New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

why foobar? - Page 2

post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasper994
It's hard to say why you like Winamp more that Foobar. Most people here after listening for a while prefer Foobar. It's sound is open and airy which is nice for critical listening. Make sure you have the resampler and bit rate settings configured correctly for the card you are using and that you have the DSP's on for them.
Hey guys, I'm just trying out foobar right now. So far it sounds pretty harsh to my ears. I am used to listening to Winamp 2 using the "enhancer" dsp on the normal setting which I find gives it a bit of a midrange boost. You mentioned setting the resampler and bit rate settings configured correctly and dsp's and all that.

How do I know which settings are right for my card? I have an audigy 2. Also, are there any plugins that anyone would recommend for this player?

Thanks.
post #17 of 53
maybe the audigy2 is the problem (it's commonly known around here as not quite ideal for reproducing music). But foobar (with kernel streaming) is simply more accurate and detailed to my ears, although that added detail might sound harsh to some people who are used to hearing winamp.
post #18 of 53
Yes... I'm aware that audigy2 isn't that great for music, but it is great for games...

But what should I set all those settings to? Anybody?
post #19 of 53
I wouldn't use ANY plugins (I'm assuming you mean sound altering DSPs like popular ones found for winamp...)

For an audigy 2 I would use

Output: Directsound w/hardware mixing enabled
Playback: 24 Bit fixed point.
No dithering

For DSPs that come with foobar already I would just have the Resampler(SSRC), volume control, and Soft Clipping Limited (in that order). Maybe convert stereo to 4 or 5 channels depending on your speakers.

Also make sure for your audigy 2, that you have NO EAX effects on, and disable all CMSS. I've also read that things such as running the 'speaker calibration' software is a no-no, and its best not to adjust the bass and treble settings in surround mixer.
post #20 of 53
Thanks! I'm trying it right now.

*edit*

Okay... I've been listening to the same tracks (doing A/B comparisons) using winamp2 and fb2k and I think that fb2k beats winamp2 when both are compared not using any sound-altering dsps (like equalizer). The sound that fb2k produces is... different. In a good way. Sounds that are produced by instruments sound more realistic IMO. One thing that I don't think it has lots of is low-bass punchiness. It has bass, but for some reason it doesn't deliver the low-bass impact I was hoping for. Mids are awesome though.

Winamp2 with the enhancer plugin is another story. Very close decision. Actually... I'm still not totally sure which to pick. Using the normal settings on enhancer with the volume setting maxed out at 5 produces more punch in the bass department. This makes for a more exciting sound IMO. Also, the highs sound a little more apparent when using the enhancer. Although it may sound more apparent... I question how acurately enhancer produces highs, and lows for that matter.

I would have to agree what others have written about FB2K having an airy quality to it. It certainly sounds more open compared to winamp. That is one thing that is very noticable. Instruments just seem to have more room to let their sounds flow out nicely. Winamp seems as if the sounds the instruments produce are sharper, but with less decay... giving it a more cramped room, artificial sound.

So I'm sure audiophiles are going for the realism that foobar produces, whereas winamp2 + enhancer creates a more artificial, bass-heavy sound.

Of course, both could have their own niches. Winamp2 + E being more suited towards bass-heavy tracks electronica, and FB2K being more suited towards natural sounds produced by conventional musical instruments.

I'm going to give foobar a good trial run and see how I like it. I've been using winamp2 forever and I have no beefs with it in terms of functionality.

I will most definitely miss my Legend Of Zelda : LTTP winamp skin. It rocks.


Later
post #21 of 53
I find it odd that none of you mention CoolPlayer. Despite its somewhat silly name, I think it sounds a lot smoother than foobar and a whole lot less tiny than winamp.
(Cool Wave Mapper enabled and no EQ adjustments)

Foobar seems to just offer harsher highs, IMO.

On the other hand, I *am* using an Audigy 2 at the moment, so this could be the reason why I think this. When I get my second soundcard, I'll be able to determine better.

As it stands, my next card will be either an Echo Mia Midi or Audiophile USB.
post #22 of 53
Well, I guess I'll give CoolPlayer a try, CrawlingEye. I'll do an A/B test (not blind tho) on CoolPlayer vs. Foobar2k. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I will use the same settings as you since I too have an Audigy2.

I'll let you know how it goes...
post #23 of 53
I used to use coolplayer before foobar 2000, its a good player, I havn't tried it in awhile.

Well Slunk, it sounds like you enjoy 'exciting' music rather than 'accurate' music, which is what most people here enjoy, I would never touch those DSP's you mention, as they alter the original sound. BTW did you ever mention what speakers or headphones you are using?
post #24 of 53
Yes, I am aware that DSP's change the sound. However I think foobar2k has a more accurate sound than winamp.

As for headphones and speakers: Audio Technica A900, and Monsoon PlanarMedia 14's respectively.

For all listening tests, I used my a900's because they aren't as bass-heavy as my PM14's are. Plus, I am still burning-in my a900's.
post #25 of 53
I went from winamp w/ MAD to coolplayer to foobar2k, and IMHO foobar2k beats coolplayer hands down in terms of both detail and accuracy (this is on audiophile USB > maxed META > HD580). Coolplayer has some nice skins though...
post #26 of 53
Personally I would try using the dither with strong ath noise shaping. Try the hardware mixing off and use the software resampled to 48khz in slow mode.

-EDIT-

make sure the resampler is active in the DSP settings.
post #27 of 53
I haven't even considered listening to different quality of sound from the different players. How does Media Center 9.1 or 10 compare to foobar
post #28 of 53
I'm using winamp5 with mad plug-in and crossfeed. i have an Audigy2... I have not heard anything better in my PC as far as Mp3s goes...

For wave files, which are ripped from CD lossless WMP9 is the best all round player with balanced, and detailed sound.

Foobar always sounded bland and boring to me; however, i like to enjoy my music rather than follow some audiophilia edict about sound purity.
post #29 of 53
I like Foobar's simpler layout. Not to mention a far lower CPU and memory footprint. And let's not mention Playlist management, and WinAmp's playlist scrolling is sloooooooooooooooooooooow compared to Foobar.

-Ed
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally posted by wali
I'm using winamp5 with mad plug-in and crossfeed. i have an Audigy2... I have not heard anything better in my PC as far as Mp3s goes...

For wave files, which are ripped from CD lossless WMP9 is the best all round player with balanced, and detailed sound.

Foobar always sounded bland and boring to me; however, i like to enjoy my music rather than follow some audiophilia edict about sound purity.
It's better for your wallet to not know what you are missing. Trust me. It's not an edict. It's an obsession.

-Ed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components