who think CD-Rs sound worse would have to argue that there are more errors in processing the information from the CD-R, even if it is identical to that of the CD. I have not seen such argument made in a coherent manner above by any of the proponents of the "CD-R is worse" theory. Again, there are no errors in the duplication process, that is unquestionable. Those who ythink otherwise simply do not understand the nature of digital vs. analog sound.

I gotcha KThomas....I understand. But...to be clear...I could not care less if the charted copies "look" identical. I only care how it sounds. If CDR's introduce jitter...or if the laser has a difficult time reading the colored surface I do not know....but thus far....I'll keep buying from the cd store. BUT....you all have provided enterainment for me...and for that....thank you. I gotta go...Best Buy is calling my name.

Mfgrep - I can't stay away from the music section at Best Buy either - I find that I buy 7-8 CDs at a time because that's how many I can hold in one hand. In any case, just to plant a thought - if you prove to yourself that the digital copy is identical to the original and still sounds different to you on playback due to jitter, laser difficulties or whatever, you have to ask yourself why that is, since the same cheap plastic CD player in your computer can read that CDR and make as many more perfect copies as you care to make - ie, no generational loss. If it can do it (and it can), why can't CD players / transports? At some point inside a CD player / transport, you just have digital information, regardless of where it came from. If we can demonstrate that a cheap CD drive in a computer can reliably read that digital information and present it wherever it needs to go, then we, as consumers, should demand that makers of CD players / transports provide the same performance, and it shouldn't cost many thousands of dollars.

Ramstl, I could tell by the way you worded your question, that you "didn't really care anyway", so again, I find it strange that you were looking for a friendly exchange of aything from me....since you admit you could care less. It's possible that we agree on the CD-R issue, and I'm sure that by the time I'm your age, I'll have done many millions of recordings also. I'm considering buying some new mics, myself. I only use a "one-point" stereo condensor one right now, record on a portable DAT, and don't do many music performances, and certainly nothing "big time", yet. You did not hurt my feelings the least bit, so don't agonize over that.

Kthomas...I think I follow you. BUT....in the realm of cd's...we have only had the pleasure of READING them. Now we are introducing the ability to write on them. Alongside our new found freedom to write on this digital medium we may introduce all kinds of crap (ie: jitter or dither). I mean c'mon...we all have done some crazy stuff to rid our systems of vibrations, dirty AC, and other invisible contaminates. Why would you find it hard to believe that my crappy homade computer with two cooling fans all running on the same skimpy power supply would be able to write bit for bit copies without introducing something that degrades the sound quality??? Don't get me wrong...I am VERY hopeful that the believers on this thread are correct! Based upon my innitial findings, however, I have heard differences that would force me to cough up $15 per disc as opposed to a lesser quality for $.80. For the car, the boat, the discman, for mix tapes for friends, for data backup YES. I have yet to find that the quality rivals the store bought. I want to know why this is. AND....yes I did purchase a CDburner today at Best Buy (and a handful of discs) and even more CDR blanks (bye the way...my bro says that the sony blanks sound hands down better than the others....go figure...he too notices a difference on a rather revealing system) So I will be giving it a try over the next many days. In addition...my brother (who lives halfway accross the country) purchased a Phillips Audio CD Burner (an actual audio component as opposed to a computer accessory) and we are going to do some "independent research". I'll call 'em as I see 'em when I hear it.

Carl, I was not attempting to hurt your feelings. I was just stating the facts and if your feeling were hurt by it, well, that is all about you and not me. In general terms, "I could care less". However, I try to keep an open mind and I was interested in other people's finding that are "experts". Anyway, never mind!

Mfgrep, jitter is not a quality of the code itself. You cannot introduce jitter into a CD. It is not there. Jitter is produced when you decode it. You cannot introduce anything into the CD-R unless your copying hardware/software are grossly inadequate. The CD-R is an exact, I repeat exact, replica of the original CD. Any difference in sound can only come from the way your CD player reads CDs versus CD-Rs and not from the CD-R itslef. Comprende ?

Yes...now everyone...are you recording onto CDR's???...or onto the audio format CD's which are made for the audio components (as opposed to computer burners) ????????????

Remember, Kthomas, that a computer's transport doesn't really need to concern itself with timing the way a DAC might. From what I understand, jitter is introduced when the periods of the signal stream that the transport is outputting becomes different from that which the DAC expects. By the way, I have no idea exactly what the heuristic is for either a CD-ROM or and audio CD transport reading the bits off a disk. Does anyone know of a good reference for an explanation?

Mfgrep - all my experience is with computer CDRs. I used to have one of the Phillips dual-tray copier machines which required the audio media, but I don't still have it to run any kind of comparison test with. There is physically no difference between the two media, just a bit that is set saying this is an audio CD and therefore can be used in an audio CD recorder. Computer CDR drives don't pay any attention to that bit, and computer CDR media doesn't set it. Robba - absolutely understood. There are three "chunks" - reading the media, getting the data to the DAC and then what the DAC does with the data. All my comments have related only to the first chunk. You're correct that jitter is introduced in a different chunk - namely, the second one. Jitter is of the nature you describe - both the sending and the receiving device have to "clock" the data, and if they are out of sync, you can get "lost" or bad data. Since there is no retry logic, the DACs two choices are to play the bad data or throw it away, either of which would cause audible degradation if it happened very often. One solution seen on some high end transport / DAC combos is cabling that forces the two clocks to act as one, thereby eliminating lack of synchronization. This is a better solution if you're limited to "send and pray" transmissions, but there are much better methods by implementing redundancy into the system. There has to be retry capability, or multiple copies of the data sent so that it has to fail on all connections before the data can't be processed. There are a number of strategies that can be employed with a small re-engineering of the interface, and that have been deployed in other communications-related applications. In any case, the main point of parts of this thread is that the first chunk (reading the data) is a "solved" problem, at least when using computer CD drives, and that if a CDR sounds different than the original CD it's either because 1) the copy wasn't "perfect", or 2)some as yet unexplained aspect of current CD transport /player intereactions with CDR media that differs from CD media.

Thanks...great response. Well....my brother (in LA..studio guy..and a reviewer for a high end mag) purchased the Phillips dual tray audio cd burner yesterday. He called me this am from cell phone and sounded like he just had an epiphany! Although he has had trouble with the sound quality from CDR's, he was impressed with the Phillips audio burner component. He claims that it is as close to a perfect duplicate as he has ever heard. He claimed that there is a bit of crisp harshness, that the vocals seem to not lay back behind the speakers as much as before, and lacked a bit of the air that the original had. He concluded that the audio burner was "damn close" to the original and is great for 99% of humanity. He originally planned to keep the Phillips only if it "made sonically perfect copies", however, he is considering keeping the unit because it is, "close enough" given the savings. He also said that the Phillips unit was built like a typical crappy low-fi electronics. He is going to have to send my some copies so that I can hear for myself, but I'm impressed.

Ramstl: Other than occasionally Kevin Halverson, you won't find any experts here...but you knew that already, didn't you?

Mfgrep: So far, I hear exactly the same thing your brother heard, from the CD-R disc that Ejlif made with his Meridian transport/Tascam CD-R machine. I also hear EXACTLY the same thing with the copies I make with my $89 computer CD-RW. I don't know what all the fuss is about. They ARE NOT a truely perfect copy, but of course they suffice (I never said they didn't). That's why I use CD-R's, and am happy with them. THEY SUFFICE, AND THEY NEED NOT BE UNIQUIVACALLY PERFECT TO SERVE THEIR PURPOSE...................To all the doubters, there's ZERO point in arguing WHY they "REALLY ARE" a "perfect" copy, because those of us who have a decent system, trust our ears (and can hear 20 kHz), KNOW what we hear....DAD-GUMMIT!!! There's no need to waste your time here anymore, YOU CAN'T TELL US THAT WE DO NOT HEAR, WHAT WE (and anyone else who listens, in my system's case) DO IN FACT HEAR!...........Isn't it all really about the music anyway? I thought it was. Apparently you guys have never heard that expression before...