In Reply to: I don't see how the audio quality of a copy can be better than the original. It isn't mysterious, posted by tinear on September 19, 2014 at 09:51:36:
So it's more like two originals, rather than an original and a copy.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The "copy" is bit-for-bit the same - Chris from Lafayette 09:57:39 09/19/14 (11)
- Not that simple. All processing involves degradation, extra steps aren't "free." nt - tinear 10:42:05 09/19/14 (10)
- "All processing involves degradation" do you mind explaining? - Tre' 11:16:52 09/19/14 (7)
- All CD players sound alike. One can send a signal through a series of electronic transfers, including sampling - tinear 15:31:23 09/19/14 (6)
- You see, son, it's like this. . . - Chris from Lafayette 18:09:07 09/19/14 (5)
- RE: You see, son, it's like this. . . - Tony Lauck 19:11:51 09/19/14 (4)
- Jeez, Tony - I think you're just adding to tin's confusion - Chris from Lafayette 20:19:45 09/19/14 (3)
- You're arguing that copying redbook and changing it's original digital - tinear 21:23:42 09/19/14 (2)
- RE: You're arguing that copying redbook and changing it's original digital - Tony Lauck 07:19:31 09/20/14 (0)
- Hey, tin - what's so hard to understand about this? - Chris from Lafayette 00:14:33 09/20/14 (0)
- Wrong - you're thinking in analogue terms [nt] - Chris from Lafayette 11:09:01 09/19/14 (1)
- RE: Wrong - you're thinking in analogue terms [nt] - rbolaw 11:52:30 09/19/14 (0)