I'm not dreaming - these are great CD copies

@georgehifi

Regarding not proving anything, in this case I’ll agree with @geoffkait . Geoff, I’ve read a number of your posts the last few days. Seems you’ve taken what I’ve indicated elsewhere to heart :)

George, to your point about CD failure versus hard drive failure, consider though how much more expensive CDs are in comparison to hard drive. So the failure rate of the hard drive is moot as one can easily back up a hard drive versus hundreds or thousands of CDs.

Some high level approximate numbers. A CD holds 700mb of data, and most often when burning music to it (80 min) one does not maximizes its capacity. Even when buying in "consumer bulk" quantities of 100 pack spindles of "very good quality", $25 would still be considered a bargain. So, in this example, it costs $25 for 70 gig of storage. I can buy a western digital 8 *terabyte* hard drive for $200.

There are a myriad of reasons I’ve abandoned CDs long ago. I still have 4000 though....

There are a myriad of reasons I’ve abandoned CDs long ago. I still have 4000 though....

I still find they are better sounding than a copy "from them" to any other format.
Unless you can get hold of the original master, that has one less transfer than CD naturally.

Cheers George

I still find they are better sounding than a copy "from them" to any other format.

Hi George. Not meaning to play on words here, but personally I draw a distinction between a "copy" and a "rip".

As I mentioned in my 03-26-2018 1:14pm post, a copy is just that, a copy. So, in the case of a copy, there is only one format - a cda file. And in this instance, I agree with you that the copied cda file should not sound better, all other things being equal (such as the condition of the source and target disk). In fact, ideally if there is nothing wrong with the condition of the source and target disks, they should sound the same (i.e. one should be hard pressed to hear a difference, if any).

And I also agree with you about a stamped CD being better, even if only theoretically because of the "more pronounced" pits.

Ripping, on the other hand, could (not that it necessarily will) result in a better sounding file, even if only because of the change in playback mechanism. For example, the source cda file can only be played on optical media whereas a rip of that cda file could produce a wav file that when played back via hard drive or usb *could* sound better. This is especially true if ones optical drive is "noisy".

 And in this instance, I agree with you that the copied cda file should not sound better

This is all I'm saying the more you read write(burn) from a CD the more errors there will be.
I don't give a ratz **** about downloaded music as I have yet to hear it compete with CD on a good transport converted by a great R2R Multibit Dac
All I'm interested in is PCM Cd's 16/44 and 24/96 or PCM DXD which is only by download

Cheers George  

When audio reviewer and guru Robert Harley made this claim many years ago I thought he had lost his mind.  'How can a copy EVER sound better than the original?' I mused.  Well now I know.  At least I think I do.  Or do I?