I didn’t know that Did you guys know that?

Harley is correct on this point.

Onhwy61, you have stumbled upon an interesting curiosity; "So if I have a CD, rip it to my computer and then make a CDR, then the CDR sounds better than the original CD. Does that mean if I then take the CDR, rip it to the computer and then make another CDR, does the 2nd generation CDR sound even better than the first generation CDR?"

The answer, again, is yes, however the second (i.e. first copy CDR) must be treated with pollish. In fact, there will be an easily audible difference between a pollished and unpollished disk which has been used for the source for the CDR. An untreated CDR being copied had no net gain sonically. Pollishing the CDR before copying was necessary to improve the sound yet again. So, there are two clearly defined improvements possible over manufactured Redbook discs - Pollish the Redbook disc and copy it to CDR. Then pollish the CDR and copy it again. Pollish the final (3rd) disc and it will sound radically differently than the original Redbook disc.

An audiophile friend and I stumbled upon this discovery when we were testing the efficacy of CDR sound vs. manufactured Redbook discs. Both the pollishing and creating of a CDR benefited the sound.

Do I follow all these steps myself? No; however, I do pollish all my Redbook discs.

Al, no, the results are independent of the player used. I have had similar results with many different players/DACs.

The only logical explanation for this is the influence of the pollish and copying of the Redbook disc upon the error correction systems of the player. I share this as a point of information from my experiences and I am not interested in arguing over these observations.

MAM-A regular data cd-rs are also very high quality and can be recommended for long life.

The gold archival quality would be audiophile overkill though. If audiophile overkill works for you in general, then get the gold archival MAM-A.

I have generic cheapies that I have left in my truck for over 9 years in Arizona (temperatures often over 100 degrees) as an experiment. They still play just fine.

To me the key is to store them in the dark. Opaque cardboard or plastic boxes you can buy at Bags Unlimited will do the trick. leaving them out where they are exposed to even indoor ambient light will destroy them fairly quickly.

can someone please indicate what better means?

does anyone have the experience of a copy sounding better than the original, when a computer was not used to copy a disk ?

Better means deeper, more clearly defined soundstage, it means cleaner/more distinct overall presentation - more easily heard stereo separation but more solid L/C/R across the soundstage - with greater refinement of top frequencies clear down to the bass. It means improved macrodynamics such that it seems someone turned up the level when it has not been touched. These are the results in every instance. It also gives the sense that you are hearing into the piece more and increases the corporeality of the artist(s).

If you are not seeking those qualities, then you would likely not see it as better; then don't treat your discs and don't make CDR's of them to play in place of Redbook discs.

Al, Tomcy6, Thank you for the advise and CD-R suggestions. Overkill doesn’t work for me. It’s just that my research consisted of a lazy mans Google search - best CD-R.

Douglas, regarding polishing etc., that deserves some comment: Wow! :-)