Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar vs Mediamonkey 4 Wasapi comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foobar vs Mediamonkey 4 Wasapi comparison - Page 2

post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Uthadude View Post

@maud

I have and use foobar. It's a great player. I was merely quoting the foobar people to help the new Head-Fiers. I don't think it's fair to lead them to believe that they're going to hear big radical differences. Look at the first word of foobar's answer. If you hear a difference, well that's great, because it really is all about what sounds best to you. I got on this kick when I started to blind test my friends when they came over. Next thing you know it was, "you try it". I made 3 playlists of the same songs. (They both had a couple different mp3's hidden inside with the flacs.) I loaded the playlists into foobar, mediamonkey and xmplay. No one could get it consistently right. Certain mp3's got picked most of the time. Some not. But nobody could tell which software was playing.  At first I was bummed ('cuz I'm Superman you know =^)  Now I'm enjoying my music more because I'm not trying to hear things I can't. Try telling the difference when you don't know what's playing. You might be surprised; I was.



Again, look at the second word of foobar's answer.

 

Justin, I don't think you're in any position to doubt what people can or cannot hear, so quit it.

post #17 of 24

one thing i am concerned about. jriver works for me at 100ms. foobar needs at least 1000ms(the stock setting). is it not an apples to aples comparison or something? why does foobar need so much of a buffer? i have heard people can do less than 500 on foobar but it skips on me sometimes. i suppose that only matters if you need real time which i don't. or have i set something else wrong? i agree, that foobar properly setup does sound the best of any of them. even though the author of foobar says they all sound the same. that is real cool of him to say what he honestly thinks and give the software for free! well, i guess he has nothing to loose then actually.

post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_man View Post

one thing i am concerned about. jriver works for me at 100ms. foobar needs at least 1000ms(the stock setting). is it not an apples to aples comparison or something? why does foobar need so much of a buffer? i have heard people can do less than 500 on foobar but it skips on me sometimes. i suppose that only matters if you need real time which i don't. or have i set something else wrong? i agree, that foobar properly setup does sound the best of any of them. even though the author of foobar says they all sound the same. that is real cool of him to say what he honestly thinks and give the software for free! well, i guess he has nothing to loose then actually.


 

foobar2000 runs very well at 500ms without any issues whatsoever on rather low system specs, and the response time is rather swift IMO. But just like you said, very low buffers are for people who do realtime audio work, which is not foobar's purpose.

post #19 of 24
I've been trying some other players to compare to FB and there aren't many to hold up to it I'm currently trying AIMP2 with good results but haven't done any A/B until I get my HE-6 back. I've tried MM. JM, Ulilth, winamp, itunes and still go back to FB. Windows XP.
Edited by Happy Camper - 5/25/11 at 5:52pm
post #20 of 24

I can run foobar2000 with a very very low buffer but as soon as I start doing something (even simply browsing the web) I'll get pops. I have good system specs but since I'm always sitting behind my pc and doing several things I need at least 2000ms.  

 

Guess it doesn't matter but it's true that I don't need a high buffer with other players. No idea why, I don't even use any DSP or do any processing apart from the volume control. 

post #21 of 24

I did a little test, I took an mp3 and played it in both MediaMonkey4 and fb2k with wasapi, volume at 100%, ReplayGain/Volume correction and effects disabled.

 

I recorded the output of both players and compared it to the reference.

 

- The fb2k track nulls (i.e. is identical) to the reference. :)

- The MediaMonkey4 track shows differences and does not null. :(

 

When recording the mm4's output I already noticed that the track never reaches 0 dBFS like the reference track, I'm wondering what's causing this.

Either I overlooked some setting in mm4's options or it does some processing on its own (but where is this documented?).


Edited by xnor - 5/26/11 at 3:36am
post #22 of 24

Good job xnor. Sounds like possibly clipping prevention? MM4 is still in beta. Which version did you test?

post #23 of 24

version 4.0.0.1380

 

If I configure their WASAPI output plugin to use exclusive mode it seems to work as expected (i.e. the recorded track nulls as well).

post #24 of 24

So they're both bit perfect; cool. If you don't mind me asking, which program did you use to compare the files? Is it in the public domain?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar vs Mediamonkey 4 Wasapi comparison