Pissing contest

Last contest was bout The Eat. Now it’s about telling some people to eat it. So all you downloaders have an important role in telling which track sounds the best. Number 1 or 2. Is number 1 really number 1 or is number 2 gonna take the first place? Or is it hard to tell? Do you hear the difference of 1500 dollars? Some people do, they claim, and of course it’s about what gear you listen to but what’t important to me is what the ordinary Joe have and what they prefer and if they can tell the difference.

So here’s Headcleaners – Dying In Maze x 2.
01
02

Pick your king

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
This entry was posted in 2010, Contests, Teaching. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Pissing contest

  1. Mat DaFuc says:

    well from what i can tell visually when i loaded it into my track mixing program.. i’m pretty oldschool as far as digital recording goes, i still use Cool Edit.. and yeah the first track peaks more and the wave fluctuates more.. like maybe theirs a slight flange or reverb going on in the mix.

    also, the most noticeable differences is the track lengh and timing.. they’re off! by alot.. i put them both together and track 2 is faster then track 1.

    could just be the turn table motors that don’t quite spin at the right speed.. but theirs no way to tell which one is the closes to being the REAL intended speed, .872 of a second not enough of a difference to really argue that one’s too slow or too fast.. just not exactly the same..

    heres a good example. i put them both together.. you’ll notice in the initial start up that the first bass drum hits are synchronized but right after that the become more and more spaced apart and after a while the song becomes more and more hard to listen to or make out anything..

    https://rcpt.yousendit.com/839910557/1dc33e0b255dc33104f4ba0d8bf60d77

  2. Steve says:

    This is one reason I think its a good idea for the industry to revert back to 8-track tape. To hell with dubly! :D

  3. SICKNICK! says:

    Sounds the same moron! dont worry,
    i still love your site, as some one once
    said on here: “your website make my
    life better” ..although this song sucks
    either way!

  4. MAFFISH says:

    I voted that they sound the same, but the 2nd one seems just a tiny bit faster than the first, but it’s too hard to tell for sure from just listening to them. Either way…that’s my 2 cents.
    See you later.

  5. Martin says:

    I wish I could say number 2 as number 2 smells more and gives me a longer break, but I’ll have to go for the first one in this case. That song is great, while the second is not as great.

  6. Ian says:

    What a great song. You should have made three more versions of it just so I could listen to it three more times.
    Couldn’t tell them apart but I voted for number one anyway because I like to take sides.

  7. justin says:

    Peter, first off I think this was unecessary as both you guys have great rips and you both post music that most of us would have never heard (whether the music “sucks” or not). On top of posting very rare music, you both spend a lot of time and energy into what we get to hear. This is a pretty nerdy topic In your own way it shows your love for the music. The way the music is supposed to sound, is exactly how it plays while spinning on my turntable. Come on now, does either digital copy sound as good as the analog real thing? On my 20 year old stereo, I have no idea if it’s playing at exactly the right speed, but damn it sounds good when you’ve got the vinyl. On top of everything else, the speakers I have on my computer are shit and thus both these versions sound VERY similar. I think version one has slightly higher levels and going back to the old days of dubbing cassettes, if you can get high levels without blowing out the sound then you’re doing pretty good. By the way I got my ripping shit at Radio Shack for around $70 and it shows :-) It gets old people talking shit about you at GBM all the time. Why does that happen all the time? In this case it’s about something you put a lot of effort into, but there’s some irony here as it doesn’t seem to bother anyone talking shit about other people who put a lot of effort into things. Went on and on, so I guess that makes me the moron.

    • Steve says:

      No, I’m the moron because I would rather hear this on the superior 8-track tape format! :). Seriously though I do prefer analog to digital and the nitpicking about the quality of rips is silly. And I agree Peter does an excellent blog.

  8. chris says:

    #1 was louder on my computer and more fuzzy… so it wins!

  9. Dewey Decimal says:

    Is this a comparison between Peter’s and Eric’s rips? Based on one listen #1 sounds like Eric’s rips, and #2 sounds like Peter’s, to me. If I were to download both and put both on my ipod I’d be able to tell which was Eric’s immediately—because it would stand out from all other tracks as much louder.

Comments are closed.