[FiLLED]-Kai_Jaxx_Vs._Hyper_-_Reset_Your_Mind-Promo_Vinyl-2002-SQ

[Stargazer101]

Pred: 2002-04-30 | Type: MP3 | Files/Size: 4 F/30.50 MB | Group: SQ
[External Link Removed for Guests]

[Hunter]

Kai_Jaxx_Vs._Hyper_-_Reset_Your_Mind-Promo_Vinyl-2002-SQ

[External Link Removed for Guests]

[xNxRxGx]

dude, the tags are empty

[Hunter]

dude, the tags are empty

That's true, but see that on srrdb it's the same. It's also not the only rls without tags I have seen, I also remember similar from SQ. I can't say for sure if this rls is original, but it seems that only this has survived.

[xNxRxGx]

dude, the tags are empty

That's true, but see that on srrdb it's the same. It's also not the only rls without tags I have seen, I also remember similar from SQ. I can't say for sure if this rls is original, but it seems that only this has survived.

yea clearly someone put faked rls on srrdb hate when ppl do that.. there are 3 different contributions of this rls

this one looks best: [External Link Removed for Guests]

[Hunter]

yea clearly someone put faked rls on srrdb hate when ppl do that.. there are 3 different contributions of this rls

this one looks best: [External Link Removed for Guests]

Yeah, I hate it too, but the situation here isn't that simple. Have you taken a closer look at what's on srrdb? One is without srs's and has the same sfv as what you linked, so we disregard it. However, the one from your post completely doesn't match the quality in nfo. I found the first 2 tracks from this rls (the other two are corrupted) and see for yourself:

[External Link Removed for Guests]

Although it has tags, this quality seems completely impossible for this year and this group. And what do you say in such a situation?

[Hunter]

Rls name also doesn't seem original (added cat nr, which wasn't used in those days)...

[xNxRxGx]

yea clearly someone put faked rls on srrdb hate when ppl do that.. there are 3 different contributions of this rls

this one looks best: [External Link Removed for Guests]

Yeah, I hate it too, but the situation here isn't that simple. Have you taken a closer look at what's on srrdb? One is without srs's and has the same sfv as what you linked, so we disregard it. However, the one from your post completely doesn't match the quality in nfo. I found the first 2 tracks from this rls (the other two are corrupted) and see for yourself:

[External Link Removed for Guests]

Although it has tags, this quality seems completely impossible for this year and this group. And what do you say in such a situation?

yea the size on srrdb baffled me too... is it 160? ig ill see for myself soon
and 2 have txts instead of srs lol

i agree... it seems somehow if 2 could be combined it would make 1 proper tagged & sized rls
maybe someone someday has the "perfect rls" somewhere

[xNxRxGx]

yea clearly someone put faked rls on srrdb hate when ppl do that.. there are 3 different contributions of this rls

this one looks best: [External Link Removed for Guests]

Yeah, I hate it too, but the situation here isn't that simple. Have you taken a closer look at what's on srrdb? One is without srs's and has the same sfv as what you linked, so we disregard it. However, the one from your post completely doesn't match the quality in nfo. I found the first 2 tracks from this rls (the other two are corrupted) and see for yourself:

[External Link Removed for Guests]

Although it has tags, this quality seems completely impossible for this year and this group. And what do you say in such a situation?

yea the size on srrdb baffled me too... is it 160? ig ill see for myself soon
and 2 have txts instead of srs lol

i agree... it seems somehow if 2 could be combined it would make 1 proper tagged & sized rls
maybe someone someday has the "perfect rls" somewhere

160kbps indeed tags look great thru n thru but wtf... no doubt if that happened it would've gotten nuked back in the day
even weirder since it says 192 in nfo