Guys, i like so much lossless music and i've seen this is the best tracker for this kind of stuff.
Someone know the full name so i can find any invites for it?
P.S. This is the rarest tracker of all ones. :biggrin:
Printable View
Guys, i like so much lossless music and i've seen this is the best tracker for this kind of stuff.
Someone know the full name so i can find any invites for it?
P.S. This is the rarest tracker of all ones. :biggrin:
Name's Exigo.
By the way, I have heard BTMusic's quality standards are higher.
E**** = Exigo
There's a Tracker review on Sb-I
There's isn't - I did link to FST's, though. Here you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blocker
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-bit...-review-389578
Sorry ,I think it was here:tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by anon
not only that is good,Quote:
Originally Posted by ciccio
i heard and saw people are after pedro's bt music.
they say its better than what.cd foruselesslossless music :biggrin:
finally because of its[exigo] 1337ness i doubt you'll find an invite that easy and trust me it will have zero activity so your best bet is getting lossless music from what.cd [not waffles] as fast as possible if you are afraid of the torrent's death.
:top:
Thanks guys for the real immediate answers, but what's the exigo's address?
Did you write useless due to the fact that you need special hardware for playing that kind of codec??:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by cheatos
As far as I know you don't need any codec, maybe just a plugin for your media player... I think cheatos said "useless" because the difference with lossy compression formats is pretty much imperceptible to the human ear, and I can agree.
The URL is ExigoMusic.org.
I never found some invites for this tracker, and you guys?
I never bothered to look :tongue:
I played FLAC music on my computer and like you saidFLAC and mp3 sounds the same for me,so :confused2: ??I'm not sure if I'm right but I think you need a special player like HD Movies or Blu.Ray like these ones:Quote:
lossy compression formats is pretty much imperceptible to the human ear
FLAC.ORG - Free Lossless Audio Codec - Articles, Reviews, Files, Downloads
for getting FLAC sounds quality
me neitherQuote:
Originally Posted by ciccio
If you can play the FLACs, it's working, and that's my point - even though the higher frequences aren't cut off like in lossy formats, we pretty much can't tell the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blocker
Just for the record, I used in_flac for Winamp... MPC-HC also supports the format.
i think it needs some hardware too to get the most out of it,
because a friend of mine who is a music addict, keeps telling me about how great is his Creative sound card and his 5.1 sound system.
My current sound hardware is the Asus A7N8X-E's onboard sound card and some 5 euro headphones, so that'd make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheatos
The best lossless audio tracker (Only) are: Exigo, Pedro's Bt Music and then?
That's why did you write FLAC music is useless ?Quote:
Originally Posted by cheatos
I think just them are the bestQuote:
Originally Posted by ciccio
and What.cd has a nice collection of FLAC music
Need-Music is a new one, but it appears their staff/uploaders forge logs to make the rips look better than they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ciccio
Adamsfile is another site, but I think they're more of an FTP or something, and you need to upload a gig of stuff before you can download.
try this:
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL
yes and because i don't need them personaly and i don't find the difference in my current hardware and mainly because i don't like to download 500MB when i can download 80MB and save bandwidth and spaceQuote:
Originally Posted by blocker
FLACshare? Leeching lossless music from Rapidshare makes sense if you don't want to worry about ratios or cheating. But unless you're a masochist, you'll need a Premium account.
yes its flacshare, i put it in tinyurl to prevent its exposure,
and i've put the link in tinyurl preview too :smile:
and i see it has great content.
ZOMB Torrents - SignupQuote:
Originally Posted by ciccio
You can browse the site before signing up :smile:
Forge it, lol why would anyone do that? once the file is downloaded and you compare the file properties with the sites rip log people are bound to find out and get pissedQuote:
Originally Posted by anon
BTMusic --> Exigo --> ...Quote:
Originally Posted by ciccio
It's this way. :wink2:
To make the rip look better than it really is. Needless to say, this is forbidden by all music trackers.Quote:
Originally Posted by saebrtooth
shoulder, which one is ...? :lol:
The next best one, I don't know which comes after those two. :P
To address the lossless being inseparable, I noticed a difference between lossless and 320kbps, but I have nice headphones, around $100, they aren't the best but they are nice.
The Need-Music has v2 and it's eargasm.me :P
Is anybody has Exigo logo picture ?
I tried looking for it, but it appears every reviewer has censored the full name. If you don't care:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
http://i23.tinypic.com/292afcx.jpg
They also have a "light" theme, as visible here:
FileSharing Talk - View Single Post - E**** Review - Post #2131077
You know. I never really understood the logic behind hiding the name. If anything, it just makes people more curious and determined to find out.
hiding the name shall improve the l33t factor :rolleyes2:
I don't believe you should compare E with Pedro's ...
E caters to another crowd than Pedro's. All kind of music is posted there but the emphasis lies on not so recent funk, fusion, reggae, jazz, world. Other genres are also posted, but their main focus is on those genres.
The fact E is hard to get into doesn't make it a shitty place. Maybe a portion of the members considers their account like a l33t trophy, but that doesn't make it worthless and there are a whole lot of dedicated and pasionate members at E.
I agree with youQuote:
Originally Posted by Nobody
Hiding the name or URL makes it more interesting :tongue:
@anon: most files shared on BTMusic are quite old & untouched high quality rare releases, but if you are a .FLAC/Lossless collecter, then E*** is the best pick ... I thought just like you before I join both, since back then I used to own TT only, but after I got E*** & BTMusic, I found that everyone of the three has its own categorization.
Maybe you and the people visiting this board and other BT-related boards know what E stands for but 99% of the people using BT have no clue what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blocker
They didn't chose to hide because they wanted to be l33t, they just want to avoid exposure and keep their memberbase limited. They are in no way like some more recent trackers that just focuss on secrecy but don't offer quality nor quantity.
E is good in it's own league, as Pedro's is in it's own. They are specialised trackers that cater to a limited crowd and stand out in the middle of all those trackers offering just more of the same (mostly 0-day trackers that all have the same files).
no offence but that's exactly what trackers are used to say in this caseQuote:
Originally Posted by CindyVer
Too curiosity to enter in both tracker. But it's very HARD get into these ones...... :(
I believe you are partly correct. Many trackers play the 'security'/'hard to get'-card to hide the fact they are not bringing anything valuable when it comes to quality or quantity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Instab
A lot of these trackers claim to be focussed on security, but in reality they don't take any real measures to protect their memberbase from possible exposure.
Their l33tness is only used to get peoples attention and they believe they are a little elite bunch because they belong to these trackers that are basically rubbish when it comes to content/speed/seeders/leechers or board community activity.
BUT some trackers deliver when it comes to quality and quantity. E is one of these (rare) cases. It's a dedicated tracker that values quality and there's a bunch of stuff there you wo't find anywhere else. It's sucess isn't based on their l33tness, but on the quality they provide to their members.
CN springs to mind. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by CindyVer
Not being at E**** I can't form my own opinion, but the fourth paragraph in your post is probably right. It makes sense that while there are a lot of posers that value secrecy over quality (and end up getting neither), not all hard to get sites have to be that way.