[aphex944]

Just found this on www.betanews.com -- http://koti.welho.com/hylinen/apollo/

A few comments on BetaNews were raving about the sound quality, so I did a quick comparison between Foobar2k and Apollo, using Lame VBR mp3s. I can't really tell any difference audibly. Apollo may sound a bit thinner and brighter, but it's so subtle I can't definitively say yay or nay. I decoded an MP3 using both programs to WAV to compare the actual output. The Foobar WAV was 55,967,788 bytes, the Apollo was 55,968,812. Which is a difference of 1,024 bytes, any idea why it would be exactly 1KB?

Anyone else want to give it a shot?

 

[scottder]

Quick test, I didn't notice much difference, and I love the added fucntionality of foobar2000.

 

[Zanth]

I used to use Apollo but then it was bested by Foobar2k when it ceased to be updated regularly.

Perhaps I'll give it another shot.

 

[evillamer]

I felt that the Apollo player has improved tremdeously, but still somewhere far from MAD interms of musciality.

WMA and OGG support:
http://www.ncca.koenig.ru/apollo/

 

[dallasstar]

Whoa, I remember this player. I used to use it a long time ago just because I liked its simplicity. Then, I formatted my hard drive and conveniently forgot what the player was called

. I'll give it another shot.