Community Reputation

116 Excellent

About c1rcl30fdu57

  • Rank

Community Information

  • Favorite Genre
  • Favorite Artist
  • Preferred Audio Format

Recent Profile Visitors

909 profile views
  1. Ok. Now what do you have to do with any of this? Bunch of fucking hyenas around here. One person disagrees, and out come the fucking wolves. Back the fuck off. Not to mention it actually has nothing at all to do with Chevelle. You people sure do have INCREDIBLY severe reading comprehension issues. It's everyone else who has been taking shit way, way, WAY to serious. Not me. But I guess, you gotta stick with the pack right? Or else they'll eat you alive too.
  2. Nice one, except for the fact that your only post on the entire forum is nothing but winded injections of your own paranoid assumptions, along with a shitty attitude. I'll just assume you have no mirrors where you live.
  3. It's on my copy of Hats Off to the Bull. All of these tracks have already been on cd. Great tracks, but they've always been available.
  4. Nope. @ ThatGuyOverThere Curious as to why the downvote. What part of my comment do you disagree with & why? It's a fact that none of these songs are rarities, so I guess you don't think it's a good collection of tracks.
  5. The "Rarities" term should have been left off of the title, but it's a great collection of tracks for those who don't already have them.
  6. Yup. When the goin' get's tough and no more intelligent argument can be made for their point... some people resort to name calling. How is an intelligent discussion about audio quality being thick headed in the slightest? Talk about hypocritical. Sheesh. Anyway... that comment was MY que. Cheers. Edit: It's amusing how people downvote the guy advocating for better standards & making factual statements, vs people who think there's no difference between 128 and 192, that there's no discernable quality loss transcoding mp3 to mp3, and other completely ficticious comments. Lmao. Okay.
  7. Except it could have been done over a period of many years, since every track has been around for anywhere from 2 to 15 years. They have been available on the albums themselves as bonus tracks, deluxe editions, cd singles, iTunes, Amazon, etc. etc. Why have a mutt rip when there have been legit sources for YEARS to compile the exact same album without tracks having different bitrates? Just becaue you and a few others don''t care about quality, doesn't mean the majority don't. I'm pretty certain 128kbps isn't leading the preferred format poll. C'mon. You're grasping for straws to try to say low quality audio is perfectly fine for the majority, when that's not even close to being true.
  8. To start with, the person lied. They simply don't have the actual album downloaded. Secondly (as can be seen in my op since I was editing it when you replied), not a single well known music tracker has ever allowed mutt rips. Last of all, if people weren't concerned about quality and just wanted to hear all of the tracks... they could simply rip every one of these tracks from YouTube and make their own album. But since no one seems to want to do that instead of waiting for an actual album rip.... I'll chalk it up as people DO care about quality.
  9. I miss when they were a rock band. Stuff like this, California Snow, Weekend Woman, etc. Just.... Rivers....... STOP!!!
  10. Just. No. It would be a mutt rip. If they aren't all the same quality, then you don't have the album. I'm pretty certain what you have is the same tracklist, but compiled from all different sources throughout the years. Once we start allowing such things here, is when quality standards start to go down. If that's the way things will be working... I can also say I've had the entire album for close to two years now & could submit it in FLAC format since every song is (and always has been) readily available. But it would be a mutt rip just the same. Mutt rips have never been allowed on a single private music tracker and are usually highly frowned upon. I hope the same standards apply to KL. No disrespect meant, it's great you offered to submit, but there needs to be standards.
  11. Imagine if the guitars kicked in at the very end and it was another 2 minutes longer after that.
  12. I cannot say this isn't interesting. Do I like it? I'm not sure yet. Haha. It's like NIN vs ICP vs Marilyn Manson.
  13. Just discovered these guys from this post. Amazing! Be sure to check out some other stuff by this band though, as they are an ambiant-progressive-post-doom-metal band, and while I think this is a great track, it's not representative of their enitre body of work.
  14. I'd have a broken ego too, if I was in a band releasing this generic SoundCloud garbage.
  15. LOVE Gary Numan! Well, except his 1981-1992 output. Everything before and after is ace.
Copyright © 2013-2020 Kingdom Leaks.