[zhunter]

Foobar2k doesn't "sound" if you're using Asio or Wasapi, it's bit-perfect so techincally the software itself doesn't involve in sound processing. It only bypasses the digital bit-perfect signal to the DAC via your choice of output.
 

 

[frozenat99]

I think Foobar is better than winamp

 

[drumiha]

Another vote for foobar 

 

[n0str3ss]

At least if we could merge the good looks from winamp to the functionality of foobar....

I just love the organization from winamp and on the other side foobar can do so more in terms of sound

 

[keane1024]

I've been using foobar for many years, not because it sounds better, but simply because it's very convenient to use. But recently I just switched to jriver

 

[wolfz]

I have Audirvana , Pure Music , J.River 19 and Foobar.  After many hours of comparing ( Nuforce Dac9 with amp and HD650 )
I can only say that all sound different. In the end it is just a matter of taste......Foobar indeed sounds more "analogue" than the
other players. A very nice SQ!

 

[DanoRoo]

  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.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  Perceived QUALITY difference is actually QUANTITY difference.

 

[mindbomb]

the precision of the mp3 and aac decoder in winamp is higher, but there is no practical difference. I use foobar because it appears less bloated and has great ASIO and wasapi exclusive mode plugins. Having access to those interfaces is very important for quality imo.

 

[kraken2109]

  the precision of the mp3 and aac decoder in winamp is higher, but there is no practical difference. I use foobar because it appears less bloated and has great ASIO and wasapi exclusive mode plugins. Having access to those interfaces is very important for quality imo.

Source on the first part?

 

[mindbomb]

winamp uses a 64 float fraunhofer decoder and foobar uses a 32 float ffmpeg decoder.

 

[kraken2109]

  winamp uses a 64 float fraunhofer decoder and foobar uses a 32 float ffmpeg decoder.

I asked for a source

 

[mindbomb]

http://help.winamp.com/customer/portal/articles/1283574-version-history#Winamp_5.3
 
It says there that their mp3 decoder works in 64 bit precision. It's unusually high. I assume the AAC decoder has it as well, though it's not explicitly stated. Let me reiterate that it doesn't make any practical difference, I just thought it was an interesting piece of trivia.

 

[rock&rollfrenchfries]

I find winamp to be smoother. foobar seems a little brighter and more edgy in the upper ranges.

 

[rock&rollfrenchfries]

And yes i use asio or wasapi on foobar. I used it on winamp but the wasapi plugin as some of you know crashes all the time. BUT i realized that direct sound for either one does not make a noticeable difference from wasapi or asio. BUT either player definitely and clearly to me does have different sound characteristics. Winamp i can most certainly listen to longer without fatigue. 

 

[PalJoey]

Not tried WinAmp, but I am a fan of Foobar. I use WASAPI for most listening, but do have some old MP3 files with odd bitrates that require a switch to DS output. Foobar doesn't seem to tax an older computer's resources like some media players.
 
I started my computer audio experience with Windows Media Player, because that was what was already on the laptop, but it's awfully slow at detecting new files in the library, and since I went from using WMA lossless to FLAC, of course it won't recognise the latter.
 
One thing, though; when I use WMP, I find myself selecting different albums to listen to, as I spot cover art in the library, compared to when I browse the more texty Foobar. So I do still revert to WMP on occasion, just to see if I stumble upon something I haven't listened to in a while.