-=> Quoting John Allen to Bonnie Goodwin <=-
 JA> (bits) is better.         Is it possible for the inexpensive CD
 JA> burners to make "clones" of the better (audiophile) CDs without
 JA> loosing something in the process? Are they able to collect/read
        Absolutely.  Most "audiophile" CDs are nothing special.  The
reason they're better, usually, is some *actual care* is applied in
making these discs.  The original master is usually found instead of
just a production copy.  Hopefully, they're not reequalizing the heck
out of them either.
        Often, the ones that are *only* audiophile discs are recorded
with minimalist setups, which usually sound better than multi-track
recordings.  Frankly, the fewer mikes, the less equalizing and mixing,
the better the sound, CD or LP.  The worst crime of all are the CD
plants that convert the digital tapes that receive back to analog,
equalize it the way *they* think it should sound and then take it back
to digital (sometimes several times).  This is what truly ruined many
cds out there.  I've heard of cases where the factory is told
specifically to just dump the DAT straight to CD and they get the CD
back and check it bit by bit with the one stored on hard drive and
they're not the same (they converted to analog somewhere).  
        Most of the other hyped formats out there (HDCD) and what not
are just not neccessary.  (the differences are minimal).  The biggest
difference with audiophile CDs is that *care* is given.  The best
thing about HDCD is that the *process* assures very few steps in the
production chain and avoids many of the problems listed above.  The
actual HDCD chip is nothing special in my opinion.  Most magazines
will now admit this, even Stereophile, that they were initially
mislead by the simply great recordings themselves and were attributing
things to the format that were just in the recording.
        My *best* sounding CDs are mostly from Japan and you know from
Weathering Continent Vol.1 (I just located Vol.2 finally and got it
last week, BTW), how great the quality is.  *None* of my Japanese CDs
claim *any* special processing or bit conversion formats or gold
coatings.  *None*.  Some may use special formats or they may not, but
they don't hype it because the *recording* is what is important. 
        I've got Japanese discs from the mid-eighties that are
*better* sounding than 99% of American CDs.  Most American discs from
the eighties are terrible.  I can probably count on two hands out of
about 200 American CDs the number that are "great" sounding.  I'd say
95% of the Japanese CDs I have are *fantastic quality*, not just
great.
        Bits *are* bits when it comes to recording.  The discs will
match indentically in terms of data.  Some might argue that jitter
might be introduced into the bitstream, but I don't think this happens
during a pure digital copy from what I recall about digital recording,
so it makes sense the testing you've done sounds the same.
 JA> and write all that was originally recorded without causing 
 JA> something to sound out of place?         We tried cloning the
 JA> "Ultimate" test CD that has some of the cleanest 
 JA> musical/instrumental recording I have every heard (& not heard)
 JA> and to my ears the copy was exact. It sounded every bit as great
        Yeah, the Ultimate disc is great.  Very close to most Japanese
recordings, but not the best.  I'm compiling a list of reccomended
discs to put up on a WEB page, similar to the one I sent you awhile
back, only enhanced with HTML features.  
 JA> Win95 apps that can match it.         Are they exact? Can they be
 JA> fooled and end up putting the brass section 8 feet over the
 JA> soundstage?         With burners and media becoming less
        The data will be *exactly* the same if it's a pure transfer
(no D/A converters involved).
 JA> expensive, will studios begin recording directly to CD?
        Many record directly to digital tape.  The fact is it's *a
lot* cheaper to use the normal methods of production for mass
productions than a digital recorder (it's typically less than $1 a
disc *with* the cover book and disc logos on the top layer compared to
what, $10 a disc with a recorder and no booklet or custom logos?  Not
to mention about 100 times faster)
        They could record straight to CD to use as a master (more
rugged than tape), but it won't make a sonic difference just because
of the format.  Digital is digital.  As long as it's not corrupted,
the medium itself isn't the factor.
 * AmyBW v2.14 *
... "He's right John, you ARE a smeghead!"
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------