Do CD-R's sound the same as originals

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.