Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar2000 vs iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foobar2000 vs iTunes

post #1 of 85
10/10/09 at 12:46pm
Thread Starter 
Here at Head-fi, the flac-foobar combination seems to be the most dominant software to go with. I tried using foobar, and while its interface was pretty good, I still found iTunes to be totally superior. Dont get me wrong, im far from an apple fan boy, but iTunes is a great program. I am just surprised I don't hear more about alac-iTunes combination's. This is what I plan on sticking with.

Any reasons for this?
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #2 of 85
10/10/09 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl View Post
Here at Head-fi, the flac-foobar combination seems to be the most dominant software to go with. I tried using foobar, and while its interface was pretty good, I still found iTunes to be totally superior. Dont get me wrong, im far from an apple fan boy, but iTunes is a great program. I am just surprised I don't hear more about alac-iTunes combination's. This is what I plan on sticking with.

Any reasons for this?
Windows users the exact opposite happens, iTunes under win does not convince me at all.
Ciao
Reply
post #3 of 85
10/10/09 at 2:45pm
I find iTunes to be a great application as well.
I used to be a hardcore foobar2000 and FLAC fan, but since I converted to ALAC and iTunes (on Mac OS X) some 5-6 years ago I have not looked back. I find iTunes UI to be very efficient, and its sound quality on par with anything else I have tried.

iTunes on MS Windows on the other hand...
Reply
post #4 of 85
10/10/09 at 3:10pm
Granted, I'm a windows user, so I can't comment on iTunes as a whole, but I never really liked the "hands off" approach of the program.

I never really A-B'ed foobar and itunes in terms of SQ, but overall, I just like that I get more options with foobar. Flac support is nice, since a fair amount of my music is in it, and since foobar can pretty much support everything out of the box, it's kind of a nice peace of mind. Foobar's plugins are also super-easy to install, so that's always a plus. That said, I really dig the iTunes interface --it's fun and quick to use, and probably the most intuitive I've ever used, so I tweaked foobar to work in a similar fashion.

Also not a fan of quicktime
Reply
post #5 of 85
10/10/09 at 3:11pm
I should clarify on the above and say it [of course] doesn't support "everything" but rather every file format I find myself using...
Reply
post #6 of 85
10/10/09 at 3:12pm
Thread Starter 
How could iTunes on windows be significantly different in terms of sound quality than on OSX? I really don't see how the program you are using has any affect on sound quality at all. I notice no difference between foobar2000 or itunes. Its gonna take a big reason to get me to switch.

Also I tried getting file play count plug-in to work in foobar (one reason for me not using it), but it never worked. Also the tabbed play lists seem inferior to a sidebar type. I don't dislike it (still way better than wmp, winamp, or vlc), its just I find itunes superior.
Reply
post #7 of 85
10/10/09 at 4:41pm
hi guys. i'm fairly new to this site and this audio hobby.

from what i read here i decided to give foobar a shot, so i have it on my computer now. to be honest i couldn't really tell a difference between it and itunes. so i went back to itunes because i prefer the interface and i use it with my ipod anyway. (oh yes, i'm on windows by the way).

any of those who posted earlier care to provide insights into why itunes on windows is a poor choice?

or am i not configuring my foobar properly? i've read about wasapi or asio plugins but i've no idea what they do.

additional information: i've got most of my songs ripped into 320kbps and ALAC. i'm running them out of an auzentech x-fi forte headphone output to a pair of ath-ad700s.
Reply
post #8 of 85
10/10/09 at 4:56pm
I use F2K instead of iTune on Windows due to the fact that it seem more responsive, and I like its interface (I create my own) better. It's obviously a different story with OSX.
Reply
post #9 of 85
10/10/09 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl View Post
How could iTunes on windows be significantly different in terms of sound quality than on OSX? I really don't see how the program you are using has any affect on sound quality at all. I notice no difference between foobar2000 or itunes. Its gonna take a big reason to get me to switch.

Also I tried getting file play count plug-in to work in foobar (one reason for me not using it), but it never worked. Also the tabbed play lists seem inferior to a sidebar type. I don't dislike it (still way better than wmp, winamp, or vlc), its just I find itunes superior.
No one is trying to get you to switch. It's clearly a matter of opinion.

And foobar may not necessarily sound better as is, but it gives options for ASIO kernel streaming and such, which some people say gives better SQ.
Reply
post #10 of 85
10/10/09 at 6:57pm
It is hard to imagine that player software does make a difference.
You select a song an it will play using the audio drivers supplied by the OS.
We most assume more esoteric effects like some players are more frugal on resources than other and using more resources affect sound quality in one way or another to explain possible differences.

However there a couple of reasons why there might be a difference.
WMP and I think iTunes use DS (Direct Sound)
A player like Foobar can use WASAPI on Vista.
This bypasses the mixer in Vista as it talks directly to the sound card.
Vista Tweaks

It is possible that using a different audio driver makes a difference in sound quality.
A document by dCS explains some of it: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/L...ampleRates.pdf

If you want the excellent GUI of iTunes and the configuration options of Foobar, you might have a look at J River Media Center: J River
Reply
post #11 of 85
10/10/09 at 7:30pm
like my customized columns_ui foobar gui more than itunes. Foobar is also faster and can do more stuff than itunes. (ex vst plugins capability, foobar abx, etc...)
Reply
post #12 of 85
10/10/09 at 8:52pm
you can also mod the windows version of itunes to output through the foobar engine(ASIO etc): ASIO Output with iTunes -- Multi-Plugin --
Reply
post #13 of 85
10/10/09 at 8:55pm
I would take Winamp or Foobar over Itunes. Just more options for the end user....
Reply
post #14 of 85
10/10/09 at 9:45pm
I'm not one to flame on one's parade but I despise iTunes ... were it not for the incompatability of Juice with Vista/7 for podcasting duties I wouldn't use iTunes for anything
Reply
post #15 of 85
10/11/09 at 1:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
you can also mod the windows version of itunes to output through the foobar engine(ASIO etc): ASIO Output with iTunes -- Multi-Plugin --
Interesting...thanks for the info.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar2000 vs iTunes