*Attention: Mediasurfer.ch does not store or host any files on it's server. It is an index and all links to content are provided from other servers & are not affiliated with this site.

*Donations: I would like to send you guys some pennies. Do you accept PayPal?*

We don't accept PayPal but if you wish to donate, you can send us some bitcoins to the address below. 

BTC Address: 1Hy7Y12H8iFRZMSEuHayKY5QXBSJeVwT5s

Donations are 100% optional. If you enjoy what we do, consider a small bitcoin donation to the address above. All donations will go to and have gone directly to the cost/maintenance of this website.

*This section contains the rules of this website*

A new penalty has been introduced and has been enforced. Any 1 user who now fails to both read and understand the rules that are found on this page will result in the entire publication of the respected genre where the offense occurred to be completely disabled for 48 hours. That means no one can leave any comments, which in turn means no one can request updates for dead links. It only takes 1 person to screw things up for everyone. The information presented on this page is for your benefit - not ours. The recommended browsers for this website are Google Chrome & Opera.

This is an error that is displayed when viewing the download page on the Dolphin mobile browser. It is not present on Google Chrome. The Dolphin error will appear even if a link is still online. (Screenshot submitted by user: Gar.)
*We are no longer accepting comments under the name "Anonymous"

(All comments are published automatically once they are cleared by our bot) 
Because of continued abuse, all comments under the name "Anonymous" will automatically be deleted by our Spam bot. You are now required to chose a name before you comment. It can be any name - it doesn't have to be associated with a social media/blogger account. The name can be changed at any given time and no registration is required. Below are several screenshots on how to go about it. Please note that the URL portion of the form does not have to be filled out. It can be left blank and your comment will be published after it is cleared by our Spam bot.

 *Reporting Dead Links/Requesting AAC links*

(*All comments are publsihed automatically once they are cleared by our bot*) We want everyone to read this very carefully. If there are 2 different links present as in 1 FLAC link and 1 AAC link, if you don't specify which link is down, your comment will be flagged as spam and it will be deleted by our bot. We cannot help you if you don't specify your needs. No more warnings and no exceptions will be made. The same will happen if you decide to report a link that is online as "dead" or "not working" Requesting AAC links is also not allowed. If there is no AAC link present, one will not be provided upon request. Requesting AAC links that are not present will result in users having their comments targeted as Spam by our bot. If FLAC links are present and are offline, an AAC link will be provided during the next confirmed update. This section contains all of the information you need so please use it. It is not difficult to download from our website. You've been warned! Think before you comment. Failure to comply will result in users being served by our bot. Screenshots and video proof are provided by our bot when a link is falsely reported as "dead" or "offline" as a response. If English is not your native language, please copy and paste this information and translate it here. You may also comment in your native language and we will translate and respond to you accordingly
*Failure to comply with the rules posted above will result in all offending user comments being deleted and flagged for spam.

*Mega.nz's 5GB Daily Quota & Abuse of Updates*

Mediasurfer.ch is free for all users. However when using a free service there are several draw backs. One of these drawbacks is the download quota. Mega.nz has a daily 5 GB download quota. This means that users can download 5 GB's worth of data everyday for 24 hours at a time. When users have downloaded 5GB's of data, they will not be able to download any additional data until the quota is reset by Mega.nz. This process takes approximately 24 hours from the time of your last download. This restriction is enforced by Mega.nz, not by us. Another drawback of this daily quota, is the limit enforced by our bot as to how many requests for a confirmed link that is offline a user may place. This is determined by our bot and is relevant to the size of the files the user has requested an update for. Simply put, the bigger the file, the less you can request. Once the total number of requests for updated links reaches or exceeds 5 GB's users will no longer be able to request further updates. Once you reach this limit, you will be notified by our bot. Read this very carefully! If you continue to request for updates after exceeding 5 GB's, you will be banned from commenting for 72 hours. No exceptions. If users persist and continue to request for updates under different profiles, and additional ban of 24 hours will be placed on you for your attempts. Don't try it. The bot will find you. We don't believe in "premium downloads" Mega.nz and in some cases, Bayfiles, are the default link providers of this website because they are free to use.
*If you continue to request for updates after exceeding 5 GB's, you will be banned from commenting for 72 hours.

*Why AAC and not MP3? What's the difference?*

AAC was designed to be the successor of the MP3 format. Although MP3 is near universal, AAC support has increased. Virtually all modern mobile devices and PC's can play AAC files right out of the box. Although a good audio recording with excellent mastering is always what matters, AAC at a lower bit rate will usually achieve a better lossy version of the original recording when compared to an MP3 file at a higher bit rate. This will be the standard lossy format for this site. It is not subject to change. Below are some comparisons. Please understand that a spectrum image isn't always the most reliable way to determine true lossless audio. The misconception is that all lossless audio does not have cut offs before the 22 kHz mark. This is untrue. Spectrum images for lossless audio are determined by the actual mastering that was done to the original recording during the time period and volume. Many first pressing from the 80's will appear to have a cut off when viewed under the spectrum. The same applies to some albums ;released during the 90's. In the case of lossy audio like MP3, the limitations of the audio format determine how the spectrum image will change as data is lost to exchange for a smaller size.

Various recordings from different decades showing different results.. AAC and MP3 were encoded using the settings listed below. FLAC files came directly from the CD.

"Scream Machine" by Beyond Fear: Original FLAC file ripped from the C.D.
"Scream Machine" by Beyond Fear: Converted from FLAC to AAC, (256 kbps, CBR, Stereo) using the settings listed below.
"Scream Machine" by Beyond Fear: Converted from FLAC to MP3 (320 kbps, CBR, Stereo) using the LAME encoder, version 3.99.

*What's the bit rate for the AAC files? What about the bit rate for FLAC?*

The AAC (Advanced Audio Encoding) files on this site were made using the current version of the Apple based qaac encoder. The encoder specifications are qaac version 2.68, CoreAudioToolbox The original FLAC files are CD rips at 16 bit, 44.100 kHz, stereo, which is the industry standard. All FLAC files on this website have been verified through the use of the Accuraterip database. This metadata for this information can be viewed using programs such as MP3 Tag under the "Extended Tags" option or under "Properties" if one is to use Foobar2000. The AAC files are made using the following encoding settings and use the extension .M4A.


- AAC-LC profile (Low Complexity) -

- Bit rate is 256 kbps, CBR (constant bit rate) -

- All files will use Stereo mode instead of Joint Stereo mode -

*What about requests?*

This one can be seen on the homepage but in case people have missed it, we do not take requests. This is not up for debate or subject to change. Any requests left in the comments section will simply be ignored. Plain and simple. "It's what we have, not what we can find."

* Why do some posts have a skull sign? What is that? *
Every now and then, a staff member will publish an article with this symbol: and even this: ⚓These symbols indicate a "Staff Pick" These are the albums that the staff enjoy the most. Their personal favorites, if you will. These are not "classic" albums or "recommendations" That is not the goal or the idea behind these selections so please, don't take us to "school" for what a classic album is or should be. We don't care. The staff member's name and avatar will be present in every publication that features the ☠ symbol. It is also common for a staff member to publish an album that he or she does not enjoy but another staff member might and therefore, will select it. While we're on this subject, on certain occasions the entire staff will select a certain album that they all enjoy. Should this occur, this symbol will be used: ⚓ and a special "patch" will be present within the publication. This entire section can be accessed via the website's main menu on the homepage by clicking on the "Staff Picks" tab.

*I think the link is infected with a virus! You bastards!*

These images are the result of the "Microsoft Tech Scam" also known as the "Indian Tech Scam" Your PC is perfectly fine. It has not been infected.
The images presented above are part of a phishing campaign known as the "Microsoft Technical Support Scam" These web pages and notifications, although appearing legitimate are actually 100% false and are designed to trick, scare and sometimes, behave aggressively towards victims which in turn, causes them to download malicious software or calling for bogus technical support services that Microsoft and it's affiliates would never ask their clients to do. These pages are bogus. They do not infect PC's. These are in actuality just web pages and nothing more. You can view these phishing pages on any PC if you have the web address. You can also enter the web address to verify the DNS records and the WHOIS information.... You'd be surprised by the information provided to you. An actual infection would result in the operating system to alert the user via Desktop and or an antivirus service, not the web browser  It is staff member Sentinel's job to report and eliminate these phishing pages from the Adfly links.  For more information about  this topic, please visit the following link here.
If you wish to follow Sentinel and his exploits into stopping these phishing pages, please click on this link here.

*Can I send you some links/files?*

While we appreciate our visitors wanting to help, this practice is not allowed here. If you would like to contribute, you can report any dead links in the comments section at the bottom of each post.

*What's the password? Corrupt RAR files/"Unspecified, extraction errors*

The RAR files on this site were made externally by using Win Rar. Updating or downloading the latest and most current version of Win RAR will resolve this issue. We are currently using version 5.70 beta 2. The RAR files do not contain passwords

*When RAR files are password protected, this is what it actually looks like when an archived RAR file is asking for a password. Mediasurf.org does not use passwords for archived RAR files.

If you are seeing this error or something similar, it means you are using an incompatible extraction software. This is not the software/program asking for a password nor does it pertain to one. *A non existent password will not fix this error.*
*Confirmation that the method above was the solution.

*How this matter was brought to our attention.

*Mediasurfer.ch does not store or host any files on it's server. It is an index and all links to content are provided from other servers & are not affiliated with this site.


  1. Though it is stated that there is no request section it should be obligated to explained why as the mediasurfers have nothing but wonder why such a rule has been taken. Specifically since this is a wide variety of download music site. Though understandable that it is based on a cd owned platform and that is part of the reason it makes the site unique. I dont think it is enough to deprive the surfer of the possibility of having even more fun with the ability for user submitted material albeit not just owned or site run staffed. Making the site and the experience weaker and lacking.

  2. since it doesnt show my comments I dont know if it went through. It should be visible though still approved seeking.

  3. I would really like to send some CD Image files to this site. I can take Pictures of the Albums so you will have a proof.

    1. I'm obligated by the powers that be to say "no" to you my love 馃槥 Buck wants to keep this site "library based" meaning only our personal CD's are allowed. I've been pitching a separate section where visitors like yourself can send CD images and they will be posted there but as it stands, Buck is against it. 馃槥

  4. Are those spectrum images legit? I mean the AAC and the MP3 ones? I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that a 256 kbps AAC is better than a higher bitrate MP3 file. What program did you use to encode the MP3? I would like to verify this for myself using the same song.

    1. The spectrum images are 100% legit. The biggest misconception of the MP3 format is that it was designed to make high quality lossy versions of lossless audio files. This is not true. The purpose of the MP3 was compression, streaming and sharing. The MP3 was designed during the era of dial up internet, where connections were slower than what they are now. Sharing large FLAC files was out of the question at those speeds. The MP3's goal was to make an acceptable copy of the original audio file while reducing the size of the file. Compression was always favored. Not high quality. This is also the reason why it became immensely popular during the early days of dial up and peer to peer sharing programs like napster. The files were smaller and could be downloaded easier and in less time. The AAC format was designed to be the successor of the MP3. All of the early limitations of the MP3 were corrected with AAC, like achieving a higher quality lossy version at a lower bitrate, something the MP3 could never do. AAC was also made in a different era for a different era. Download speeds are no longer an issue and the format was designed for both high quality lossy audio and compression. It literally is the modern improvement of the MP3. If you would like to verify the results, please feel free to do so. Both the FLAC and the AAC versions of those 2 tracks are available on this site. Just search for "Beyond Fear" To encode in MP3, the program that was used was Fre:ac. The link will be provided below. It uses the LAME encoder and the most recent version of the program uses the current version on LAME, version 3.100. We are confident that your results will be identical to ours. Enjoy ☺


    2. Wow! Ok challenge accepted. I will verify this. You may be "baby girl" Lass but if youre lying, I will let it be known >:( This seems like a great site but when some thing is too good to be true it usually is.

    3. That's true but not with me or the boys. I look forward to your results beloved ☺ Be a doll and prove me wrong. 馃槝

    4. Hola Lass, ya solucione los link caidos gradualmente volvieron a funcionar, me gustaria decir algo sobre AAC, yo tenia mis sospechas sobre los archivos tanto de MP3 como de AAC ya que tenia algunas canciones que compre en itunes y no me sonaban tan mal despues de todo, incluso crei por momentos que sonaban mejor, pero la mala fama que le han hecho a la comprecion me quitaba eso de la cabeza, al leer tu articulo aqui me dio curiocidad y cree un archivo AAC usando los parametros que tu mencionabas y de ahi queme un CD (yo no uso DAC ni me gusta usar la musica archivada solo la uso para grabar mis CDs y tocarlos en CD players), bien el cd es de uno que encontre aqui pero que yo ya tenia y conozco muy bien el sonido, el cd quemado del archivo AAC la verdad es que suena mucho mejor, el sonido es claro y nada pesado, un sonido ligero muy agradable, sin fatiga, yo tenia muchas sospechas sobre esto, los archivos muy grandes tienen tanta informacion y generan frecuencias tantas que ni los equipos logran reproducirlas no el cerebro logra comprender tanto por eso que el audio digital suele ser fatigoso, yo use CD players de los que se fabricaron en 1983, estos leen menos informacion pero suelen tener un sonido mas agradable que los modernos, con el AAC como tu lo recomendastes creo se logra ese perfil, archivos livianos, definitivamente esto es algo que voy a usar mas de aqui en adelante.........

    5. Tambi茅n hay que tener en cuenta c贸mo la masterizaci贸n ha cambiado desde los a帽os 80. Ninguna grabaci贸n de los 80 pas贸 del nivel de 20 khz. Esto se hizo intencionalmente porque el o铆do humano no puede o铆r m谩s all谩 de los 20 kHz. Aunque cuando la gente ve esto bajo un espectro, la gente pensar谩 que es un FLAC falso. Eso viene de personas que nunca han comprado m煤sica en un CD antes de los 90 o en general. Lo m谩s importante es la masterizaci贸n, no el formato de audio. Otra cosa que la gente no se da cuenta es que el MP3 tiene 26 a帽os ahora. Aunque ahora tiene soporte universal, nunca fue dise帽ado para la calidad. Fue dise帽ado para hacer una buena representaci贸n de la grabaci贸n de audio original pero en un tama帽o m谩s peque帽o para que pueda compartirse en l铆nea. Durante los d铆as de acceso telef贸nico a Internet, donde todo se descargaba y cargaba en Kb's en lugar de Mb's, un tama帽o m谩s peque帽o significaba menos tiempo para cargar y descargar. Esa es la verdadera intenci贸n del MP3. AAC fue dise帽ado para ser el sucesor del MP3. Est谩 dise帽ado para brindar una mejor calidad de sonido en un tama帽o m谩s peque帽o y m谩s bajo en una base en una era donde las velocidades de descarga, las velocidades de carga y el almacenamiento ya no son un problema. Eso es otra cosa que la gente olvida. AAC tambi茅n tiene una mala reputaci贸n porque fue dise帽ada por Apple, pero ya no es su propiedad ya que ahora la han convertido en un formato de c贸digo abierto. Nuestros codificadores est谩n basados en Apple, pero no son los codificadores oficiales de Apple. Es un codificador de terceros de Windows que utiliza el c贸digo de Apple pero con m谩s opciones y libertades. Tambi茅n es uno de los mejores codificadores AAC de c贸digo abierto de terceros.

    6. Estoy de acuerdo con todo lo que Sentinel dijo. De veras, sigo esperando que "Anonymous" nos demuestre que estamos equivocados. ¿脡l o ella?...馃 Nunca envio las im谩genes del espectro. 馃槙

    7. Podrian darme su opinion sobre la calidad de los discos quemados??, la verdad es que yo escucho que suenan mejor que los originales, en especial los de los 90's que tenian color en la parte de abajo y eran de 650 mb, aunque tengo unos modernos baratos tambien que suenan muy bien, mis CD players son muy antiguos pero aun asi logran leerlos, creo que en el rip se eliminan los errores del cd original, ustedes que piensan al respecto?......

    8. Sinceramente, el equipo no importa. Lo que realmente importa es la masterizaci贸n de audio en el formato. Si una grabaci贸n se grab贸 mal, sonar谩 terrible en el CD, el vinilo, el FLAC, etc. Lo mismo se aplica al vinilo. El vinilo es anal贸gico, el CD es digital. Gran diferencia. Una grabaci贸n anal贸gica hecha para un vinilo sonar谩 mejor en el vinilo porque se hizo para vinilo. Las especificaciones de audio est谩ndar para el CD son PCM de 16 bits, 44.100 kHz, est茅reo. Esto no se aplica al an谩logo. Una grabaci贸n digital hecha en un equipo digital sonar谩 mejor en un CD porque fue hecha para el CD. Una grabaci贸n digital no mejorar谩 una vez que se transfiera a un vinilo. No funciona de esa manera. Lo contrario es cierto para anal贸gico en CD. Esa es otra idea falsa que la gente tiene. El formato f铆sico no mejora el audio en absoluto. Mucha de la m煤sica actualmente disponible en las tiendas digitales son versiones remasterizadas. Los 谩lbumes remasterizados en nuestra opini贸n no mejoran la grabaci贸n original. Todo lo que hacen es hacer que la grabaci贸n original sea m谩s alta en volumen que luego causa distorsi贸n. Normalmente publicamos los lanzamientos originales en CD con el master de audio original. Por eso suenan mejor. Suenan mejor porque se grabaron mejor y sin distorsi贸n causada por la compresi贸n de audio y el alto volumen. Las grabaciones modernas y los 谩lbumes remasterizados sufren de alto volumen, compresi贸n de audio y distorsi贸n. Suenan horribles porque fueron grabados horriblemente. Recuerda, lo mas importante es la masterizaci贸n de audio. No si se vino de un CD, vinilo o FLAC. Al extraer audio de los CD's no se eliminan los errores originalmente presentes en las grabaciones. No funciona de esa manera.

    9. Hola amigo Sentinel, mira acabo de quemar un CD usando archivos AIFF & el mismo archivo lo pase por el FREAK que tu recomendastes para crear un archivo AAC usando los parametros que tu recomendastes, fijate que el sonido del AAC es mucho mejor que el del AIFF original, en el AAC el sonido pierde lo agresivo del sonido original dandole un tono mas tolerable, ayer hice otra pueba con el CD de RUSH power windows que baje aqui, yo conozco como la pama de mi mano ese album en todos los formatos, lo baje en flac pero lo pase a AAC usando XLD que tiene los mismos parametros que tu recomendas, no te imaginas como somo ya el CDr que hice, mucho mejor que el original y mas sutil y agradable con timbres que no se escuchan en archivos pesados, en otras ocaciones hice archivos AAC usando itunes (no recuerdo que parametros use) pero estos archivos no bajaron el volumen sino que lo aumentaron, por eso no usaba AAC, pero si los resultados que estoy viendo son super......

    10. Cada vez que convierte un audio sin p茅rdidas como FLAC, AIFF O ALAC a un formato con p茅rdidas como AAC y MP3, pierdes calidad y informaci贸n. Es imposible que un audio con p茅rdidas suene mejor que el audio original. Sin embargo, es posible que te guste el archivo con p茅rdida mejor que el original y eso est谩 bien. AAC fue dise帽ado para preservar la mayor cantidad posible del archivo de audio original y lo hace mejor que el MP3, ya que el MP3 ten铆a mucho que ver con el tama帽o del archivo. AAC se concentra mas en la calidad y el tama帽o del archivo. Es solo una cuesti贸n de prioridad al final del d铆a. Estoy muy feliz de que est茅s disfrutando de los archivos de AAC y estoy muy feliz especialmente para los usuarios de Am茅rica Latina. Dejame decirte que fue una pesadilla para nosotros la primera vez que presentamos los archivos de AAC porque los usarios de Latino America quer铆an los archivos en MP3, a pesar de que ten铆an una calidad inferior. Se negaron a creer lo que confirmastes. No quicieron aceptar o simplemente inventaron la vieja excusa de que sus m贸viles no eran compatibles con AAC que en 2019, ya no es cierto especialmente con el app de VLC player disponible en las tiendas digitales.

    11. Otra cosa... Nosotros no utilizamos Fre:ac para hacer nuestros archivos de AAC. Utilizamos el codificador "QAAC" Tu que est谩s usando un MAC, el codificador de AAC de Apple en iTunes es realmente el mejor codificador de AAC que existe! QAAC es la alternativa de Windows y aunque podemos usar el codificador de iTunes, iTunes no es compatible con FLAC. Primero copiamos nuestros discos en FLAC y luego tomamos esos archivos y los convertimos a AAC usando "QACC". En un Mac, hay una manera de hacer que iTunes admita FLAC despu茅s de lo cual, puedes convertir los archivos de FLAC a AAC directamente en iTunes. Solo ajusta la configuraci贸n de los discos en iTunes a la configuraci贸n en la captura de pantalla de abajo. Una vez que hayas realizado los cambios en la configuraci贸n, simplemente seleccione las pistas que deseas convertir a AAC y listo.


    12. Hola Sentinel fijate que yo estoy mas sorprendido que tu sobre el resultado que escucho, la informacion que tiene un CD no toda es buena y los errores que trae un CD son grandes y muchos, creo, y en lo que escucho, que el AAC logra eliminar los errores y el "loudness" que traen los CDs que es la parte que yo no tolero, he creado unos 4 Cdrs de los archivos bajados de aqui, y fijate que aunque sean de grupos diferentes el sonido tuene cierta similitud, no creas que por mas informacion mejor sonido, yo no puedo escuchar los SACD con 24 bits y 192000 khz, no los tolero, es mas no tolero los DAC modernos por esa razon, los CDs traen demaciada informacion y eso los convierte en fatigosos para escucharlos, mis CD players son de 1983-85 y estos restan loudness a los cd normales, luego de crear un Cdr de AAC suenan incluso mejor al reproducirlos en estos cd player antiguos, es mas todo mi equipo es vintage....

      Si estoy familiarizado con crear archivos AAC desde itunes, el problema que despues de creado hay que borrar cada archivo anterior y hacer eso con 15,000 canciones esta dificil, con freak solo arrastro los archivos desde itunes y al crearlos nuevos archivos solo borro todo los originales en itunes con un par de clicks......

    13. Eso suena como un mont贸n de trabajo.馃槷 Fre: ac es un buen programa. Lo extra帽o. Antes de unirme a este sitio, ten铆a toda mi colleccion de discos en MP3, 128 kbps y us茅 Fre: ac para crearlos. Fue cosa buena de que me convert铆 en un miembro de este sitio porque muchos de mis discos ahora son viejos y est谩n llenos de ara帽azos 馃槦. 90% de mi colecci贸n de mis discos de los 80's fueron de mi madre. Me regal贸 su colleccion el d铆a que cumpl铆 20 a帽os y me mud茅 a mi propio apartamento. Son muchos de esa collecion que ya no sirven en reproductores de CD, pero s铆 en mi PC. Tener una copia en FLAC significa que es una copia id茅ntica, por lo que ahora no me siento tan culpable por no cuidar esos discos como deber铆a 馃様. Estoy muy contenta de que te gustaron los enlaces de AAC y no te preocupes querido. Vamos a actualizar el sitio entero con enlaces de AAC eventualmente. Gracias por tus comentarios. 馃檪 Hasta luego.

    14. Hola Lass, no habia leido tu comentario, gracias, fijate que si tienes discos rayados puedes darles una mano con pasta de dientes y bicarbonato de sodio, asi he reparado muchos de mis discos, he seguido haciendo pruebas con AAC, de hecho estoy cambiando todo a AAC por que ya mi computadora esta super llena y esta como que lenta, y mis discos suenan bien asi que lo que tengo en CD original lo tengo en AAC y lo que no lo agrego en ALAC o AAC, me anime a desempolpar el DAC que tengo para reproducir los archivos directamente a la compu, dejame decirte, los AAC cuando los pasas a CD hay una leve perdida, muy dificil que se note, pero si reproduces un AAC directamente de la computdora al amplificador ahi no hay diferencias, he probado otras formas tal como usar AAC a 320 kbps, no mejora nada, es identico, es mas, he hecho comparaciones reproduciendo un CD orginal contra un archivo AAC a 256 usando mi DAC y no hay diferencias, mas que usar espacios de sobra, creo que Apple supo que hacer con esta forma de comprecion, recuerda que ellos venden musica y solo usan AAC y ellos aseguran que sus descargas equibalen a la calidad de un CD original, si no fuera asi nadie les pagaria los precios tan altos que ellos venden los archivos, mi computadora les agradece ya que con el uso de AAC mi almacenamiento bajo a la mitad, aunque aun estoy actualizando con mas archivos.......

  5. how can i make a request if i want some album?

    1. You don't. Considering that you even asked, I pretty sure you didn't read this article and you didn't read the disclaimer. We don't take requests. This is not a website based on requests. I'm sorry love it's not going to happen. If we don't own the CD, it won't be published.

  6. Hi, any here who can help me??, I have issues when I get to adfly add and I click the skid ad bottom, I click the bottom but nothing happen, I cant go further, the first time I found this site did wok well but some pages and some downloads did not pass after the adfly ad, now all links are bloked.....

  7. None of the links are blocked. You have to click on "allow" once the blue screen appears. I don't understand why people keep reporting this. All of the links are available and running. Upload a screenshot of the supposed error page. We have already uploaded screenshots in our responses to prove that the links are up and running I suggest you do the same. Go to imgur.com and upload your screenshot then paste the link in your response.

  8. Hi ! Same thing for me. Last month everything was ok, but now, i click on "allow", then i click on "pass the ad" and nothing happens... My adblock is desactivated on Adfly off course :)
    What's wrong please ??

  9. You have to click on "Allow" on the page that loads after clicking on "Skip Ad" It's a blue screen that comes after clicking on "Skip Ad" not before. However, one thing we didn't mention was that when we tested the links on all of our different machines, both virtual and physical, we didn't have any of our browsers save any information. As in browsing history, cookies, cache, passwords etc... All of that was and is disabled for us by default in all of our browser settings. I don't know if that might be a factor but the links all worked perfectly with those settings turn off. Perhaps cleaning out you history, cookies included, might help. Someone on a Mac also had this problem but the links are now working for him via Google Chrome. I have asked him to share any changes he made to his browser, if any with us. The new "Press Allow" feature is something that Adfly put on by default, not us. They are testing it but from our end and with our machines, everything is in working order. I promise you, we're not trying to screw anyone over.

  10. Thanks for the great albums, especially making them available in FLAC format.


    Gag Helfront

  11. I have a question, Lass. I have been using yoit site for a year and I'm always curious about why there are no first track on the most of the albums. Is that some kinds of protection for not to detected by copyrights violation? Thank you for the sharing btw and sorry for my bad english

    1. Senn, how are you? What do you mean? Are you implying that the first track on many albums are not included? We don't upload albums with missing tracks. Or are you asking about the "HTOA" track? Also, what is you native language? If it is easier for you, ask in your native language and we can translate it later.

    2. Oh, I figure it out.. I have always used the android app(7zipper) to decompress the files and thats the real problem. First track doesn't disappear anymore with other decompressing app. You guys can also testing with android phones like me. Thanks for the answer and I think I have to re-download all albums with missing tracks :(
      Btw Always thankful for the amazing files!!
      + My native country is South Korea! So I thought you guys would not understand my word anyway haha

    3. Yes, this website uses Win RAR. No other extraction software is required. No worries about the language barrier. You can, if you wish, write in Korean and we can translate it via Google Translate afterwards 馃槈 We've had several comments in Russian, Portuguese and French in the past and we've translated and responded back to them in their native language 馃槉 Thank you for your continued support and please do let us know if you see any Microsoft Tech Support Scams on any of the links so that Sentinel can find and report them. Good day.

  12. Yes Lass I have noticed a extra song file is always at first file, no sound and few seconds only, about 11 seconds, all songs of the album are complete, just the 01 song is extra, I just remove it when transfer to itunes......

    1. El archivo "HTOA" son las brechas/per铆odos de silencio que los CD han reunido en un solo archivo. Se re煤nen en un solo archivo para la reproducci贸n sin espacios. No todos nuestros CD tienen lagunas de silencio. Los que lo hacen est谩n reunidos en un archivo etiquetado "HTOA"

  13. AnonymousJuly 09, 2019

    Was wondering what's being used to show those spectrums? freac? Or something else?

    1. It's a program called "Spek" It's free and can be viewed/downloaded here.....

      - Spek website.

    2. AnonymousJuly 09, 2019

      Got it, Thanks.

      And thanks for a great site!!

  14. AnonymousJuly 11, 2019

    I saw the old (by now super old) post where someone was going to encode their own mp3 from the flac (downloaded from this site) of Beyond Fear - Scream Machine and post the spectrum. I was curious as the already posted spectrum used stereo so wasn't using --alt-preset insane (subsequently re-mapped to --preset insane, and then to -b 320). This preset does use joint stereo, but not the regular one. It uses --nssafejoint (as do all the abx tested presets, I think). It also uses a --lowpass of 20500, but who can hear above that anyway. You could increase the --lowpass but that would likely impact quality.

    Anyway here's the spectrum, https://imgur.com/qGHMzjZ
    Encoded using lame 3.100 -b 320 (same as --alt-preset insane, --preset insane)

    There's also a VBR mode that doesn't use a --lowpass (or uses a higher one), that's -V 0 (previously --alt-preset extreme, --preset extreme). It preserves some higher frequencies but less overall content in the upper frequencies, or looks like it.
    Here's that spectrum, https://imgur.com/dQfmRGy

    BTW, I'm not trying to say mp3 is better than aac. I'm pretty sure these two settings would sound the same as the flac, though...'Cause of the high bitrates.

    1. We're still waiting for that spectrum, kind sir. For the record, we did not use any filters on both AAC or MP3. That's the thing, you don't have to use filters for AAC. Honestly, our encoder has none. There are no options for such filters, at all. You have many options for the MP3 encoder and the spectrum still looks butchered compared to the original FLAC and the AAC file. We don't use "joint stereo" for the simple reason that all of our music and recordings from our library are in "Stereo"

      Here's what our AAC encoder and it's settings look look like.

      Here's how fre:ac was setup to encode in MP3

      Hee's another example of the 3 conversions, this time we'll use "More Human Than Human" by White Zombie. This is the original

      - Flac File (16 bits, 44.100 kHz, Stereo, 2 channels)

      Here's the AAC conversion using the setting in the previous screenshot (no filters) and on average, this is what we get.

      - AAC (256 kbps, 44.100 kHz, Stereo, 2 channels, CBR)

      Now here is the MP3 conversion with the preset of VBR -V.0 at 320 kbps as mentioned above in your screenshot

      - MP3 (VBR - V.0, 320 kbps, 44.100 kHz, Stereo, 2 channels)

      Now even with this preset, the AAC with no filters still looks cleaner and resembles the FLAC file more so than the MP3 file at a lower bitrate of 256 kbps. This is what AAC is designed to do. Achieve better sound at the same and at lower bitrates than the MP3. On average, it performs better than the MP3 ever could. This is why we chose it. Performance and quality at a smaller bitrate and file size, on average basis.

  15. AnonymousJuly 11, 2019

    I'm not the person that wrote the posts dated Jan 03, 2019, that questioned the legitimacy of the posted mp3 spectrum.

    Also, I completely agree that aac is the better codec.

    I was just posting two more spectrums of mp3s using lame and a couple of the preset switches that the lame developers along with others had created. They were not supposed to, nor expected to, have better spectrums than the aac one.

    I guess they didn't come out in my post? In case, I'll try again. I'm not really an imgur user, so sorry if they're not working.

    -b 320

    -V 0

    I do believe, though, that they would produce an mp3 that would be highly unlikely to be distinguished from the flac in an abx test. They would sound the same to most people. Not everyone, but most. The spectrums tell us a lot about the codec, but not all of that is audible to everyone.

    The two presets I mentioned, the others I didn't, the switches they use/set (--nspsycho, --athtype, --nssafejoint, --lowpass, etc), and the internal lame code were all highly tuned through rigorous abx testing over a number of years. The goal being audible transparency to the original source (more so for the two presets I mentioned, I guess, or at least the higher bitrate ones). Things like compression artifacts and yes, stereo imaging (with nssafejoint vs regular joint stereo), etc etc were all worked on. Overriding the presets with different switches likely impacts overall quality. You'll see when you compare the original mp3 spectrum with the two I posted that they contain a little bit more information above 16 kHz. The lowpass activated by the preset in one of mine eliminates most above 20500, but the point is to show a visable difference between them. Of course the larger point is whether or not there's an audible difference. I may be 40-something, but my ears are probably 60-something! I doubt I'd hear any difference. Ha ha ha!

    If one day you find yourself relaxing and looking for something to pass the time, perhaps trying an abx test for yourself would be of interest. You never know, perhaps you'd be suprised, perhaps not. Couldn't hurt to try though.

    And once again, Thanks for the great site!!

    1. I understood and by the way, I didn't mean to imply that you were the original poster. I meant that I was still waiting for the original poster to upload the spectrum images which he/she never did. The AAC codec also saved us a tremendous amount of time since we didn't have to configure anything other then selecting the target bitrate. It is ready to go right out of the box.

      It's very true that we can't hear past certain decibels but the fact that we can get such a good result on a lower bitrate and at smaller file sizes is peace of mind for those who chose to download the AAC files. The audio quality is also another reason but lower bitrates and smaller file sizes prevails. We all used MP3 before making the switch to AAC. We just figured that it was time to upgrade given the simple interface, encoding speed and constant clean results when converting FLAC to AAC.

      It's all about the presentation. There's MP3 files all over the net but fewer sites offer AAC and the audience for this format is larger than we expected. We wanted everyone to see the results and also verify/conduct there own conversion tets which they have. Cheers.

    2. AnonymousJuly 11, 2019

      I need to correct myself...

      I typed --nspsycho, I meant to type --nspsytune. Jumbled it up with psychoacoustic model while I was trying to remember its name. LOL

    3. No worries. Thank you for your spectrum images and for your comments.

  16. Are your sources for FLAC/AAC the original CDs or a master source with higher quality, like SACD or DVD audio? I looked and couldn't find that information, apologize if I missed it.

    1. That information is available in this very section as well as in all of the posts on this website. We don't do DVD audio or SACD, 24 bit audio or Vinyl rips. Unless specified within the post and or title, we only publish first pressings. As such, these are standard CD rips. Photographs of our sources are also available for specific posts as well, usually if a CD is not present within the Accurip database.


      - CD bit rates.
      . https://imgur.com/c5DexTG
      . https://imgur.com/gEXKCKj

      - Audio sources
      . https://imgur.com/tOBFV19
      . https://imgur.com/KgJUsSI

      - Post information
      . https://imgur.com/naulYeQ

  17. Sorry for the mistake I've made, I gonna donate some bitcoins but I never used it before, I am going to learn how to use it lol

    1. That's very sweet of you love 馃檪 You don't have to. The website will remain free, regadless. Bitcoin may appear quite complicated for those who have never used it so you need not worry about a donation. Regards, Lass

  18. I know these are for the most part CD rips and a picture is included. Also, I know some digital media if ran though cue tools is a accurate rip also. So, just wondering why there are no rip .log files with any of these, as some could be a original rip but not in the accu/cue database and have no .accu log. So, having a rip .log is nice to have. Great site by the way and not being on a "premium" host site.

    1. All of our files are tagged which in turn renders the .log or a .cue file useless. Everything that would have been present within those 2 files is present within the metadata of the audio files. Copyright, label numbers, production credits, accurip data etc. it's all present with the audio files' metadata rendering such files useless.

      If you're on foobar2000 or are using something like MP3Tag, the metadata can be viewed by right clicking and selecting "properties" in foobar2000 or by selecting "extended tags" in MP3Tag.

      We do it this way so other won't have to download/install additional software to split/verify etc.. the files. Everything is done for you and it makes it easier for others who don't understand or are just getting into the concept of lossless audio to download and listen. Whe you download from here, it looks like this when viewed through media players:

      Screenshot: https://imgur.com/e46qw74

      Also, cue+log or cue+image file, that's the old way. We don't do that. We rip everything through CUERipper but don't actually use CUETools. CUERipper has built in Accurip support plus CDTTB support so everything is verified once the rip is done. The accurip log is still present to confirm that a CD is present within it's database or not, like a .log file would tell you if were ripped in EAC. If it is not or different results appear, a photo is placed in the file as conpensation. A .log file gives the same information as the accurip log does but is presented differently.

      There are certain releases that do come from digital stores, like Bandcamp but in those cases we do not verify them. They are published as is and we state that in the title of those publications. Once more, we don't use CUETools but encourage people to use the software or something similar if they are unsure about any of the CD rips from this website or if they just wish to verify them.

  19. Dear Buccaneer,

    I am the one who requested the FLAC link for the Slick Rick album to be reuploaded. It really was down. I forget exactly what it said, but it was unable to be downloaded, the lettering was in red saying that it had been removed. I've only ever requested 2 links, both in that last couple of weeks. The first was for a Big Daddy Kane album and then Slick Rick's Art of Storytelling. I was signed out at the time when I posted for the Slick Rick one because I noticed most people post anonymously. I always opt to do things anon if I can, and that includes for anything in life. Anyway, if you don't want to reupload the Slick Rick album, that's cool. Whoever was spamming the comments, reporting links that weren't actually dead, well, that wasn't me. God bless.



    1. It's too late now. It has nothing to do with us not wanting to update the links. WE ALWAYS UPDATE THE LINKS, provided they are genuinely offline.

      Buck never said you falsely reported the Slick Rick link as "dead" He stated that a Kanye West album was falsely reported as "dead" and he submitted a video capture and a screenshot of his claim. You also commented during a period where you shouldn't have. You also requested and update during a period where you shouldn't have.

      That's the point. You were unaware either by you're own doing or something else entirely, as to to what was going on around you. You're just 1 of many that didn't see what was going on. There's nothing I can do for you now. You must wait until the section is restored.

      We are no longer taking comments under the name "Anonymous" You don't need a blogger account to comment. You can chose a name if you wish. Everyone has always had this option. See the images below on how to go about it.


    2. Well, I don't read the rules every single time we come here to see if they changed. It looks as if I'm not the only one...others also seem to comment purely based on common sense. The comment section is there to request dead links. You usually ask us to tell you about dead links, so we're not going to check the rules every time to see if that's still the norm. You're not really punishing anyone with these bans, and it's obviously not effective. We'll just get those albums somewhere else, although coming to one place to get them is nice, but you're not the only site of this kind.

      This is what happens when you change the rules as you go along, it confuses people because it's not a logical way of handling anything. Sorry about the spammers, but you're really just frustrating yourselves. You have a spam bot to filter out spam...maybe get a better one? Anyway, best of luck with handling this because the burden is actually on you guys, not us...this being the public internet and all.

    3. The comments section is not for requesting dead links, it is an open forum. You can request an update there but that's not the only reason why it's there. We've actually never had to change the rules until now.

      The disclaimer contains and has always contained the most basic rules of the website. People use to complain about the RAR files being corrupt. That solution was always present in the disclaimer. A full year went by before people actually paid attention to what was present in front of them... after the FAQ's article was published. We never had that section before and that was why we created it. Because people don't and didn't read the disclaimer.

      The bot is not the problem it's other users who make it difficult for everyone else. We can't help them if they don't tell us what to update. "dead link" Ok, which one? See what I mean? Again, it pertains to new users that don't read any of the information that is given to them, being by the bot or what's in front of them.

      It slows us down too much because the bot has to confirm all of the comments first before sending us the publications that need to be updated. Considering so many people fail to report what they need, it takes a very long time for us to get going.

      It makes no difference to us if the bans don't work or not. Buck doesn't publish Hip-Hop at all, only Lass and I do. I have my hands full with the task of eliminating the tech support scams and Lass is currently publishing her Rock collection.

      The biggest burden for me and Lass was just having all of the comments section restored and we succeeded. If Buck wants to disable a specific section, he can do that. He's in charge not us.

      Because your words are genuine and fair, I can give you a direct link to the Slick Rick album and if you can remember the other album you requested during the ban, I can give you that one as well. Keeping your privacy in mind, use a temporary email service address and send it to me after confirming the other album you wanted to be updated. Simply google "temp email" and select one of the addresses that come up. You're the only one that gets an update during this time - becasue you're respectful and your words make sense.

    4. Ah, I see, I apologize for kinda jumping to conclusions there. I can see now why you have to take those messures and how difficult it can be to manage the comment section.

      And I'm sorry for screwing it up for everyone this time, it certainly was not intentional. I will be sure to pay closer attention to the news section from now on.

      I really appreciate your kind gesture with offering me a personal link. I think I'll take you up on it; even though I said there are alternative websites, yours has the biggest selection and is the best quality. Last week I requested the Big Daddy Kane album and you updated the link very quickly, so I got it, and thank you very much btw. If you could send a link to Slick Rick - The Art of Storytelling, though, then that would be awesome! My temp email address is conahas299@xmailsme.com.

      Thanks to you, Buccaneer, Lass, and whoever else might be involved with running this site. We, the visitors here, have discovered a lot of awesome music thanks to you guys. Your hard work is really appreciated!


    5. The link has been sent to your temp-email address. Enjoy the rest of your day. We'll see you around and thank you for your kind words.

    6. Thanks again Sentinel! Much appreciated. Enjoy the rest of your day as well. Cheers! :-)

    7. This is exactly why we fought to restore the comments section for every one 馃 Thank you so very much for your support, love. 馃槉

  20. Thanks so much for doing that, Lass! You guys are all doing an awesome job. Most of the other sites seem like ghost towns, totally deserted. Not this one though! Keep up the great work and thank you for all that you do.


  21. Have you guys verified that your some of your flac files are not up-converted mp3 files?

    1. All of our rips come from CD's or on certain cases, digital platforms. If the latter is true, we post that information in the post. All of our rips are verified through the Accuraterip software as well and this metadata can be found within the audiofiles themselves as "tags" If we have an album that does not appear within the Accuraterip database, a photo of our CD's will be provided in the RAR file as compensation. It's not uncommon to come across an album that has not been submitted to the datbase.

      To be very clear, unless you actually have the CD, theres no way to tell if a FLAC file is an up-convert from an MP3 when viewing it from the Spectrum. This is esoecially true from many first pressing albums from the 80's and even certain albums from the 90's. If you analyze some the albums from the 80's under a spectrum, you'll notice some appear to have a cut off but this was done intentionally from the engineers during mastering. Another issue is volume. You'll notice that the quiter the album is, the more it will appear to have a cut off under the Spectrum. A good example is TT Quick: Metal of Honor from the 80's and Erick Sermon's solo albums from the 90's. All which are featured on this website with photos by us but when viwed from the soectrum, it appears to have a cut off like an MP3 would.

      Albums from the 90's and especially from 2000's which are very loud will not appear to have cut offs but remember, they are very loud and more orange and blue can also be seen because the are loud and full of compression.

      Our rips can also be verified by you if you use an extraction software like CUETools. Everything on this website can be verified unless a CD is not present in the Accuraterip database. You'll find that those albums always have a photo taken by us in the RAR file.

    2. Here are some images of various albums that I own from different decades and from different genres. This is a perfect example as to why you can not trust a spectrum image to verify if a rip is actually lossless. The image of an audio spectrum, you are viewing a lossless audio, will be dependent on the audio mastering that was done to that recording, not the actual audio format (FLAC, WAV). Different decades had different mastering processes. Volume is also another factor and it will change the way the spectrum image looks.

      When it comes to lossy audio, like an MP3, that is always determined the audio format's capabilities as data will be lost in order to get a smaller file size. The MP3 is the most guilty of this and it will have a severe cut off at 320 kbps while as the AAC at 256 kbps will fair MUCH BETTER, with little to no cut off. You will notice that even though some recordings in the photos have what appears to be a cut off, the MP3 version will look far worse than the both the original FLAC and the lossy AAC. Everything we publish can be verified through Accuraterip. the metadata for that is present in all of our publications. That screenshot is also included below. I hope this helps you out. Take care.

      . Spectrum image order: photo of the disc, FLAC, AAC & MP3

      1.) Debbie Gibson - Out of The Blue (1986) (First Pressing)


      2.) Down South - Lost In Brooklyn (1994)


      3.) Keith Murray - Enigma (1996)


      4.) Disturbed - Believe (2002)


    3. Metadata/screenshot of Accuraterip tags:


    4. Permission to post those spectrum's in the FAQ's section?

    5. Yes Victor. Go right ahead. I think the post should have that information.

  22. Many CDs were and are still mastered by people who do not know what they were doing. This is why properly done lossless vinyl rips (assuming the vinyl was mastered by someone competent) in many cases sound better. These days engineers often use shite mastering tool settings that mess up dynamics and equalization of audio source material that is being butchered. Most people do not care and can not hear the difference but it is a huge problem.

  23. The quality of the Vinyl depends on the decade. Vinyl is analogue, CD is digital. CD is locked at 16 bits, 44.100 kHz. An analogue recording has no bit rate which is why music pre-CD's from the 60's 70's sound better on Vinyl. They were recorded on analogue equipment for an analogue format. The early transfers from Analogue to CD's didn't always sound great becasue they wer3e still trying to figure out how to transfer the old recordings to the new format.

    Unless the original recording was rerecorded on analogue equipment, the Vinyl will not make the recording sound better. Think about what they are doing. They are taking a 16 bit DIGITAL recording and putting it on an analogue format. A lot of early 80's digital recording were still recorded on analogue equipment before being digitally mastered for the CD. That's why those hold up better.

    The 80's had great mastering for CD's. You can't compare today's loud mastering the recordings on CD from the 80's. That's not fair. The "were" in your comment is incorrect. The 80's had excellent mastering and by the time they caught up on how to transfer the analogue recordings to the digital CD, they sounded good. The first Vertigo Black Sabbath CD pressing are a perfect example of this. They sound clear and excellent.

    Madonna's "Like a Virgin" was a full digital recording and it sounds great on CD. Just ask Lass. The Vinyl will only provide better results under the conditions that the record hasn't degraded, which is a common problem in Analogue formats, they degrade over time especially analogue tapes including the master tapes, and if the original recording was recorded using Analogue equipment.

    Digital recordings are forever. The master recordings won't degrade over time which is why they made the change because Analogue tapes degrade over time and degrade based on how many times they are played. That doesn't happen with Digital. The CD might get scratched but if you rip it, you have an exact copy that can be played forever without losing quality. Yes, it is bit locked and the transfer of Analogue to digital depends ion the engineer and they've done good work. They haven't only done horrible transitions.

    The current trend of loud mastering didn't always exist.

  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. "Hi. You're a fiend and here's why"

      "Please comment only once. All comments are published once cleared by me"

      " Posting more than once does not increase your chances of having your comment published.

      - This message was generated automatically by Spam Detector, C# 25

  25. Unable to download aac file Can I ask you to make it possible?
    Please let me download aac that doesn't download rock, hard rock tag files. You can get it as a flac file, but I need aac file.

    1. First of all. What AAC file? Second. Do you know where you are? If an AAC file is not available, it's not available. Plain and simple. Third. An AAC link can only be submitted if 2 FLAC links are dead.

      Fourth "Please let me download aac that doesn't download rock, hard rock tag files. You can get it as a flac file, but I need aac file."

      That makes no sense. No exceptions. You cannot request AAC files or request anything in general. Please have some common sense before posting. If English is not your native language, leave a comment in your native language and we will respond to you accordingly.

    2. First of all, my native language is Hangul. I live in Korea, and I can use aac file. Acknowledge that the method of requesting aac is incorrect. I'm sorry, but I have to sort all the music files into the same kind. 1. If two links in the ROCK, HARD ROCK tags are all FLAC files, can aac link be requested? I'd appreciate it if you could know that the sentences are mixed up.

    3. No. The answer is no. You are not allowed to request anything. No requests. Not AAC files or other albums in general.N o exceptions. The rules have always been this way. Once more, an AAC link can only be submitted if 2 FLAC links are dead.

    4. The FLAC links have to be dead before an AAC link is submitted. AAC has only been around on this website for fairly recently. That's why some entries don't have AAC links. This used to be an only FLAC site.