Here's how a CD copy of a copy can sound better

Ake, I was surprised by this as well. I have a CD copy done by a Thomas W. Shea, E-mail; http://www.sunset.net/musicman that is absolute proof that a copy can be better than the original. I'm not sure if it's due to sucessive upsampling,oversampling and/or error correction but there is no doubt that it's better than the original. This copy was done before my eyes at a Sterophile show in NY many years ago in conjunction with the folks from Audio Alchemy. I also have copies of CD's given to me by friends done on their PC's and they are not as good as the over the counter examples. Whether it's due to added jitter or to some kind of electronic distortions added by the inner working of the computer I don't know, but I do know that it's audible.

"If done correctly digital copies can sound better than the original. If done incorrectly digiatl copies can sound worse than the original."

They can sound better if you get all the members of the band together and have them re-record the music. when you are coppying it can only get worse or stay the same.

lchapper, I beg to differ.

The original copy is digital, the second copy will be analog, not digital due to copy protection. Unless you get a "pro" version which ignores SCMS copyright protection.

my own experience on this is very simple, i tried it
and i was shock on the result,i dont know if you are
familiar with mapleshade recording co. the guy who
own founded the co. is a genius,all i did , itreated
the copy with this mickro-smooth maple shade product
it gave it a full sound and eliminate the edginess
and brightness gone.According to him, he uses this
on one of his recording but as far as i know the
cd he mention is on HP list if iam not mistaken
it is the Kendra Shank,try it,upsamling will improve it
of course.to clarify treat the copy before burning in.