Burned CDs can sound better than the original?

I burn CD's on my computer, which sports a DVD drive; and I consider my rig to be fairly hi resolution. I've noted fairly consistently that on MOST main-stram labels, the sound quality increases with the burned copy; and with something like an XRCD and other hi-end recordings, it decreases some. With the XRCD's in particular, the literature talks about how they go thru all this trouble to reduce jitter in their final product. This suggest to me that it may well be a jitter thing, since most of the purist labels use higher quality converters (ADC's and DAC's). Of course, this is only speculation on my behalf.

In either case, the differences are not usually enormus, and in some cases a difference is very difficult to detect. I always end up with a copy that I'm happy with....I am not going to dubb my collection, and I'm not going to buy something that I can copy.

Also, when dubbing the more Hi-end labels; using Gold blanks closes the gap even more, sometimes making them indistinguishable. These have come down to under $3.00/pc

This is just an experience sharing. So far with three brands of CD recorders, we have not yet experienced better sound from the CD-Rs than the original recording CDs.

One of the reasons that we guess is the signal pick up rate from the CD-Rs, which is around 95% of the original CDs. Therefore, we can not be sure that the result is caused by jitter reduction. Instead, we noticed some dynamics and resolution losses. However, this sometimes makes harsh CDs sound smoother.

First off, CD-Rs, when done at 1X speed are certainly as good as the originals, IMO. And early on, I was convinced that some of my CD copies actually sounded more "crisp", or very slightly more "live" than the originals. I have no explanation for this, and I would not be willing to be blind tested on it. I am very pleased, amazed even, at the quality of CD copies. I use a Pioneer 739 CD dubbing recorder, so there are no external ICs. Cheers. Craig

I can make a provably bit-perfect copy from an XRCD with my computer-based CD copier, and I can make a provably bit-perfect copy of a CDR with same, so I'd be at a loss to explain why an XRCD sounds worse when a mainstream mastering sounds better. I'd also be at a loss to explain why a CDR can't be read better than 95% reliably in a audio CD player when it can be read perfectly in a computer CD drive.

At the physical copying level, assuming computer-based, bit-for-bit copying, the same thing is going on regardless of the source (XRCD, mainstream mastering, or CDR). There's no ADC or DAC going on and it's not clear to me how jitter could be involved in any way. The only potential thing left is something to do with how an audio CD transport reads a CDR vs. a "normal" CD, something that makes it deficient to a computer CD drive. -Kirk

You hit the nail on the head. Many people think that LESS resolution and LESS dynamics sounds better. If you listen on a reference system, the difference will blow you away. CD-R machines like the Pioneer produce a more accurate copy than computer CD burners. The accuracy of a copy is ALWAYS <= the original. Stuck with those darn laws of physics and the really poor Red-Book standard for CDs. The beauty of digital is that you can compare recordings without listening to them. You can look at 2 recordings next to each other and compare dynamics, highs, accuracy of reproduction, transients etc. Why don't recordings sound like live performance: less dynamics, that's it. Our playback media and equipment can't handle the dynamics that you'd need for sounding live. It's even more evident with CDs over LPs and with SS instead of tubes. Of course if your equipment could handle it, where would you find a room that could handle it?