Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar 2000 or Winamp or other
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foobar 2000 or Winamp or other

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
What's your player of choice?

Currently mine is foobar2000, it seems like winamp adds some type of bass boost to my songs as they sound different in winamp dunno :/.
post #2 of 29
I think that most people here use FB2k because of it's resampler DSP and support for pretty much everything except ALAC. Those who have Macs, an iPod, or use ALAC or AAC as their primary codec probably use iTunes.
post #3 of 29
Foobar all the way. I was skeptical making the switch at first, but I havent looked back since. One of my favorite "features" is foobar's ability to properly load cuesheet's natively without any problem. With winamp, if you have a vbr mp3, flac, etc, the cuesheet plugin cant load it thanks to some ingenious incompatibility with the way winamp reads the files in order to quickly fast forward (the creator of the plugin has more info on his website, which I dont feel like looking for )
post #4 of 29
I use FooBar because IMHO it sounds better when playing FLAC. It's a close call though, and it could even be my imagination.
post #5 of 29

MusicMatch

I have been using Musicmatch Jukebox from version 4. It has much better sound quality than early versions of Winamp. Anyone has compared MMJB to foobar?
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacago
I have been using Musicmatch Jukebox from version 4. It has much better sound quality than early versions of Winamp. Anyone has compared MMJB to foobar?
Yup, if you have anything better than an Audigy sound card Foobar will win hands down.
post #7 of 29
* > Musicmatch Jukebox
-Mag
post #8 of 29
Only recently have I even started trying Foobar2000.
I voted for it anyway, because the other two media players that I tried for music - Winamp and WMP9 - both have flashy interfaces that can hog system resources. Worse, the overstyled (IMHO) interfaces of both Winamp and WMP9 made it even more difficult to figure out which control to click on than the default interface of Foobar2K (which is plain and dowdy, but it works). Additionally, all versions of WMP for Windows 2000 and Windows XP send all audio to the Kmixer via their only output method (DirectSound), which resamples audio anyway - using an alogarithm that is almost as crappy as the hardware-based resampling alogarithm used in most Creative Sound Blaster soundcards.
post #9 of 29
foobar
post #10 of 29
foobar foobar foobar
post #11 of 29
One more vote for Foobar2000
post #12 of 29
I use foobar. Winamp skips whenever I use asio with it and browse the web.

I wonder if lan will show us all up
post #13 of 29
I tried Foobar a long time ago, but it seemed a bit too complicated for my liking ... though all this talk seems interesting. What exactly does resampling do to the sound?

I currently use Winamp 2.XX with this 'MAD' input plug-in which supposedly inproves sound quality.
post #14 of 29
Foobar: ASIO plug-in, 44.1 Hz, 24 bit, Columns_UI with Plisk's style.
post #15 of 29
I use Winamp, tried Foobar but it keeps skipping and freezing on CDs for some reason
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar 2000 or Winamp or other