Hey Jerko, (C-eber), fighting and benchpressing have nothing to do with each other. I see your ideas on that topic are as incoherent as those on CD-Rs and regular CDs. I'm thinking I may want to do an A-B comparison with you on both.
Digital music is stored as 0s and 1s. Unless there are errors in the copying process, which in general there aren't, both the original and the copy are identical. There is no other point in the chain and no other effect, whether it be jitter, or whatever, that can be any different from the original. Those who think they hear a difference may do so, but the difference is in their minds.
Let me put it another way, to see if it is clearer: digital information is discrete, not continuous. It is DIGITAL, not ANALOGOUS. Therefore errors in the information are also discrete, and not continuous. The errors are either there or they are not. If they are not, as is the case with most reasonable copying processes done with a computer, the sound will be the same as the original. If you disagree on scientific grounds, fine, please explain, unles, of course, you are trolling.
Your personal attacks discredit you completely Mr. carl_eber. But I will not fall as low as you. It is clear that you do not have any explanation yourself, hence your blabbering "talk to this, talk to that". As to your supposition that I am not a scientist, that is also incorrect. I also suspect that you have a tendency to answer your posts yourself under other aliases. Enough said.
Calm down carl_eber. Your tone is not conducive to a serious discussion. I apologize if my comment on your postings was insulting to you, but in my humble view your postings in general as so incoherent that it would seem you are trolling. Also please retract your physical threats. I doubt if you saw me in person you would carry out your threats. I am a pretty big guy and not someone you'd like to get into an even fight with. Finally, if you have a clue as to what you are talking about, please explain why an exact logical replica of a CD should sound any different than the original.
Your reasoning is completely wrong. You posted "If they were exactly the same, then ALL cd players and transports would sound the same too." What does that have to do with anything? We are not discussing whether there are differences between components. Only a moron would dispute that. Read my posts and when you have taken the trouble to understand their meaning correctly please reformulate your point. As to your final comment, it is clear that you are not registered in this forum yourself or are spannig for someone else, hence the use of an e-mail as your moniker. If people like you are eber's only friends he is in trouble. Cheerio.
The reason different equipment sounds different is because there are differences in the reading and decoding (including prinbcipally turning into the analog domain) the information on a CD. As explained by others above, there is absolutely no degradation in the CD copying process (if properly done through a computer). Therefore the only explanation for sonic differences between CDs and exact-replica CD-Rs would have to come from differences in the player's ability to read one or the other, even if they both have the same information. Those who think CD-Rs sound worse would have to argue that there are more errors in processing the information from the CD-R, even if it is identical to that of the CD. I have not seen such argument made in a coherent manner above by any of the proponents of the "CD-R is worse" theory. Again, there are no errors in the duplication process, that is unquestionable. Those who ythink otherwise simply do not understand the nature of digital vs. analog sound.
Mfgrep, jitter is not a quality of the code itself. You cannot introduce jitter into a CD. It is not there. Jitter is produced when you decode it. You cannot introduce anything into the CD-R unless your copying hardware/software are grossly inadequate. The CD-R is an exact, I repeat exact, replica of the original CD. Any difference in sound can only come from the way your CD player reads CDs versus CD-Rs and not from the CD-R itslef. Comprende ?
eber, half of your arguments are flawed and convoluted, and therefore your credibility is near-zero. I have no reason to believe that what you think you hear is accurate or just a figment of your imagination. In my system, which is a very good system, properly recorded CD-Rs are indistiguishable from CDs. If you want to convince other people with your views I strongly suggest you tone done your message, quit "shouting" at people with your large-caps, stop threatening them physically (and minimize the risk of getting bashed) and read you posts before hitting that return key to check the logic before you say foolish things.
"The audio recordable discs and equipment sounds considerably better than computer "burner" devices for audio." This absolutely makes no sense to me. It is not at all what I hear. My Yamaha copier is actually much more reliable than my Phillips audio CD recorder. The only conclusion I can reach is that people are not making propoer replicas of their CDs.
Yes they do if they are done properly, in my opinion. No one who thinks otherwise in this post has so far presented an even remotely satisfying explanation to the contrary. And it is clear that at least some of the people who hear differences are not properly making their copies. Particularly those who claim they hear big differences.
Ktomas, I echo your question precisely. Centurymantra's post raises some interesting issues but it is not clear to me whether he is implying that the time-delays occur when a player reads a CD-R which is an exact digital replica (1s and 0s) of the original CD. Or whether there is something else involved here.