Do CD-R's sound the same as originals

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.