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

Foobar vs MediaMonkey - Page 3

post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post

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.

It's not the most intuitive but pretty spartan actually. I've flipflopped between MediaMonkey and foobar so far. Enjoying the layout and ease of use of MediaMonkey. Hate the auto-tagging features of it so will likely have to use another program soon. How come they don't write add-ons to MM/foobar for the better taggers? (Or is it because I haven't looked long enough in Google?)

post #32 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by twizzleraddict View Post

It's not the most intuitive but pretty spartan actually. I've flipflopped between MediaMonkey and foobar so far. Enjoying the layout and ease of use of MediaMonkey. Hate the auto-tagging features of it so will likely have to use another program soon. How come they don't write add-ons to MM/foobar for the better taggers? (Or is it because I haven't looked long enough in Google?)


You can always use mp3tag. I trust that much more than any other tagger. I prefer media monkey and jriver over foobar. Although foobar does have a more expansive sound stage. Media Monkey is the most intimate (especially vocals). Jriver seems to be a bit treble centric yet draws your attention to the overall song. In a sense it's the funner player to listen to if you will.


Edited by lee730 - 5/8/12 at 2:08pm
post #33 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post
Although foobar does have a more expansive sound stage. Media Monkey is the most intimate (especially vocals). Jriver seems to be a bit treble centric yet draws your attention to the overall song.

 

No offense if you truly believe this, but I hope people searching for information don't read this and believe it.

 

Unless a plugin is altering the signal, bit perfect is bit perfect and there is no difference.

post #34 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by obzilla View Post

 

No offense if you truly believe this, but I hope people searching for information don't read this and believe it.

 

Unless a plugin is altering the signal, bit perfect is bit perfect and there is no difference.


Not sure why this is but I can clearly hear a difference in the sound. Maybe the players themselves are adding something to the sound. I really don't know but it's clear as day to these ears.


Edited by lee730 - 5/8/12 at 7:18pm
post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


Not sure why this is but I can clearly hear a difference in the sound. Maybe the players themselves are adding something to the sound. I really don't know but it's clear as day to these ears.

 

Are you using the same output method (wasapi/aiso/etc), free of plugins on all programs, to the same DAC?

 

If so, the difference is psycho semantic.

post #36 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by obzilla View Post

 

Are you using the same output method (wasapi/aiso/etc), free of plug-ins on all programs, to the same DAC?

 

If so, the difference is psycho semantic.

 

I'm not sure if there is a difference between the Asio plug ins on these players. Is there such thing? But I'm using asio and in both Media Monkey and Jriver it is in bit for bit. I'm not so sure about Foobar as you are still able to alter the volume with the program (but it is using Asio with CEntrance DACport LX Driver). I'm not falling for the psycho semantic bit either. I had no expectation for these players to sound any different. I was under the impression things are suppose to sound the same in bit for bit. Even using WASAPI on Media Monkey in bit for bit is slightly different in sound. It's a warmer sound which I do not like compared to ASIO. I'm not the only one to find WASAPI on the warmer side FWIW.


Edited by lee730 - 5/8/12 at 7:38pm
post #37 of 63

I'm using iTunes, Windows Media Player, Foobar, and MediaMonkey. The players send USB to Creative Sound Blaster X-FI HD which converts USB to S/PDIF. The S/PDIF is sent to control amp's DAC's, and volume is set by control amp after setting all players to 100% volume. I do hear a difference in sound from player to player when playing the same material; but, since the folks at Foobar state that all players sound the same, I attribute the difference in sound to sound level from one player to another being different.  It seems to me the reason someone would prefer one player over another would be all about user accommodations. So far, iTunes is most accommodating . Still, I wish iTunes downloads were available in CD quality ALAC rather than 256k AAC, since I can hear a difference between these file types with the ALAC files sounding somewhat better.on complex material.

post #38 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterling1 View Post

I'm using iTunes, Windows Media Player, Foobar, and MediaMonkey. The players send USB to Creative Sound Blaster X-FI HD which converts USB to S/PDIF. The S/PDIF is sent to control amp's DAC's, and volume is set by control amp after setting all players to 100% volume. I do hear a difference in sound from player to player when playing the same material; but, since the folks at Foobar state that all players sound the same, I attribute the difference in sound to sound level from one player to another being different.  It seems to me the reason someone would prefer one player over another would be all about user accommodations. So far, iTunes is most accommodating . Still, I wish iTunes downloads were available in CD quality ALAC rather than 256k AAC, since I can hear a difference between these file types with the ALAC files sounding somewhat better.on complex material.


It must just be in our heads sterling ;)

post #39 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterling1 View Post
; but, since the folks at Foobar state that all players sound the same, I attribute the difference in sound to sound level from one player to another being different.  It seems to me the reason someone would prefer one player over another would be all about user accommodations.

 

This.

 

This is an old audio sales trick, tweak the volume on the more expensive speaker, customer responds better. Very simple and effective, but not an equal measure with the other speaker, and a prime example of snake oil. 

 

 

If the bits are truly perfect, no line adjustments, no DSP effects (levels, crossfade, eq, etc), they sound the same. Bits are bits. Now if a certain player does an alteration that you think you like, by all means use it, but what you like is what the software is changing, which is no longer truly bit perfect.

 

If all things are set evenly, they will sound the same, no other possibility exists.

 

It's like an image file. So long as it's being displayed in the same color space, at the same magnification, on the same monitor, the color will always be the same. Now many image managers "do things" they should not, like temporarily convert to other color spaces without asking, so they do look different, but all things being equal, pixels are pixels and audio bits are audio bits. 

 

So, so long as you don't alter the signal, choose the audio player that has the features you want, and is visually acceptable. Other than that, there is no difference to be had. If there is a signal alteration in your player that you enjoy, that is more than enough to justify "liking it" and paying for it, but know that you prefer it because it changes your audio files from that of the original source, not because it has some secret sauce inside.


Edited by obzilla - 5/9/12 at 9:08am
post #40 of 63

Getting BACK ON TRACK to the thread at hand, the OP was looking at which was better, foobar vs. MediaMonkey, as an alternative to iTunes. 

 

Ultimately, it all depends on your ability to tweak the apps to your usage. I like MediaMonkey for the ease of use in the UI. I haven't used JRiver so will likely give this a shot soon. foobar takes a bit of getting used to and customizing it will yield great results but there's an effort and learning curve involved here.

 

What both don't have is tagging features built-in that make it pretty painless to use. 

 

They both can play through whatever output plug-ins you choose to use: WASAPI, ASIO, DirectSound, etc. Audio-quality aside, you have options here.

 

In the end, it's based on what the goals are in your music player. Even with the sound quality debate going on, it's going to be difficult to even choose between players as YMMV. I'm still flipping back and forth between the two and enjoying the ride.

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by obzilla View Post

 

This.

 

This is an old audio sales trick, tweak the volume on the more expensive speaker, customer responds better. Very simple and effective, but not an equal measure with the other speaker, and a prime example of snake oil. 

 

 

If the bits are truly perfect, no line adjustments, no DSP effects (levels, crossfade, eq, etc), they sound the same. Bits are bits. Now if a certain player does an alteration that you think you like, by all means use it, but what you like is what the software is changing, which is no longer truly bit perfect.

 

If all things are set evenly, they will sound the same, no other possibility exists.

 

It's like an image file. So long as it's being displayed in the same color space, at the same magnification, on the same monitor, the color will always be the same. Now many image managers "do things" they should not, like temporarily convert to other color spaces without asking, so they do look different, but all things being equal, pixels are pixels and audio bits are audio bits. 

 

So, so long as you don't alter the signal, choose the audio player that has the features you want, and is visually acceptable. Other than that, there is no difference to be had. If there is a signal alteration in your player that you enjoy, that is more than enough to justify "liking it" and paying for it, but know that you prefer it because it changes your audio files from that of the original source, not because it has some secret sauce inside.

 

 

The thing is then are any of these players truly using bit for bit? Because I hear a discrepancy in sound between all three. They are all using Asio and I can confirm 2 of the said programs are using bit for bit because I cannot adjust the volume control on the programs...

post #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

 

 

The thing is then are any of these players truly using bit for bit? Because I hear a discrepancy in sound between all three. They are all using Asio and I can confirm 2 of the said programs are using bit for bit because I cannot adjust the volume control on the programs...

I can only confirm that Jrive (with everything disabled in DPS studio), Foobar (without plugs beyond WASAPI/ASIO) on the PC are. I never messed with media monkey though I am sure it is as well.

 

Audrivana and BitPerfect for the Mac both are. 

 

For the PC, the best feature laden replacement for iTunes was Jriver. It's tagging tools were awesome as well as conversion and library management. It also had an extensive list of DSP effects. The UI was *very* slick with the dark themes.

I think the $50 or so is well worth it for a product that is actively developed and improved.

Foobar is easily surmountable for those that don't want to spend money and have time to tinker and set it up. I no longer have the slightest inkling to maintain my own software like that, but many like it. It's the Linux of players.

 

To wrap up the 'sound quality' debate, what I am posting is nothing personal, it's just the digital truth. I have no idea what it is that you hear, but I do know what you don't hear wink.gif

post #43 of 63

Mediamonkey for me.  Even with all the guides and whatnot out there for getting Foobar to look pretty, I couldn't figure it out in any reasonable amount of time.  Installed Mediamonkey, liked the default interface well enough, never looked back.

post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxxymig View Post

Mediamonkey for me.  Even with all the guides and whatnot out there for getting Foobar to look pretty, I couldn't figure it out in any reasonable amount of time.  Installed Mediamonkey, liked the default interface well enough, never looked back.

+ 1

post #45 of 63

The player itself is just the UI. The codecs underneath are the same, unless you use extra plugins.

So I guess a better question to ask would be: "Which media player UI/features do you like more?"

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