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 - Page 2

post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by primus
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.
To understand what resampling does you first need to understand how PCM audio works. Here is an excellent paper on it (you only need to read the first two sections to understand resampling). Resampling changes the number of samples per second but it introduces distortion unless it's done very well (like SSRC or many high-end commercial resamplers). This is actually desireable to the computer-bound audiophile because most onboard audio and some add-in soundcards (SB-Live, Audigy, cheapo AC'97-based) resample their audio with horrible algorithms that introduce many distrotions and to avoid that we use high quality resamplers before the data is sent to the soundcard. Also, some soundcards, including high-end ones, that don't resample sound better at higher sample rates than at the naitive sample rate of the audio.
post #17 of 29
Foobar (ds with no resampling) not because I can say it sounds better than Winamp, but because the ease of the mass tagger/CD burner/RG/tabbed playlist.

It's not perfect though, once in a while one of the channels gets muted for reasons unknown.
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by commando
I use FooBar because IMHO it sounds better when playing FLAC. It's a close call though, and it could even be my imagination.
If you're using no DSPs, it should sound exactly the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Radar
I think that most people here use FB2k because of it's resampler DSP and support for pretty much everything except ALAC.
If all you're using is solely resampling, then the ASIO output plugin for Winamp has a better sounding setting called TOP.

I myself use Winamp.
post #19 of 29
FOOBAR all the way

I love tabbed playlists

compatability with all my file types (flac, ape, cue sheets, mp3 etc)
(I hate having to download a half dozen or more plugins to get winamp to work)

Sound quality, I prefer foobar, the plugins just seem to be of better quality, foobar uses 64 bit code instead of winamps 16 bit code, foobar is just all around a superior lil player.
post #20 of 29
i still think MMJB is better.
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacago
i still think MMJB is better.
You must have tin ears. I've tried that exact same version of MMJB before - once. It always mangles the sound of digital audio, no matter what I had tried with that player. To make matters worse, it always sends audio to the DirectSound interface (and thus the infamous Windows Kmixer for those people running Windows 2000 or Windows XP), and it doesn't support ASIO or KS at all whatsoever. In other words, it's no better than WMP.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by lan
If all you're using is solely resampling, then the ASIO output plugin for Winamp has a better sounding setting called TOP.
Have you ever noticed that this plugin is a little unreliable? If ANYTHING tries to access the soundcard on my machine, it kinda seems to speed up to about 5x its original speed, that is, the tempo of the music increases by 5x. Peculiar bug. Not only that, but its CPU usage is enormous in comparison to Foobar with upamspling.. Seeing as I notice only a 2% maximum improvement, I continue to use Foobar and live without these bugs.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver
In other words, it's no better than WMP.
if you really think it's no better than WMP, i have to say you r so biased
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbirkett
Have you ever noticed that this plugin is a little unreliable? If ANYTHING tries to access the soundcard on my machine, it kinda seems to speed up to about 5x its original speed, that is, the tempo of the music increases by 5x. Peculiar bug. Not only that, but its CPU usage is enormous in comparison to Foobar with upamspling.. Seeing as I notice only a 2% maximum improvement, I continue to use Foobar and live without these bugs.
I never had a problem with it in it's various versions and soundcards I've ever used. Computers have weird issues. You may have a combo of conditions that makes it act strange. *shrug*

As for CPU usage, using TOP setting does use more CPU power which goes towards better sound processing.

I can imagine why you're seeing only 2% improvement as it's the soundcard. It gets harder and harder to see improvements with anything when the source and power isn't at their best.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacago
if you really think it's no better than WMP, i have to say you r so biased
omg lol no u r biased man
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver
In other words, it's no better than WMP.
Is WMP so bad? I use it and foobar. I don't hear a difference - but I suppose my sound card is bypassing kmixer.
I tried installing winamp a long time ago. A truly horrific voice started speaking when I ran the software. Enough to put me off for life.
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by lan
I can imagine why you're seeing only 2% improvement as it's the soundcard. It gets harder and harder to see improvements with anything when the source and power isn't at their best.
Sorry man, but I dont buy that. There is a difference, but we are talking the last few percent here, not like changing to different gear. AFAIC, people exagerrate the difference between Winamp and Foobar (I could not say with any authority I could blind test those two apart), and the difference here is certainly no more than the normal difference between Winamp and Foobar. This is one area where you will never get me to agree that there is a huge difference, because AFAIC the "huge" difference exists only in the heads of audiophiles.
post #28 of 29
Well it's a system of many parts. You will be limited by the lesser ones.

It's philosophical. I stand to say the difference is like 10-15% or the equivalent of a cable upgrade. Now if only 1% of computer setups see this, then what is the reality?

a) The difference is negligible because 99% of people don't witness it
b) The difference is still 10-15%.

The other 99% of people may realize a 10-15% differece as only 2% because of component limitations.

Also if you use a more resolving system, then you'd realize that even the TOP setting in Winamp isn't good enough. It would be like going from fair (foobar) to good (winamp). So whether it's 10-15% better doesn't make a difference as you wouldn't choose to use it at all. For those who use Audigy 2, the software resampling would still give better results than their hardware one. It's all a matter of the lesser evils and this is relative to what you have.
post #29 of 29
lan, I dont know whether the 10-15% was your honest appraisal of it, or whether you were just stating it as an example, although I would have to agree that the difference is very similar to changing cables, but what I dont agree with is the size of the difference. With cables, I believe again we are looking at a 5% improvement TOP. I am not really a cable believer (it either does its job perfectly, or not), and while they do make a difference, the difference is usually very small. And AFAIC, that is the same here with the difference between different players and / or output modes.
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