Winamp vs Foobar2000 ?!
Mar 9, 2009 at 7:27 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 106


1000+ Head-Fier
Jun 16, 2008
I wonder cause so many guys here use the foobar2000 (even I do), but in the past I was using winamp, but since I have gone to Vista and there is the WASAPI, it seem that foobar2000 is more "audiophile"
What do you like better? and does winap is a better player? or can be (with plugins and the right config)
Mar 9, 2009 at 8:01 AM Post #4 of 106
i used winamp for years waiting for a player that was simple, easily navigable, and loaded with features (built-in)... foobar2000 was the answer!

i'm sure winamp could be just as good sonically if you configured it correctly. it also looks snazzy with the skins, but i grew past that stage after high school lol.
Mar 9, 2009 at 8:39 AM Post #5 of 106
Like the OP i used Winamp for ages, nearly to decades! and i loved it, really.

But simply, Foobar sounds much better on stock, its lighter to run for the computer, can be portable too and its more customizable.
And it has the mandatory functions for me like global hotkeys and nice media library in tree.
And talking about plugins, foobar has a lot.

By the way, its utility to convert files is simply awesome too
Mar 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM Post #7 of 106
Another 'vote' for foobar here. Running it on vista with WASAPI support.
Very nice indeed.
Mar 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM Post #8 of 106
Winamp does not do proper gapless playback of LAME MP3 albums. I've tried the various plugins and tweaks. It doesn't do it right.

Foobar (and J. River Media Center) does gapless right. That lets my Pink Floyd, classical music, and live albums play back the way they do on a CD.
Mar 9, 2009 at 10:23 AM Post #9 of 106
with asio they both sound the same, I use winamp cos it has radio otherwise I'd use foobar
Mar 9, 2009 at 11:35 AM Post #11 of 106
Foobar: less resources, though more complicated interface. Once you know how to set it up, unbeatable with ASIO and WASAPI
Mar 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM Post #13 of 106
I'm using both foobar and winamp

I like foobar because:
- Better replaygain support
- customization (i like to see the replaygain value)
- better internal handling of audio (all at 64bit iirc)

Some things are better in winamp:
- easier to setup
- more and better plugins for exotic formats

I use foobar for "streaming" formats like mp3/flac. While i use Winamp for all other formats like Mod/spc
Mar 9, 2009 at 5:57 PM Post #14 of 106
Foobar2000 all the way, on MS Windows.
I have been using it since version 0.1 (or something) some 7 years back and it still stands out from the masses.
Mar 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM Post #15 of 106
winamp with dfx8 is very good for me, but i don't even come close to offer a knowledgeable discussion as most people here do. if you are like me, who likes the results with minimal work, i think you will appreciate winamp more. dfx 8 makes a huge difference.

Users who are viewing this thread