Carl - I realize that your comments were not directed to me - I was just attempting to be funny. Mfgrep - I would encourage you to get the CDR burner and do the comparison tests for yourself. I'm curious if you doubt the ability to make "exact" copies from a pure physical standpoint - in trying to divide and conquer the problem, the first thing to do would be to determine if we're comparing apples to apples which, in my mind, is proving that the CD and CDR have "exactly" the same information. That's all I was trying to prove to myself with my tests - how they sound and if they sound different is another test. It shouldn't be surprising that this is quite possible even with a cheap CD transport - there is enough error correction / retry logic built in to insure proper reads, and the writes either work and you get a good copy or fail and notify you. In other words, it's cheap technology with a bunch of redundancy built in. Similarly, setting up a 100Mb LAN in your own home is a cheap proposition these days, again because it's cheap technology with a bunch of built in redundancy. I think the reason transports / interconnects in the audio world sound different is because they're not built with the same redundancy model - there, it is more "send and pray" that it gets there. If it doesn't, you miss it to the audible detriment of the listener. Now, if I can build a 100Mb "transport" for a digital datastream that covers my whole house for less than $1000 and deliver "bit perfect" data anywhere therein at data rates far exceeding redbook CDs (or even SACD's for that matter), then it would seem obvious to me that the future of digital interconnects is NOT what we currently have if it is so prone to error. In any case, I just wanted to clarify that I was only documenting a repeatable test for "perfect" data copies and not making any claim that the test covered the audibility of the copy vs. the original.