Copies Better Than Originals?

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.

See the Genesis Speakers website for research that was done using black blanks and CD recorder in computers.

http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/Black_CDsII.pdf is the source of this most recent question.
I have read through the paper and still don't find any expanation for the theory.

I doubt that Arnie Nudal and his reps are making things up, but I'd like a little more insight before jumping to any conclusion.

Nobody I know has done this and I don't have the equipment required. Any experience here on AudiogoN???

I have to strongly disagree with Chang here as I suspect he didn't actually audition copies from a Pioneer 739. Therefore he is poo pooing my experiences based SOLELY on the burner he used i.e. all burners are NOT equal!

Chang brings up the point that we do not have access to the master tapes and he is correct. What we do have access to though is a near "edge of the art" $55,000 turntable rig that is only eclipsed by the "best in the world" $70k+ Rockport. That rig has been compared to master tape we use this source as our "reference", then we all would unequivocally state that the burned cd sounds closer in space, harmonic decay, fluidity and overall sound field as compared to the original cd.

The question I have for anyone here is how the hell do you add space, fluidity or additional harmonic decay to a copy with a frequency shift? Many have speculated (including Chang here) that the Pioneer burner is just rolling off the highs or something like that... The problem with those hypothesis is that frequency related colorations never add more space or additional harmonic decay. But guess what? Almost every article ever written about cd sound compared to the master tapes speaks about the loss of the above aforementioned sonic qualities! And since the Pioneer 739 adds these qualities into the copy, I think it is a fair statement to say the copies sound closer to the master tape!

Chang also stated that he had the ability to compare the copy to the original "bit for bit". Unfortunately his statement shows his ignorance of digital. For example: Either the copy or the original could have jitter magnitudes hundreds of times greater than the other, yet both would look identical bit for bit. If you decrease jitter components in the copy, they WILL be audible! Especially if they are large in the original cd as compared to the copy. In a nutshell, it's a hell of a lot more than just bits!