Copies Better Than Originals?

...Anyone with experience or knowledge about serious claims that the Pioneer CDR W739 (or 839) produces recorded copies which are of better quality than the originals? If so, how is it accomplished?
It is impossible for any copy to be better than the original. If a copy is made from the original it is possible for it to be close to the original but not better.

For something to be better is has to either have more of the right information, or less of the wrong information. It is possible to alter the sound of a recording. It is not possible for the home audio enthusiest to be able to choose the tonal ranges to fix, and which ones to leave alone. The simplest example of this is Dolby noise reduction, but this alters the sound of the entire recording.

Besides the sampling rate of digital recordings is still too low to even make recordings that are as good as the originals, much less better than the original!
I have read that copies of brite recordings sound better (not as brite). I should check this out on some of my rock cd's I can't stand to listen to anymore and see if it's true or not.
In the digital world this can be true. Once the input media reader decides on the sequence of "ones" and "zeros" it writes the same series to the output media (the copy). The ones and zeros of the original actually are two "states" (in a CD this would be a "pit" or no "pit") and in general the input information is converted to two voltage levels. Ideally the switching between voltage levels is instantaneous, and you have perfectly square pulses, properly spaced in time. In the real world the pulses are misshapen and jitter back and forth in time. The wonderful thing about digital information transfer is that if the pulses are still recognizable as "ones" and "zeros" (and they can be pretty badly messed up and still be recognized) the output data sequence can be generated using clean and properly timed pulses. In a CD copy this would be more precisely made "pits".

An example...
Your Subject, garbled..."copez beter thn riginals"

I can recognize your words in spite of the errors, so I can output..."copies better than originals"
..My poor choice of words. Strike "better". The author of the source of my inspiration for the topic from another web forum (I'm uncertain of the protocol here for mentioning it by name) goes to some length with apparent intelligent, subjective description about the relative improvement of copy over original. Blind testing, repeat experiments, etc. The individual identified himself as an electrical engineer.

Same subject; different method. How about "black" CD blanks? There's a white paper on Genesis Loudspeakers website re this means for achieving "improvement".
A copy of a CD can indeed appear to be better than the original. The reason is simple: the Red Book defines that the bit stream from an audio CD is processed in real time. In essence, this means that any time there is a read error, error correction needs to kick in, which will degrade the sound to some degree.
Conversely, if the copy machine actually does a CD-ROM read of the CD , that is, it builds a faithful copy of the CD in memory and then writes the copy, the copy may sound better when played in Red Book mode; error correction will not have to work as hard on the copy.
One might be tempted to ask, "If a copy was somehow better than the original, then where did the copier get the knowledge/information to add anything, without that that information being part of the original in the first place?" If in fact, the original did not contain the information that is added in the "better copy", then how can it be considered a "copy"? It cannot. It can be considered a synthesized enhancement, like an airbrushed Playboy centerfold.

It is totally impossible for a copy to exceed an original for content quality. As I stated above, to do so would require the addition of information or material that didn't exist in the original, and therefore anything added would simply be "made up" out of whole cloth. It can be "touched up", enhanced, restored, etc, to make it more "acceptable" to some, but never exceeded.
I don't remember the exact description but this was discussed in Sterophile a number of years ago. The author stated that copies had lower jitter and this could account for the improved sound over the original.
Pioneer has been known to rewrite the laws of physics. About 25 years ago they advertized a head shell that was low in weight but high in mass.
In my case I experiment what mapleshade did, they use
this mikro smooth to the surface of the blank cd,
then I put the original to the bedini ultraclarifier,
then start burning in, guess What ? One on the cd
that is so bright and I cant listen, suddenly, it
I can listen to it longer. IT WORKS.
If we combine the comments from Hpshps and Rec, we are pretty close.

The file format redbook uses is call CDA. One feature of this format is self-generated clock. That means the clock is regenerated by looking at a limited run of the data stream in real time. If the data stream contains errors, the generated clock will be a little off and causes jitters.

Now if you make a copy, data streams are treated as files, the software can apply a much better error correction scheme to the data and burn a perfect copy of that data stream to CD-R. If high quality disc is used, you will get much lower error rate at playback and therefore much lower jitters.

You can hear improvement only if you use high quality CD-R and playback on relatively mid to low-end players. Most high-end players have large buffer to store data stream. They can apply extensive error corrections to it and regenerate the clock form there.
In my experience, copies always worst than original. However, I did a blind test on few friends and many folks actually prefer non-original sound. Copies tend to have less detail in high frequency response and they might seem to have more bass than the original. I also did the MP3 test and more folks like the MP3 over the copied and the original. Since the compress ratio is different, the MP3 actually sounded more lively than the original and copied ( about 2 to 3% faster.) It's matter of preference rather than which is better.
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 it better than
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.
See the Genesis Speakers website for research that was done using black blanks and CD recorder in computers. 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!
As an owner of the Pioneer PDR-W739, I can say that by utilising the manual digital record level control, the cd copy can have more "volume" or dynamics than the original cd, especially if it is an older cd that has not been remastered. Case in point, I dubbed a copy of Christopher Cross' second cd, "Another Page", which is a very poor recording sonically. The copy sounded much louder and livelier because I increased the level control by 10 dB. On remastered cds, it does not pay to increase the digital level control because the signal will become distorted.
I agree with Rob here that it is VERY detrimental to play with the digital record level control! I ALWAYS copy at a zero unity gain so that I am assured the burned cd will sound its absolute best. In my experience you are opening an entire can of worms if you play with the digital volume control when copying.

BTW: Rob, if you are interested in selling your Pioneer 739 burner I have a list of audiophiles as long as my arm that are looking for one of these units.
Ehider I have the PDR 839,yes it does make good
copies,Rob thanks for bringing up the volume
use, I agree with you.How much are this recording
worth NOW used?
Ehider, you're comparing LP and CD and of course they sound different. I also a big fan of vinyl system myself.
I never said you're wrong and I just said your statement is fun reading. The very first word I said is "IN MY EXPERIENCE..."
I don't understand why you felt offensive since I never accuse your fact of anything. You're the one who's being too serious and subjective about this.

However, since you're not the one who produce the CD then you can't claim that your copied version is closer to original. It might be more prefer by you but by far that you can't claim that's more close to original.
As far as damage CD goes, it is possible that a different player can pickup different readings and it might sound better from one player to the other. Therefore, yes, in this situation, it is possible that your pioneer is able to read the data more accurate than your reference CD player and make a better copy. However, if you have a good conidition CD then that's a different story. As I said before, without any "enhancement" the copied verision is not going to be better. i.e. Changing level is an enhancement.
Anyway, there is no point here to argue who's right whos wrong here. It's all preference as I said from very beginning. You can love your copy that's fine. I prefer the original. No point proven here just pure opinions. There is no real fact here.
Ehider, Thanks for your response. I do no tknow anyone who is selling their units. I do know that EBAY has several listed for sale. Actually, Can you answer this- my machine cannot record anymore. I was finalizing a disc and it would not stop. I did exactly what the manual said to do and it would not respond. I eventually got the disc out after I took the cover off. When I turn the unit on now, it still indicates that it is finalizing a disc. I would like to get it repaired. What do you think caused this? and how much will it cost? Thanks,

Jacytoy, I estimate these units still sell from $250-400 deoending where you look.

I didn't mean to come across as defensive but I need to be VERY CLEAR how we think this is a HUGE PARADIGM for everybody to recognize (just not you). It is MORE than just my opinion.

The magic of the Pioneer 739 is an absolute breakthrough! MANY very seasoned audiophiles, along with VERY RESPECTED reviewers have ALL found that the 739's burned copies have MORE harmonic decay, MORE space and BETTER fluidity as compared to the originals CD!

The above sonic differences are EXACTLY the as stated by recording engineers themselves (the ones who actually bitch about the specific sonic losses that occur when they compare their CD releases to their original master tapes).

It should come as no surprise to anyone how excited we are about this discovery! Everyone I know to a person who has heard this difference has bought a 739. This discovery is UNPRECEDENTED in high end digital! Just imagine INCREASED space, INCREASED harmonics and BETTER depth from a copied CD as compared to the original! This has been proven again and again in TRUE DOUBLE BLIND TESTS!

You CANNOT add these sonic qualities with the latest greatest super expensive cable designs. You CANNOT add these sonic qualities with the latest greatest super expensive amplifier designs! True space, true harmonics and fluidity only come from the source, they cannot be added later!

It seems as if most serious "over the top" audiophiles are spending thousands on their digital front ends trying to extract every little detail from that shiny little disc! Here is a breakthrough that is a fraction of the cost of a single decent audiophile power cord.

To sum up the FACTS (so Chang can grasp what I've been trying state with my prior threads):

> The 739's copies have unique sonic qualities associated with space, fluidity and additional harmonics.

> The above aforementioned sonic improvements have been verified to many audiophiles (including some reviewers) in true double blind tests.

> The 739's copied discs have sonic information that cannot be replicated by changing frequency or amplitude.

> Losses in harmonics, decay, depth and space are exactly what the recording engineers have been bitching about when they compare their master tapes to their commercially released CD's, i.e the copies sound "closer to master tape" statement makes logical sense.

> No one here can actually verify if I work for Pioneer or not, so all of this may just be a grand conspiracy ;-)
Not sure about you but this is one of the worst pioneer player ever made according to users review. Okay, Ehider, this is not my opinion now. Most of the unit tray broke within very short time. It's hard to understand that you would defend one of the worst product made by pioneer.,Recorders-Players/Pioneer,PDR-W739,/PRD_124816_2740crx.aspx

Also, you're making false claims about amps, cables, and preamps. They do make a big difference if you have a poorly match system and they don't have to be super expensive. I do make my own pure silver cables for a fraction of cost of this pioneer writer (interconnect $40, speaker cable $60.) Not only they improve the sound, they also last forever.
But again, that's your opinion so no arguement there.
False claims? All that I'm stating is that you CANNOT add harmonics or space that wasn't there in the first place! The source is the ONLY place were these sorts of sonics originate.

To clarify: I feel that a superior copy is even more important than focusing on cables or amplifiers first. BUUUUUT, I STRONGLY believe you need to put just as much research and money into cables and amplifiers too! EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT, Yet IT ALL STARTS WITH HAVING THE BEST SOURCE MATERIAL POSSIBLE!

In terms of the Pioneer link you provided, it is absolutely true that this particular burner is not as reliable as other offerings. That being said, this is still the only burner that we know of that will produce the better sounding copies.

In terms of opinions which really matter though; at last count there are 16 audiophiles, 3 high end audio manufacturers and 4 high end reviewers who firmly believe the 739 makes better sounding copies. This is much more than just my opinion. It's an entire arsenal of audiophiles!