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

Foobar vs MediaMonkey - Page 2

post #16 of 63

Have only used Winamp until this point, but after these posts, will be downloading foob2k tonight :)

post #17 of 63

Had to throw this in, I wonder if I might hear the difference between MediaMonky and Foobar and reading the post here, some subscribe to the believe they can. I say good for you. But even more compelling was a test done at Maximum PC in the various encoding formats. Good read and if you think your still a audiophile, well...

 

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

 

two cents

 

I just downloaded Foobar and going to play with it, now I wonder...

post #18 of 63

This is ridiculous, I use foobar2000 for media management and testing and something else for playback!  Foobar 2000 playback is OK but not the best.

post #19 of 63

Used to use winamp for years, went to foobar2k and didnt look back.

post #20 of 63

Foobar ftw. beerchug.gif

post #21 of 63

iTunes FTW, best organization, and it works with my iphone.  

 

As far as audio quality is concerned, lossless is lossless....

post #22 of 63

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peck1234 View Post

iTunes FTW, best organization, and it works with my iphone.  

 

As far as audio quality is concerned, lossless is lossless....

 

But if it is modified by the OS mixer it defeats some of the point.

On Mac OS we have options like Bit Perfect or Audrivana to stream bit perfect files to our DACs with iTunes, to my knowledge it's not possible with iTunes on the PC.

 

On the PC I used to love JRiver with WASAPI. If I ever get another PC it's the first app I'll install.

post #23 of 63

I'm all foobar'ed as well. I tried MediaMonkey first but for some reason, it was making all my FLAC files sound subdued. I ended up with foobar2K and the ASIO4ALL plugin and it opened things up a bit. It's pretty obvious to my ears but not sure if this is normal. 

 

Is there a foobar optimization guide out there that's helped folks maximize their usage/sound quality from it?

post #24 of 63

I just installed foobar and it's not user (i mean idiot) friendly in my opinion. It'll take awhile for me to figure out how to organize my music on here...either myself or this program isn't very intuitive.

post #25 of 63

Personally I find Mediamonkey gross to look at and hard to manage

 

Pic related

 

Simple

post #26 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKENEDPLAGUE View Post

Personally I find Mediamonkey gross to look at and hard to manage

 

Pic related

 

Simple


I'm sure it's me as usual.

post #27 of 63

I can send you the configuration if you want. Just install Columns UI, along with whatever else you might need

post #28 of 63

I downloaded both Foobar, as well as MediaMonkey when I realized I could not send 24/96 HDTracks flac downloads to my iTunes library. Since Foorbar appeared easier to master I gave more attention to it. But, because I have such an affinity for iTunes, I also downloaded DBpoweramp, using it to convert flac to alac. I discovered DBpoweramp is good for finding art too.  I'm happy with all outcomes: Foobar, DBpoweramp, 24/96, iTunes, and alac although, not using all of this stuff everyday, I cannot navigate as painlessly as I would like. I have saved the flac downloads and on occasion I have compared them from Foobar with alac conversions played with iTunes. Using an external sound card (Sound Blaster X-FI HD) to convert USB to S/PDIF for pickup at my control amps DAC I perceive that the tunes played from Foobar sound better; however, the folks at Foobar tell me all media players sound the same. At any rate, music has never sounded better to me than right now. I'm happy with it all, the quality sound and convenience. Only thing I wish for is that  BD audio takes off as listening to Diana Krall in Dolby Digital vs. stereo is no contest. Dolby Digital is just awesome.  


Edited by sterling1 - 5/6/12 at 6:01am
post #29 of 63

I really don't think all players sound the same. Even on Media monkey using the WASAPI and ASIO plug ins for bit for bit playback, there is a difference in sound (I prefer ASIO).

post #30 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterling1 View Post

I downloaded both Foobar, as well as MediaMonkey when I realized I could not send 24/96 HDTracks flac downloads to my iTunes library. Since Foorbar appeared easier to master I gave more attention to it. But, because I have such an affinity for iTunes, I also downloaded DBpoweramp, using it to convert flac to alac. I discovered DBpoweramp is good for finding art too.  I'm happy with all outcomes: Foobar, DBpoweramp, 24/96, iTunes, and alac although, not using all of this stuff everyday, I cannot navigate as painlessly as I would like. I have saved the flac downloads and on occasion I have compared them from Foobar with alac conversions played with iTunes. Using an external sound card (Sound Blaster X-FI HD) to convert USB to S/PDIF for pickup at my control amps DAC I perceive that the tunes played from Foobar sound better; however, the folks at Foobar tell me all media players sound the same. At any rate, music has never sounded better to me than right now. I'm happy with it all, the quality sound and convenience. Only thing I wish for is that  BD audio takes off as listening to Diana Krall in Dolby Digital vs. stereo is no contest. Dolby Digital is just awesome.  

 

 

Unless you have plug-ins installed on either media player, there should be absolutely no difference.

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