Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar vs MediaMonkey
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foobar vs MediaMonkey

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
i am looking to switch from ituens to somethign that can play flac. what would be better foobar or media monkey.



thanks
Topplayer
post #2 of 63

J. River media Center 12

- Secure ripping integrated with tag editing and player features.
- Great tag editing features including bulk changes to many files.
- Internal database stores standard and custom tags
and database only fields.
- ITunes-like UI but much more configurable:
Multiple views for different music or tasks
Easily configurable multi-field sorting,
iTunes-like browser panes or Album covers.
(I use 5 browser panes at the top in one view. )
- Recently ripped and recently imported playlsits for convenient editing.

Flac works well with MC 12. You can define whatever tags you want in the Flac files.

MC 12 has the features I need to manage a 2000+ CD collection that is 2/3 classical music. I looked at a lot of players before buying MC. ($ 40)

Bill
post #3 of 63
I actually use both -- MediaMonkey for organizational purposes (since it was quicker to set up) and Foobar for playback.
post #4 of 63
I'm a Foobar2000 fan ...
post #5 of 63
Foobar2000 fan here...
post #6 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagobah View Post
I actually use both -- MediaMonkey for organizational purposes (since it was quicker to set up) and Foobar for playback.
I do the same as dagobah. I've been happy with MediaMonkey to organize my collection and play my flac files via Foobar .
post #7 of 63
They're probably equally powerful but foobar would be more painful to learn.
post #8 of 63
I prefer foobar, works and looks exactly how I want it to with no extra frills....
post #9 of 63
Another vote for simplistic Foobar
post #10 of 63
I prefer Winamp out of all three. Mediamonkey is a bit EQued (at default settings), Foobar too subdued. Winamp IMO is the most neutral with ample separation.

My card doesn't support kernel streaming so I haven't heard Foobar with it enabled, sadly.

(Source: EH350, Sigmatel based soundcard)
post #11 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissembled View Post
I prefer Winamp out of all three. Mediamonkey is a bit EQued (at default settings), Foobar too subdued. Winamp IMO is the most neutral with ample separation.

My card doesn't support kernel streaming so I haven't heard Foobar with it enabled, sadly.

(Source: EH350, Sigmatel based soundcard)
I think you might be crazy.

I use Foobar, as skin/visual theme support is an essential with me and I get off on tweaking stuff. Also make sure you stick with kernal streaming or ASIO if you do go with it, I think Media Monkey is just as powerful with a lot less confusion (and a lot less options)
post #12 of 63
For some reason, I can't listen to Foobar with Kernal Streaming enabled.

Mediamonkey again, seems EQued to my ears.
post #13 of 63
100% foobar2000 for music
post #14 of 63
+1 for Foobar.
post #15 of 63
I prefer MediaMonkey. They have an awesome support team and many dedicated members that produce excellent scripts which can be found at MediaMonkey's forums. It is also the only player that does not crash or hang on my 70k+ music collection.
I might give Foobar another shot, but I don't have enough time to dedicate for it's learning curve.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar vs MediaMonkey