Do CD-R's sound the same as originals

"The audio recordable discs and equipment sounds considerably better than computer "burner" devices for audio." This absolutely makes no sense to me. It is not at all what I hear. My Yamaha copier is actually much more reliable than my Phillips audio CD recorder. The only conclusion I can reach is that people are not making propoer replicas of their CDs.

To the extent that we're talking about the accuracy of the copy being the dominant variable, it doesn't make sense to me either. You can prove the accuracy of the copies made by a computer CDR drive and I'm guessing (since I haven't done it myself) that you can prove it's not a "perfect" copy when you use an audio CD recorder. That's saying that it sounds better off a CDR when the bits are changed a little as opposed to not at all. The notion that using an "audio" CDR disc vs. a computer CDR disc and get better sound is difficult to explain - the only difference in the audio CDR is the interpretation of the bits and the royalty that gets paid on them. But, it would be easy to eliminate this variable - just use an audio CDR to make a copy in a computer CDR drive and compare it to an audio CDR made in an audio CD recorder.

I don't have a computer "burner", but it's my understanding that they can burn at high speeds, ie 10X or more. It seems sort of intuitive to me that at high copying speeds there is increased possibility of (especially) timing errors. But if that were true, I would think that it would also screw up copied programs and data files (as well as music). No??? Craig.

.......I may be guilty of thinking in analog, but copying in digital:>) Craig.

Garfish, read the above posts for an explanation about detecting whether or not there are copying errors, beyond any doubt.