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

Foobar VS Winamp

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Why do so many people on this site seem to chose Foobar over Winamp?
post #2 of 25
Foobar user here. There are no SQ differences between the two. Just the feature set and learning curve (foobar being harder up until the latest version). I started out as a winamp user but fb2k pulled me with its library management (tagging, renaming, moving files) and a few DSPs that are exclusive to it.

I wanted a lightweight music player (not a complete media player) and foobar (with default UI) fit the bill better than winamp.

Even dabbled with musikcube in my search for the above but its features were lacking compared to foobar.
post #3 of 25
I use winamp more than foobar because every EQ I have found on foobar distorts the bass or sounds dark and muddy, when I boost it a bit. But the one on winamp (shibatch), is of good quality.
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleyman View Post
Foobar user here. There are no SQ differences between the two. Just the feature set and learning curve (foobar being harder up until the latest version). I started out as a winamp user but fb2k pulled me with its library management (tagging, renaming, moving files) and a few DSPs that are exclusive to it.

I wanted a lightweight music player (not a complete media player) and foobar (with default UI) fit the bill better than winamp.

Even dabbled with musikcube in my search for the above but its features were lacking compared to foobar.
Fair enough mate. I use weinamp for all audio and vlc for all video and both do what I want pretty much perfectly (although I did have a couple of audio issues with vlc straight to my RME soundcard and on rading up changed it to use the spdif out of my motherboard's onboard sound and adjusted audio offset.) Lightweight is good and I actually use a fairly old version of Winamp with it set to classical look etc.

As to soubd quality; I can clearly hear the difference between DirectX and WaveOut output option with Winamp. Reading some bits on their forum and it seems the ASIO dsp sounds better again. I have noticed in the past that iTunes seems to often sound worse than other players (and the iPod even more so) so wouldn't of surprised me if there were slight differences, but it can only be in the codec that comes packaged with the player, especially if you are using waveout or asio.

Anyway I'm waffling now and it seems there's no real difference. I personally hate to use media libraries built into players and only extra DSP I ever really use is ShoutCast for live streaming over the internet so don't hink I'll be making the jump myself.
post #5 of 25
I switch between them depending on the mood, and was a religious follower of Winamp until the latest Foobar2000 came out, with nicer default interfaces. Even with the heavier-weight newer version of Winamp, it's still clean, and I do like it. But the extra power of Foobar2000 for ReplayGain analysis, etc. makes it enough of a challenger that I've started using it more than Winamp.

Sound quality differences are non-existent since I keep the EQ flat, turn off all sound modifications except for ReplayGain, and use kernel streaming to bypass the mixer to get bit-perfect signal to my Monica 2 DAC.
post #6 of 25
I use foobar because it has a smaller memory footprint and is really customizable.
post #7 of 25
Even with PanelsUI running on foobar, it's still lighter on system resources than Winamp. I use Winamp occasionally, but it's been supplanted by Mediamonkey now. Foobar is still my main music player.
post #8 of 25
I started using foobar when i bought amp/cans to use the kernel streaming/asio output plugin.
I liked the equalizer on foobar,it's light weight and "simple looking" interface so i sticked to it till today for all my audio needs.
post #9 of 25
Exclusive Foobar user here. There's no difference in the SQ between both if using ASIO but Foobar is just miles ahead in terms of customization.

Here's a taste of custom Foobar modules in action:

post #10 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packgrog View Post
Sound quality differences are non-existent since I keep the EQ flat, turn off all sound modifications except for ReplayGain, and use kernel streaming to bypass the mixer to get bit-perfect signal to my Monica 2 DAC.
Forgive what is probably a pretty dumb question (and a mild digression from the topic), but your comment about keeping the EQ flat brought to mind something that I've been curious about. Simply this: Is keeping the EQ flat the same as not using an EQ at all? I'm pretty sure it is, but I just wanted to hear it from someone else. Thanks.
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoreman View Post
Forgive what is probably a pretty dumb question (and a mild digression from the topic), but your comment about keeping the EQ flat brought to mind something that I've been curious about. Simply this: Is keeping the EQ flat the same as not using an EQ at all? I'm pretty sure it is, but I just wanted to hear it from someone else. Thanks.
yes.
post #12 of 25
Thread Starter 
I really don't care much about plugins and don't use the media browser/library (whatever you want to call it.) I am guessing that there is no Shoutcast support for Foobar though, right? As in you're streaming to the server, no recieving it obviously.


Also keep hearing about "kernel free" dsp/options. Now I always use waveout with winamp (unless it a very loosy mp3 with something like a 22kHz sample rate as it's not supported by my card and then I will usually delete the file after listening as the quality is so poor) and this goes straight into my soundcard, bipassing the windows/motherboard operations people seem to be going on about. How does this differ? All I know is it sounds noticabley better than DirectX and it wont play if it's not the right sample rate for the card. Is it worth downloading and trying to get the ASIO dsp working? Obviously I use ASIO when using other audio programs but never thought there would be that much to gain in the past...
post #13 of 25
ASIO and KernelStreaming both bypass the Windows KMixer, which (if memory serves) effectively reduces the bit-depth of all audio to 15-bit. It does other things to the audio as well that are undesirable from the perspective of accuracy. Look up kmixer on wikipedia for more info.

And yes, by "flat EQ" I mean "no EQ". It's in reference to how equalizers vary in db values from the base (flat) line in different frequencies of the audio spectrum. "Rock" EQ settings tend to look like a bell curve, spiking in the lowest and highest frequencies while staying normal in the mid range.

I tend to go for a "flat EQ" with my Future Sonics Atrio m5 since *ANY* kind of bass boosting makes the bass sound terrible and distorted. Most earphones are somewhat deficient with their bass response (at least cheapies), so most EQ presets provide an increase in bass sound. I'm very anti-EQ, since my Atrio sounds best with a neutral signal.
post #14 of 25
I clearly prefer the SQ of Foobar up to 0.8.x versions over Winamp/ASIO *IF* Otachan ASIO 047a plugin for Foobar is used, which results in almost pellucid transparency and resolution.

With Foobar 0.9.x versions with included ASIO plugins, to my ears the SQ is no better than Winamp/ASIO, presenting similarly bland SQ. I will use Foobar 0.8.x with Otachan ASIO until similar plugin is released for 0.9.x.
post #15 of 25
I'm not ridiculously concerned about sound quality provided I get that ASIO goodness. What I really like about Foobar is its ability to handle a whopping load of music without crashing. iTunes can do this, Winamp I find has problems and xmms in linux can't do it at all in my experience.

I really want foobar under nix. I use Quod Libet mostly because it is close to foobar but still can't handle the volume of files I have like foobar can (despite it running under Wine).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar VS Winamp