Copies Better Than Originals?

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.