Foobar Vs. iTunes Sound Qualities

I've been using iTunes for my computer audio; but, today I downloaded Foobar; and, playing music from the iTunes library, my perception is Foobar sounds better, by that I mean, it seems to be clearer than iTunes. I can discern instruments and lyrics, in addition to tighter bass from my sub. Is this just my imagination?

I'm using an X-FI HD for USB to S/PDIF Toslink input on Sony TA-E9000ES. Laptop is running Windows 7 with audio up-sampled to 24/96.

Yes, it is interesting. I was just looking for a program which could play flac files and I did not like Media Monkey's intuitiveness, so Foobar was just something else I thought I'd try out. Seems, it does sound better, and until now I thought it all sounded the same, 256k from computer or SACD direct. I really do seem to hear breadth not heard before. It's like a hit of equalization; yet, in both programs EQ is set flat. Bass is  more natural too. Foobar literature says Foobar does not sound better than other media players so I'm assuming there's something different in set parameters,  route, or up-sampling arena. So far, the song that really stands out is an iTunes ACC download, Edward Maya's, This Is My Life, extended mix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocelot2500 

I can't say for sure that iTunes vs Foobar without tweaking is better, but when I started using ASIO or WASAPI with Foobar I found it to be better, which makes sense because there is one less crappy filter in the way. But either way, whatever you find sounds better you should stick with.

What's WASAPI? What's ASIO?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD 

While using DS (ie. NOT WASAPI/ASIO) and comparing the two, I think iTunes is slightly brighter/cold in the tonal balance (and more prone to distortion in the highs) and the bass is more tight (in an unrealistic way lacking in the very deep end) on iTunes while foobar have a little more fullbodied bass with just tiny bit warmer/more musical presentation, more accurate or natural highs (maybe less "metallic"/grainy) or whatever you'd describe it (ofc it'll depend on headphones which is more suited but still). To me foobar2000 easily sounds better and I'd use probably Winamp before iTunes (iTunes have the worst sound quality in my ears of those 3, haven't tried other ones besides WMP then).

I don't know anything about WASAPI, that's to say, I don't understand the concept; but, it does seem to me music from my iTunes library sounds better, no matter what the file size or type, when played with Foobar rather than iTunes, in much the manner as you described your experience. BTW, my laptop is a DELL Inspiron 14 loaded with Windows 7. I'm using an X-FI HD for USB to S/PDIF input to Sony TA-E9000ES preamp. The digital input is up-sampled, somewhere in the computer, I don't know where, to 24/96. And my experience is as  heard with JBL L100t3's and JBL B380 sub-woofer. At any rate, I'm real happy, and am looking forward to downloading an HD tune or two from HD Tracks to see if such music is worth it.
 

Since Foobar does not acknowledge sounding better, it makes me wonder if iTunes is perhaps just not set properly. For sure, my ears hear more details using Foobar, which is astonishing to me since until now I could not distinguish 256k material off the computer from the same material on SACD played from a Sony DVP-S9000ES. On some material the details revealed are not just subtle but quite dramatic..