I didn’t know that Did you guys know that?


Looking through old Absolute Sound issues, I found this reply from Robert Harley to a letter:

"...Among those who have actually listened to CDs and CD-Rs copied from those CDs, the debate was settled long ago - CD-Rs sound better."

Is that a fact?
phaelon
Better means deeper, more clearly defined soundstage, it means cleaner/more distinct overall presentation - more easily heard stereo separation but more solid L/C/R across the soundstage - with greater refinement of top frequencies clear down to the bass. It means improved macrodynamics such that it seems someone turned up the level when it has not been touched. These are the results in every instance. It also gives the sense that you are hearing into the piece more and increases the corporeality of the artist(s).

If you are not seeking those qualities, then you would likely not see it as better; then don't treat your discs and don't make CDR's of them to play in place of Redbook discs.




Al, Tomcy6, Thank you for the advise and CD-R suggestions. Overkill doesn’t work for me. It’s just that my research consisted of a lazy mans Google search - best CD-R.

Douglas, regarding polishing etc., that deserves some comment: Wow! :-)
Phaelon, yup, it is a "wow" experience. Certainly not on the order of new speakers or an entire cable set change, but more than one might expect.

Let us know your impressions after your give it a rip and a polish!
I‘m not sure I want to know, Douglas . Couple that polishing act with obsessive compulsive behavior and... Boom! :-)
Well, it's not as risky as what Antoine Montant was up to. It's also not as time consuming as what one has to do to play vinyl.

As when transferring the discs to my NAS, I did a few at a time, perhaps six or so. Then it was not nearly the overwhelming chore it appeared when looking at the entire collection. Now I don't even play a disc until it's been treated; why suffer the lesser sound quality when an improvement exists at so minimal cost/effort?