apatN
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Posts
- 5,773
- Likes
- 20
You can't beat Foobar for its simplicity (read: you can make it as difficult as you want
).
Winamp vs Foobar2000 ?!
- Thread starter HeadLover
- Start date
DSlayerZX
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Posts
- 833
- Likes
- 23
foobar for the fun of setting up my own panel and settings
Telstar
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Posts
- 308
- Likes
- 14
Foobar with WASAPI output sounds better than any other player... except XXHighend.
eraser_svk
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Posts
- 102
- Likes
- 0
Another foobar supporter here
It's simplicity and power simply cannot be beaten.
Especially love the EQ and ReplayGain feature.
ROBSCIX
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Posts
- 6,173
- Likes
- 49
I like Winamp, I have tried Foobar but just used to Winamp....
@Eraser, Winamp also has replay gain.
@Eraser, Winamp also has replay gain.
royalcrown
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Posts
- 714
- Likes
- 11
The two, if properly configured, will sound exactly the same. It all comes down to personal preference in terms of features available. I think memory footprint, all said and done, is negligible on modern systems - if you have an older computer with less than 512MB of RAM and you also have tons of tabs on firefox, you may want to pick foobar for that extra 10-20MB of RAM, but honestly in most computers it's not that big of an issue. I use foobar, for a couple of reasons. Foobar has an ABX tester, which I often use. It also has a better (read: free) converter, and I think the interface is much easier to use than winamp (I use the basic interface that comes with foobar, as I'm very much a form follows function guy. Finally, I like the album art feature on foobar (ok, so I'm not entirely form over function 
).
That being said, it all comes down to personal preference. Winamp is much less of a headache to setup, has much nicer looking skins, and takes up less screen real estate, if you're the type of person that likes to have your player always on top. Finally, foobar's kind of glitchy with FoxyTunes. All said and done though, I prefer foobar, but that doesn't actually mean it's better, just that foobar has features that I enjoy, but others may never use, such as the ABX tester.
). That being said, it all comes down to personal preference. Winamp is much less of a headache to setup, has much nicer looking skins, and takes up less screen real estate, if you're the type of person that likes to have your player always on top. Finally, foobar's kind of glitchy with FoxyTunes. All said and done though, I prefer foobar, but that doesn't actually mean it's better, just that foobar has features that I enjoy, but others may never use, such as the ABX tester.
ROBSCIX
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Posts
- 6,173
- Likes
- 49
Another decent player is Media monkey, this player allows Winamp users to move over their favorite plugins, if they use them. This app has some different features for organization and tagging.. etc over Winamp.
notuagain
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Posts
- 126
- Likes
- 15
Although I prefer Foobar for its solid asio support, Winamp has some very nice visualisation plugins.
notuagain
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Posts
- 126
- Likes
- 15
Slogra
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Posts
- 234
- Likes
- 36
Quote:
But last time i checked, winamp relies on the input plugin for replaygain, while foobar has standard replaygain support that works for all formats which have tags.
| Originally Posted by ROBSCIX /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like Winamp, I have tried Foobar but just used to Winamp.... @Eraser, Winamp also has replay gain. |
But last time i checked, winamp relies on the input plugin for replaygain, while foobar has standard replaygain support that works for all formats which have tags.
Shoreman
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Posts
- 376
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
...but not the ability to manually adjust replay gain values. Big plus for foobar (although both players, identically configured, will sound the same).
| Originally Posted by ROBSCIX /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like Winamp, I have tried Foobar but just used to Winamp.... @Eraser, Winamp also has replay gain. |
...but not the ability to manually adjust replay gain values. Big plus for foobar (although both players, identically configured, will sound the same).
m0ofassa
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Posts
- 736
- Likes
- 10
foobar has been the best option since shortly after its release IMO. There is no reason to use winamp really...
@ them sounding the same. They wont. Foobar will give a better audio experience because it supports gapless playback. Some albums are designed to be continuous. Winamp cant do that last time i checked (fairly recently actually).
Also, winamp uses more resources and will create additional EMD when cpu ticks over which will create RFI and, if you are using an internal digital converter itll sound noisier.
edit: @ notuagain thats funny, because ive been using winamp visualisations on foobar for more than a few years now.
If skins are that big of an issue, you'll probably be doing them yourself. Foobar is far mroe customisable.
@ them sounding the same. They wont. Foobar will give a better audio experience because it supports gapless playback. Some albums are designed to be continuous. Winamp cant do that last time i checked (fairly recently actually).
Also, winamp uses more resources and will create additional EMD when cpu ticks over which will create RFI and, if you are using an internal digital converter itll sound noisier.
edit: @ notuagain thats funny, because ive been using winamp visualisations on foobar for more than a few years now.
If skins are that big of an issue, you'll probably be doing them yourself. Foobar is far mroe customisable.
rjp
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 182
- Likes
- 1
I prefer Foobar for its media library, and its ability to tag files. With a bit of work, I got it where I can view by album artist, performer, composer, conductor, recording type (i.e. commercial, etree, homemade), quantization (16- or 24-bit, 44.1/48/more kHz), genre, year, etc.
However, sometimes I like to fire up Winamp and trip out on the MilkDrop visuals...
However, sometimes I like to fire up Winamp and trip out on the MilkDrop visuals...
ROBSCIX
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Posts
- 6,173
- Likes
- 49
Quote:
Wasn't getting into the finer points of the replay gain, just mentioning it is there.
| Originally Posted by Slogra /img/forum/go_quote.gif But last time i checked, winamp relies on the input plugin for replaygain, while foobar has standard replaygain support that works for all formats which have tags. |
Wasn't getting into the finer points of the replay gain, just mentioning it is there.
ROBSCIX
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Posts
- 6,173
- Likes
- 49
Quote:
Wasn't getting into the finer points of the replay gain, just mentioning it is there.
| Originally Posted by Shoreman /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...but not the ability to manually adjust replay gain values. Big plus for foobar (although both players, identically configured, will sound the same). |
Wasn't getting into the finer points of the replay gain, just mentioning it is there.
Users who are viewing this thread
