Copies Better Than Originals?

S23 maybe my computer is very good,thats why I am
getting good result.Plus the tweaking I did.
The one I am using is auric illuminator even better.
they were at least 1o people who heard the copy.
they all said why...............is it better than
original.

I don't think so Jay. Maybe your friends prefer the copied version just like my friends prefer MP3 version.

I'm in the computer field and my friends are in recording and dubbing business. Believe me when we tried every possible way. You definitely loose something when it was transferred to hard drive.
However it is possible that you can "enhance" the copied version by playing with different software. Kind of like tweaking video and photos. However, if the original detail is not there then you can't tweak it. Whatever you put on is artifical.

S23 with respect to you the only real is when
we go to the concert,our system they are all
artificial,my friend is sensitive about artificial,
He almost ruin my passion to music, He is
supposed to be my mentor.Glad I learn to
listen.To me s23 the bottom line what comes out
of the speaker. If an audiophile tell me, He
got good result by hanging all his equipment
in the air, I will come and listen, It does not
mean Ill do it.I respect your opinion.

I posted a similar thread about a year ago and here are some of the more plausible explanations I received (I'm sure that someone here will poo poo both of these explanations. I am not necessarily saying this is why the Pioneer does what it does. These were just some of the better ideas IMHO):

It is possible to reduce the inherent jitter in the original cd recording by re-ripping the data prior to sending it on the copy. If the Pioneer used some sort of unique buffering circuitry, or somehow re-rips the data prior to sending it the burner, the copy could have less jitter than the original.

Most copy blanks use much more transparent and optical clear plastics that are easier for the pickup assembly of a player to read. They are also more consistent in their centering as compared to a typical cd.

A combination of both of the two above ideas leads to a better sounding copy.

This is a fabricated grand conspiracy by greedy Pioneer executives to confuse the high end crowd into selling all their expensive gear and go with a complete Pioneer based system that they can purchase from Best Buy.

I have one of the Pioneer 739 units and it DOES produce better sounding copies than the originals! As crazy as this sounds (no pun intended) it is true. I have done MANY TRUE DOUBLE BLIND comparison tests (with other reviewers present) and we ALL agree that this Pioneer's magic ability is no bunk. Each and every copy have slightly better depth and air around the instruments, basically sounding slightly more analog and closer to the master tape than the original cd. Hall decay and fluidity are more present on the copies. It is NOT a spectral shift or a frequency dependant change but an actual increase in low level ambient detail instead.

I have to say that everyone reading this thread needs to wake up and realize that this is a pretty big time discovery. In my opinion it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to spend thousands of dollars on cables and electronics and not consider trying one of these cheap Pioneer burners. You cannot improve on the recording no matter how much money you spend on your equipment! The best you can get is a replication of your source material. If you could find a way to actually improve your source material, with details closer to the original master tape, wouldn't you kill to get this technology?

Then again I could be a greedy deceptive Pioneer executive, so buyer beware! ;)

That's a fun reading Ehider. However, since you don't own the master tape or you were live from recording studio, therefore, "details closer to the original" can not be proven in any way. The copy tend to have some information lost so that some high frequency got roll off. My system is revealing enough that we can tell that copied CD tend to sound more round but slightly dull compared to original. also definitely the lost of fine detail. On the copied CD, we can't hear the fine detail of guitarist picking on the string which produced a slight high pitch noise for less than a split second nor as the background noise from the audience clearing his throat. Also, the front to back presentation is less spacious imaging compared to original. The drum sounded more fuzzy (which added more glow) compared to original. Overall sound is more "damped" than the original.
We even verified and compared the CDs bit to bit on a computer to prove that they're identical. It looks 100% the same on computer but it doesn't sound the same.
However, we can't tell the difference when these CDs apart were played on a boom box and walkman.
Only thing I conclude is that copied CD is not at acceptable level if you have hi end and very revealing system. It's still the only good source to backup your music and it is still good if fine details are not critical.