Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Best FLAC player for PC?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best FLAC player for PC? - Page 9

post #121 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDobermanxX View Post

Foobar2000 & MediaMonkey.....sorry itunes

Apple's (itunes') idea of not accepting other formats like FLAC is really a crappy one!

post #122 of 213

Here I have dBpoweramp to rip CDs, Foobar 2000 with head-fit crossfeed plugin for playback, and iTunes still installed to play nice with my Apple gear and handle library management. 

post #123 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzena View Post

What's wrong with FLAC format for you?
Well, in case it was not obvious in my post: Windows supports WMA lossless out of the box completely (and so does foobar). Same goes to Windows Phone 8. Also when I add those files to my phone, it generates folder structure automatically based on tags (not really needed since I tag everything anyway). WMA Lossless works better on my Lumia than FLAC ever did on my Galaxy S.

Both are lossless and more or less the same size, WMA just works much better in my case.
post #124 of 213

I have to agree with all the users that have foobar. It's probably the best choice. There are also so many plugins and addons that can enhance your experience.

post #125 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckles View Post

The Absolute Sound is currently in the middle of a 4 part series on computer audio and in part 2 (last month) they rated several programs.  Top program (for both CD ripping and playback) was JRiver Media Center.  $50 (but does have a 30 day trial period).  Two additional plug ins CPlay ($free) and JPlay (99 euros, has a hobbled trial package) add a huge amount to JRMC according to the articles.  CPlay is stand alone and minimally featured.  Jplay now rides on top of  the JRMC interface.

 

You want the best player, there is one person's opinion.

 

Will have to give JRiver a shot (hadn't heard of Jplay, thanks)!  

 

I am curious to compare the crossfeed on JRMC versus head-fit on FB2K.  

post #126 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrislangley4253 View Post

No, there is no eq. If you want EQ click view and then equalizer.

Take your FLAC and encode it to V0 or 320 using dBpoweramp.. You won't hear a difference. If you can tell the difference right now it's either in your head, or it's an encoding error. I can tell the difference when the bitrate is too low (any lower than 192, 128 is painfully obvious, for example). I can also tell when an mp3 is a few years old (the encoders just weren't as good back then).

 

Also, you don't have to use dBpoweramp. It's just what I use, because I have it.


You must be joking right? The difference between 320 mp3 and CD Flac is huge and so on is between CD FLAC and hi-rez FLACs.


Edited by sebna - 2/17/13 at 12:45am
post #127 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebna View Post


You must be joking right? The difference between 320 mp3 and CD Flac is huge and so on is between CD FLAC and hi-rez FLACs.

 

Um ....... yeah .......nah

 

I take it you've never performed abx?  If you're actually interested in learning what placebo can do - try this ....

 

Take your favourite CD and rip your favourite track to FLAC (or some other lossless container)

Take that same ripped file, and transcode it to the lossy version you'd like to test against.  I'd recommend aac256 (if you're running Apple) and mp3 320.  I use dbpoweramp for the transcoding.

 

Download and setup foobar 2K  Using the abx comparator, compare the two tracks (lossy & lossless).  Make sure you apply replay-gain first to volume match.  Click the 'test blind' box - it's more a of a shock when you see the results.

 

All this will take about 10 minutes to set-up.  Run 15 iterations on your favourite track.  If you have the 'balls' to do it - post the results.  I guarantee you that you'll fail.  Then you'll realise that you're like the rest of us (ie have normal ears).

 

There is no massive audible difference between lossless & higher bit-rate lossy if it's transcoded properly.  Do your self a favour - try the test, then stop perpetuating the myth.  And if you really want to educate yourself - try abxing lossless vs aac~200.  That'll really open your eyes.

post #128 of 213
Freind of mine passed such a test, personally I have't tested this yet. Personally though I'm pretty sure of what I hear, but certainly it is well worth for each person to test things in their own system with their own ears before making a decision, and ultimately we know that the difference isn't really that huge to lose sleep over.
For my own decisions I'm happy to live without the "certainty" of an ABX comparison, and I don't personally have a lot riding on whether mp3 sounds different to flac or wav. Ripping to Flac or wav is a good idea regardless of sq difference. If you archive files in flac you may as well listen to them in flac.
If you are after a full featured player with nice UI then it is hard to go past Jriver, if you are trying to squeeze that elusive last 1% sq out of your system then some of these players like JPlay, cplay etc are worth trying at least.
post #129 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Um ....... yeah .......nah

I take it you've never performed abx?  If you're actually interested in learning what placebo can do - try this ....

Take your favourite CD and rip your favourite track to FLAC (or some other lossless container)
Take that same ripped file, and transcode it to the lossy version you'd like to test against.  I'd recommend aac256 (if you're running Apple) and mp3 320.  I use dbpoweramp for the transcoding.

Download and setup foobar 2K  Using the abx comparator, compare the two tracks (lossy & lossless).  Make sure you apply replay-gain first to volume match.  Click the 'test blind' box - it's more a of a shock when you see the results.

All this will take about 10 minutes to set-up.  Run 15 iterations on your favourite track.  If you have the 'balls' to do it - post the results.  I guarantee you that you'll fail.  Then you'll realise that you're like the rest of us (ie have normal ears).

There is no massive audible difference between lossless & higher bit-rate lossy if it's transcoded properly.  Do your self a favour - try the test, then stop perpetuating the myth.  And if you really want to educate yourself - try abxing lossless vs aac~200.  That'll really open your eyes.
Some tracks compress better than others. Massive or not, there is a difference why limit yourself to lossy format?
post #130 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarion View Post


Some tracks compress better than others. Massive or not, there is a difference why limit yourself to lossy format?

 

I don't.  I use FLAC on my home system - it makes sense for archiving.  For everything else (my portables) - I use aac vbr ~ 200.  To me it's transparent.

 

It always makes me laugh though ...... the comments re night and day differences, or even the ones that claim any audible difference between aac256/mp320 and lossless - as soon as you ask for abx testing ....... you get no reply (or you get a quick change of subject).  I'm not debating that at 128 kbps there is audible artifacting.  I am saying that this perpetual myth of people being able to discern differences between aac256/mp3 320 vs lossy (when properly transcoded) needs to stop.

 

For a portable with limited space - there is no reason not to use aac256.

post #131 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebna View Post


You must be joking right? The difference between 320 mp3 and CD Flac is huge and so on is between CD FLAC and hi-rez FLACs.

 

In terms of memory use, yes...

 

However, no one can really ***hear*** the difference - some people think they can, but that's not the same thing.

post #132 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

I don't.  I use FLAC on my home system - it makes sense for archiving.  For everything else (my portables) - I use aac vbr ~ 200.  To me it's transparent.

 

It always makes me laugh though ...... the comments re night and day differences, or even the ones that claim any audible difference between aac256/mp320 and lossless - as soon as you ask for abx testing ....... you get no reply (or you get a quick change of subject).  I'm not debating that at 128 kbps there is audible artifacting.  I am saying that this perpetual myth of people being able to discern differences between aac256/mp3 320 vs lossy (when properly transcoded) needs to stop.

 

For a portable with limited space - there is no reason not to use aac256.

And if I tell you I've done it and got it right, would you believe me anyway or even comment. Let folks decide for themselves and get off the soap box. That discussion is for the sound science forum and not every thread that mentions format. Not everyone hears alike, has the same kit to evaluate with and your brain playing tricks on you can work either way depending on desire and expectation. Lets try to keep it on topic.

post #133 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

And if I tell you I've done it and got it right, would you believe me anyway or even comment. Let folks decide for themselves and get off the soap box. That discussion is for the sound science forum and not every thread that mentions format. Not everyone hears alike, has the same kit to evaluate with and your brain playing tricks on you can work either way depending on desire and expectation. Lets try to keep it on topic.

 

Wasn't on the soapbox - and I have as much right to comment as you (unless the rules have changed here).  I apologise that I was O-T, but I'd imagine that you (if you actually have abx'd) would agree with me that this "obvious difference" BS has gone on long enough.  As far as variables go (hearing/kit etc) - can't say I agree so much.  Couple on here with excellent ears & kit (Stax) haven't been able to abx 320 either .....

 

Back O-T .... I use Foobar 2000 - very configurable

post #134 of 213

You can be on the soapbox but this is the wrong thread for it. Mods don't like it for a reason as it will consume the topic if you don't drop it. When it comes to lossy, I like CBR 400 aac nero over 320. I can still hear ambiance and reverberation die too quickly in 320. I use Wave at home. Flac, aac and wav on the go. I own Stax, jh13s and various Quad electrostatics and dynamics for transducers. I would never use a computer with a USB DAC as a reference point for an absolute about anything. I was comparing 24/192 pro A2Ds yesterday off an analog master and could repeatedly pick which was which. Both sounded great but if I was using a PC for playback, I'd have been clueless. Just because you personally don't hear something, it isn't proof it's not there and telling others what they do and don't hear is poor form. Mods actually frown on what you're doing in this thread and why I mentioned the sound science forum. This is my last post on the subject here as the last thing i want to do is prolong it.

 

I also think Foobar is a great choice for PCs.

post #135 of 213

Personally, I use foobar only to apply a pre-amp of +5 dB to my songs when I create the ReplayGain values.  I use MediaMonkey for actual playing, especially since I have a Cover Flow analogue installed.  I would REALLY love to use MusicBee, but I can only get up to ~526 songas synched before MusicBee freezes and I have to use Task Manager to close the program.  If anyone can figure this out, I would be appreciative.

 

Also, I know this is a shot in the dark, but is there a chance that someone came up with a plugin that can work with Album Art Exchange?  I want to re-tag all of my music with universal 600x600 art before I RockBox my iPod Classic, and I really don't have the patience to browse the site as slowly as I am forced to, considering my library is right now at ~2100 songs, and I have to save the file, move it to the album folder, and re-tag using MP3Tag.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Best FLAC player for PC?