2. digital
  3. 1322553479

Can the copy sound better than the original?

Ridiculous question on the surface, I know. Here are the particulars:
I burned a copy of Mike Patton's "Mondo Cane" to listen to at work. I played the cd-r to verify that it was functional and it seems to sound significantly better than the original manufactured disc. More cohesive performance, better detail in inner voices, a sense of being in the space with the performers, and soundstage depth that is unusual for this system. Nonsense, right? I will state upfront that I have no affiliation with Memorex whatsoever. The cd-r I burned was a Memorex
"Black" cd-r. The only explanations I can come up with are that a) there was some compression in the transfer into i-tunes b) there is something about the way a laser might read a cd that would cause a typical silver cd to reflect garbage light onto the laser, whereas a black cd has less spurious reflective emission. Anybody else care to try this and confirm/de-bunk my perception?
ths364
andyz
39 posts
 
Digital error correction, which all digital processing must have, will make or break the sound. If there was no correction, the playback would fail within the first 100ms. Most manufacturers do not do a good job in the area of error correction. Some do an excellent job. Digital is still transmitted as an electrical signal. Not all of the signal originally encoded in the recording studio arrives onto the consumer cd. Assumptions will be made by software to fill in the gaps. These gaps come in the form of media scratches, clock timing misalignments, mastering, and signal loss through circuitry and cables. Extracting all of the data is the only way to get what was originally recorded. Unfortunately, the way music is created and the media is manufactured, getting apples to apples data from studio to consumer is just not possible. Getting apples to apples data from your cd to your cd players outpput is next to impossible. How the gaps are corrected is mostly what makes a bad, good or great digital player.
My Cary Xciter through it's USB input makes all of my redbook cds sound better than ever. It is odd that flac ripped discs sound better than the original, but it just plain does on this dac.
tmsorosk
1,013 posts
 
If your burner is doing it's job the copy should be exact.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
i think the answer depends in part on what "better" means.

my experience comparing copies to originals is cd dependent.

now let me define better. it implies a subjective preference.

better means more realistic or natural timbre of instruments.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
"If your burner is doing it's job the copy should be exact."

The problem, if I can be so bold, is that even if the files were to be compared and found to be exactly the same, I.e., no errors or differences, the sound of the copy will be better than the original. In short, it is a Strawman argument that the files must be different for there to be a difference in sound. Also, let's say the burner is not doing its job perfectly for some reason and there are errors or differences in the copy - that in itself would not explain why the sound of the copy is better although it could explain why the sound is worse. Does anyone not see where I'm going with this?
More to discover