Do CD-R's sound the same as originals

Carl, you have valid points which are not made any more valid by your cheap shots. Please keep to the task at hand. Which is effectively communicating your point and not straying into the arena of off task insults. I have had debates with you in the past. Sometimes we have agreed and other times we have disagreed. That is okay. I respect opinions other than my own. It helps me color outside the lines. Gravity is not going to stop because someone disagrees with me. Everyone has reasonable issues here and these questions need to be raised whether or not we understand or agree with them. Consider this part of the educational curve. BTW, incase you missed my above posts, I generally agree with the statement that there are differences. Why.... well, that is what this debate is for. Also, I would be really interested in the information you have gathered from some of the above sources you mentioned. Yes, I could maybe contact them, if they would give me the time. However, if you have already built the wheel.... Also, is the research validated with testing or is it subjective? Not that I don't trust subjective testing, I do. That is how I finalize my buying chioces. It is "what sounds good to me" that counts.

Look, it wasn't me that started the cheapshots, it was Joe (or whoever he is). Ramstl, If you hear a difference, then we agree. I am neither a manufacturer nor a leading music producer, so why does it matter to any of you what else I have to say on this? I refuse to repeat myself any longer. You all win. I am a terrible person who can't help but be wrong all the time, and all I do is "blather". I can't help myself, I'm a retarded idiot. By all means, come to your own conclusions, don't take anything I say seriously. There, are you happy now? AND HELL NO, I DON'T POST AS SOMEONE ELSE, AND IF I WERE THERE WITH YOU IN PERSON JOE, YOU'D BE TASTING YOUR OWN BLOOD RIGHT NOW FOR DISHONORING ME THAT WAY!!! I've said over and over again, how freaking much I hate all those pissant posters that don't use their own name, and come back and post as yet another anonymous numbskull. I AM NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE, AND YOU'RE LUCKY I'M NOT THERE WITH YOU RIGHT NOW. Damn lucky! You'd definitely be literally "incoherent" if I was. Where the hell do you get off accusing me of something like that? You're asking for it, you LOWLIFE!

Kthomas: yes, I do have several originals and their copies, but I do not know how to "extract the file". I'm not thoroughly literate with PC's, but not a dummy, either. Can you provide insight or instruction? I use a Dell, windows 98, HP burner in the CPU. I save files from CD's to the hard drive, then burn from there. Tell me what you mean, and I'll be glad to try it. My copying results do not seem consistent from one session to another, but I cannot fathom what the variable might be. I would really like to get better copies all the time (not better than the original, carl, don't go nuts on me).

Not going nuts, and it wasn't you who insulted me anyways(much, heh heh). I can help you. What software are you using? I've found a really good software for doing the read part, it's from Germany and it's called "Nero". You can download a trial version for free. But I'm still trying to figure out what the best software is, for the write process. Certainly for putting MP3's (like from Napster) on CD-R's, it's Adaptec, IMO. Anyway, what I think Kthomas means, is that of keeping the "CD image" file, and making another CD-R from it. That isn't difficult to do. Anyway, the Nero software is really awesome (provided the CD isn't copy protected, to where it reads as having over 700 megabytes of data...you have to throw tracks away to copy those)...since you cannot copy a CD a "tack at a time" with Nero. But what's awesome about it is that you can use "jitter reduction". It took around 3 hours to read my Sheffield "My Disc" test CD at 1x speed (and it's only 74 minutes long!). However, I couldn't use that image file to burn a CD, because the data amounted to a high (and in actuality impossible) 749 megabytes!! 74 minute CD-R's are 650 mB, and 80 minute ones are 700 mB. So I had to read it with a different software, and throw out the first 5 music tracks. Then I subbed in 5 Napster files for the first 5 music tracks, so the track count would be the same.

Calm down carl_eber. Your tone is not conducive to a serious discussion. I apologize if my comment on your postings was insulting to you, but in my humble view your postings in general as so incoherent that it would seem you are trolling. Also please retract your physical threats. I doubt if you saw me in person you would carry out your threats. I am a pretty big guy and not someone you'd like to get into an even fight with. Finally, if you have a clue as to what you are talking about, please explain why an exact logical replica of a CD should sound any different than the original.