[katabatik]

Hi
 
I've been using Winamp for a long time, but I decided to try Foobar2000. I always thought that the sound quality was independent of the player, everything else being equal. However, WinAmp and Foobar sound different. I always used Winamp without any EQ and now I'm listening to Foobar2000 on its default settings. I haven't decided yet which sounds better to my hears, but they do sound different. As anyone else had this experience?

 

[peck1234]

Straight from foobars FAQ...
 
 

 

[ManBeard]

 
As anyone else had this experience?

No. I use both and they sound exactly the same to me.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I think they sounded slightly different and I think iTunes sounds the worst (most artificial and "crispy" sounding, lacking smoothness). foobar2000 provides me the most natural sound but versus Winamp the difference is very very tiny but vs iTunes I think it's a noteworthy difference (iTunes sounds more digital to me and foobar2000 has a more analog sounding sound). 

 

[katabatik]

 
Quote:

I think they sounded slightly different and I think iTunes sounds the worst (most artificial and "crispy" sounding, lacking smoothness). foobar2000 provides me the most natural sound but versus Winamp the difference is very very tiny but vs iTunes I think it's a noteworthy difference (iTunes sounds more digital to me and foobar2000 has a more analog sounding sound). 

 

I agree that the difference is very small, but as you say, Foobar2000 sounds a little bit more "analogic".

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

 
Quote:

I agree that the difference is very small, but as you say, Foobar2000 sounds a little bit more "analogic".

 
Yea, foobar2000 is the most "analogic" sounding player I've tried and I personally love that sound so it's an easy pick for me. Then that I further use my custom dolby headphone config with it to improve soundstage, there's no other option I'd concider anymore.

 

[katabatik]

Edit: nevermind.
 

 

[astrallite]

What the heck is analogic.
 
And they probably have different decoding algorithms but whether that's audible or not is unknown. Certainly when it comes to video it can make a visual difference between software players.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

^ Some EQ's like Electri-Q offer both a "digital" and "analog" filter to try and simulate the effect of those two, I think that's a good comparision. While analog-sound shouldn't be a measurable factor, it gives the same kind of "effect". If I was forced to give an explanation of how it sounds like comparing iTunes vs foobar2000; iTunes have a more crispy (almost grainy) and dry (lack of reverb) sound while foobar2000 has ever so slightly warmer, smoother, "fullier" sound.

 

[katabatik]

 
Quote:

foobar2000 has ever so slightly warmer, smoother, "fullier" sound.

 
You nailed it!

 

[EliasPiesdPlomo]

Hello, guys I've been reading carefully your opinions and also believed there shoul be no difference between the Foobar and Winamp. However I tried today the two with the same files -the first time with McCartneys Rock Show and then with Huble Pie's Natural Born Boogie in mp3 cbr 320 both with flat equalisation and experienced a sensation of wider space between the instruments -as if the bands were playing in bigger places- in favour of Foobar. Can you please tell me if i'm going crazy? I don't want to leave Winamp as I used to it but if what I've just told proves true I will. Thaks for your time.
 

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I don't think you are crazy or at least you're not the only crazy guy in that case , I believe I left Winamp for foobar2000  because I actually thought foobar2000 had better soundquality, more spacious, more real-life sounding. I hadn't also left Winamp for no reason as I was used to it. It was a bit like comparing closed vs open headphones, of course that's heavy exaggeration but the differences were somewhat similar but to much much less extent obviously.
 
I may be crazy but between iTunes, Winamp, foobar2000 I tend to hear these kinds of differences sound wise:
 
iTunes: my least preferred sound, has the coldest, crispiest (highs especially in an almost colored way (think Grado style), very digital sounding
 
Winamp: The warmest sounding of the three, smoothest, somewhat compressed soundstage
 
foobar2000: the most natural and neutral sounding of the three; neither cold nor warm or excessively digital or analog sounding, just right.

 

[autoteleology]

I'd guess that the players just use slightly different signal levels for max volume, altering the volume and your hearing contours ever so slightly.

 

[rgandblue]

I have not listen carefully to foobar sq, I prefer windows media player for smoother sound compared to winamp and its true for mp3 and cd (don't know for other format/source). But recently i install and change the resolution of mad plugin to 24 bit, now winamp sound alike to wmp.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

^ Some EQ's like Electri-Q offer both a "digital" and "analog" filter to try and simulate the effect of those two, I think that's a good comparision. While analog-sound shouldn't be a measurable factor, it gives the same kind of "effect". If I was forced to give an explanation of how it sounds like comparing iTunes vs foobar2000; iTunes have a more crispy (almost grainy) and dry (lack of reverb) sound while foobar2000 has ever so slightly warmer, smoother, "fullier" sound.

That filter is measurable. It just adds harmonic distortion.