Foobar2000 vs iTunes
Oct 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 85

Crazy*Carl

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Posts
852
Likes
28
Here at Head-fi, the flac-foobar combination seems to be the most dominant software to go with. I tried using foobar, and while its interface was pretty good, I still found iTunes to be totally superior. Dont get me wrong, im far from an apple fan boy, but iTunes is a great program. I am just surprised I don't hear more about alac-iTunes combination's. This is what I plan on sticking with.

Any reasons for this?
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM Post #2 of 85

gattari

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Posts
423
Likes
37
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Here at Head-fi, the flac-foobar combination seems to be the most dominant software to go with. I tried using foobar, and while its interface was pretty good, I still found iTunes to be totally superior. Dont get me wrong, im far from an apple fan boy, but iTunes is a great program. I am just surprised I don't hear more about alac-iTunes combination's. This is what I plan on sticking with.

Any reasons for this?



Windows users the exact opposite happens, iTunes under win does not convince me at all.
Ciao
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 5:45 PM Post #3 of 85

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,761
Likes
76
I find iTunes to be a great application as well.
I used to be a hardcore foobar2000 and FLAC fan, but since I converted to ALAC and iTunes (on Mac OS X) some 5-6 years ago I have not looked back. I find iTunes UI to be very efficient, and its sound quality on par with anything else I have tried.

iTunes on MS Windows on the other hand...
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM Post #4 of 85

ChopTart

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Posts
25
Likes
0
Granted, I'm a windows user, so I can't comment on iTunes as a whole, but I never really liked the "hands off" approach of the program.

I never really A-B'ed foobar and itunes in terms of SQ, but overall, I just like that I get more options with foobar. Flac support is nice, since a fair amount of my music is in it, and since foobar can pretty much support everything out of the box, it's kind of a nice peace of mind. Foobar's plugins are also super-easy to install, so that's always a plus. That said, I really dig the iTunes interface --it's fun and quick to use, and probably the most intuitive I've ever used, so I tweaked foobar to work in a similar fashion.

Also not a fan of quicktime
frown.gif
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM Post #6 of 85

Crazy*Carl

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Posts
852
Likes
28
How could iTunes on windows be significantly different in terms of sound quality than on OSX? I really don't see how the program you are using has any affect on sound quality at all. I notice no difference between foobar2000 or itunes. Its gonna take a big reason to get me to switch.

Also I tried getting file play count plug-in to work in foobar (one reason for me not using it), but it never worked. Also the tabbed play lists seem inferior to a sidebar type. I don't dislike it (still way better than wmp, winamp, or vlc), its just I find itunes superior.
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM Post #7 of 85

pppppppppp

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
4
Likes
0
hi guys. i'm fairly new to this site and this audio hobby.

from what i read here i decided to give foobar a shot, so i have it on my computer now. to be honest i couldn't really tell a difference between it and itunes. so i went back to itunes because i prefer the interface and i use it with my ipod anyway. (oh yes, i'm on windows by the way).

any of those who posted earlier care to provide insights into why itunes on windows is a poor choice?

or am i not configuring my foobar properly? i've read about wasapi or asio plugins but i've no idea what they do.

additional information: i've got most of my songs ripped into 320kbps and ALAC. i'm running them out of an auzentech x-fi forte headphone output to a pair of ath-ad700s.
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 7:56 PM Post #8 of 85

jenneth

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 15, 2001
Posts
509
Likes
17
I use F2K instead of iTune on Windows due to the fact that it seem more responsive, and I like its interface (I create my own) better. It's obviously a different story with OSX.
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM Post #9 of 85

ChopTart

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Posts
25
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How could iTunes on windows be significantly different in terms of sound quality than on OSX? I really don't see how the program you are using has any affect on sound quality at all. I notice no difference between foobar2000 or itunes. Its gonna take a big reason to get me to switch.

Also I tried getting file play count plug-in to work in foobar (one reason for me not using it), but it never worked. Also the tabbed play lists seem inferior to a sidebar type. I don't dislike it (still way better than wmp, winamp, or vlc), its just I find itunes superior.



No one is trying to get you to switch. It's clearly a matter of opinion.

And foobar may not necessarily sound better as is, but it gives options for ASIO kernel streaming and such, which some people say gives better SQ.
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 9:57 PM Post #10 of 85

Roseval

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Posts
1,192
Likes
313
It is hard to imagine that player software does make a difference.
You select a song an it will play using the audio drivers supplied by the OS.
We most assume more esoteric effects like some players are more frugal on resources than other and using more resources affect sound quality in one way or another to explain possible differences.

However there a couple of reasons why there might be a difference.
WMP and I think iTunes use DS (Direct Sound)
A player like Foobar can use WASAPI on Vista.
This bypasses the mixer in Vista as it talks directly to the sound card.
Vista Tweaks

It is possible that using a different audio driver makes a difference in sound quality.
A document by dCS explains some of it: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/L...ampleRates.pdf

If you want the excellent GUI of iTunes and the configuration options of Foobar, you might have a look at J River Media Center: J River
 
Oct 10, 2009 at 10:30 PM Post #11 of 85

donunus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Posts
9,203
Likes
134
like my customized columns_ui foobar gui more than itunes. Foobar is also faster and can do more stuff than itunes. (ex vst plugins capability, foobar abx, etc...)
 
Oct 11, 2009 at 12:45 AM Post #14 of 85

bergman2

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Posts
701
Likes
10
I'm not one to flame on one's parade but I despise iTunes ... were it not for the incompatability of Juice with Vista/7 for podcasting duties I wouldn't use iTunes for anything
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top