I think most people are too attached to their pretty winamp skins to see how the underlying structures of the players compare. Foobar certainly doesn't offer better sound quality, but it's the better player regardless. It's kind of like the Linux of pc music software vs. winamp being the Windows; more difficult to use and with less of a front end for the uninitiated, but more efficient, powerful, and customizable, with more features. Most people used to Winamp won't like foobar at first, I certainly was no exception. It really grew on me though, I'd implore anyone curious to not just install it, play one song, and claim it sucks, but to really give it a chance - a week or two on your PC.
Thing is, Linux/BSD/UNIX do many things for me that Windows doesn't, Foobar on the other hand does nothing that Winamp doesn't, at least nothing I need.
I think many others are in the same boat.
I do not think so. Do you know what kmixer does to the audio running through it? There are reasons why any audio studio ran by any halfway decent engineer with any sort of computer involved in the mix has a soundcard with ASIO drivers(another way to bypass kmixer) and it's not just because of the decreased latency.
And Insane3D, that certainly makes sense in theory, but given the way that Windows handles audio, the audio passes through a go between called kmixer that butchers the sound before it passes it to the soundcard.
Been a lifelong winamp life but the recent resignations of the last of the origional staff from nullsoft has pretty much sealed up winamps fate. I feel that this is the last of a long line of great products. Winamp is dead. It still works great and I prefer it to other but in a couple of years it will really show its age. I've been working with itunes but it is so bloated. Foobar looks like it works fine but the plugin in community needs to grow. Its a good start to what will probably grow to be a great product.
I voted for winamp BTW.
I voted for winamp BTW.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Kernel streaming, Audigy resampling.
I have now heard the difference with an Audigy and softeware resampling: it's really there.
However, beyond that there's really nothing, as WInamp's output is not bad, and MPG123 and MAD can be had for both, offering indistiguishable, HQ outputs.
My bad, I didn't see this thread was still alive. It's in either this month's or last month's issue of CPU. You know, the magazine that Anand has a column in.
I didn't want to say it for fear of being flamed, but I will now - in side by side comparison, there really does seem to be a difference. I found it noticeable in general, but especially so in the beginning of Floyd's Speak To Me / Breathe. I'm by no means an audiophile, nor do I have an audiophile setup. Foobar's site does state that its SQ is no better than Winamp's though, and that the kernel streaming feature is in beta atm.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Anubis
No Lifer
yep and its not skinable and offers nothing more then winamp allready does, ive used winamp for ever, started in 98 its always been solid
and Winamps GUI >>>>> * GUI
I think I'ma switch to effing foobar again. I used it for a while, reinstalled and went back to winamp for a seemingly short period of time but I never went back to foobar.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter