If your CD's are harsh, try this

Conversely, about the Auric Illuminator: the fact that it cuts glariness from Cds, is all the more reason, to me, not to use it on my pristine cds. How can that gel differentiate poor cds from pristine ones. It can't. I washed off a load of cds after discovering that. I will gel up the harsh ones. Sorry to get off the topic. Couldn't resist.

I know they're all digital copies, but my Marantz machine also lets you make a copy of a copy if you use the analog outputs and inputs. It's a second generation copy, which you can't make using the direct digital ins and outs, because of copy protection. I never use the analog connection because I want first generation sound! But it's an option if you want to copy a CD-R. I guess that's what CDC is referring to.

My understanding of Auric Illuminator is that it "simply" removes some haziness from the CD manufacturing process. It's like taking the haze off a dirty window without changing the properties of the window (or CD) itself. Just the same, really as running LPs through your trusty Nitty Gritty or VPI.

The Auric Iluminator kit also includes a black marker for the edges of CDs, which I don't use. Can't hear any improvement.

Cdc, the copies are digital, unless you make a "copy of a copy" on a consumer machine, which will then be analogue.

I can't tell a difference, but some big guns agree with you that they sound different and better.

Charlie

Cdc is correct (not about the analog part) but I have noticed that some CD-R's do sound better - less edgy - than the originals.

Some digital dude told me a few weeks ago (not sure how true it is) that some CDs were produced out of phase and putting them on a CD-R corrects the phase issue. Whatever.

All I know is that burning (using Exact Copy) does make most CD's sound different than the original. If you like the results then you might consider it better.