Foobar2000 vs Winamp
|
|
 Sep 27 2008, 06:55 PM, updated 18y ago
Show posts by this member only | Post
#1
|
 
Junior Member
11 posts Joined: Sep 2008  
|
Which one u think is the best?
|
Quote|
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2008, 07:43 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#2
|
 
VIP
16,825 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Siberia
|
in term of what?
|
|
|
Sep 27 2008, 09:31 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#3
|
Junior Member
474 posts Joined: Jul 2008
|
Sound quality sure foobar far win winamp...
|
|
|
Sep 27 2008, 09:59 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#4
|
|
VIP
16,825 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Siberia
|
QUOTE(kernah @ Sep 27 2008, 09:31 PM) Sound quality sure foobar far win winamp... no QUOTE Does foobar2000 sound better than other players? No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples). foobar2000 has sound processing features such as software resampling or 24bit output on new high-end soundcards, but most of other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now. http://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ.html#other_questions |
|
|
Sep 27 2008, 10:03 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#5
|
Senior Member
681 posts Joined: Nov 2006 From: Lowyat.net Malacca Status: Ultra Active 
|
foobar2k will win
xD i m using it =x |
|
|
Sep 27 2008, 10:24 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#6
|
Senior Member
1,035 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
Foobar look better if u like to costomise very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2008, 10:30 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#7
|
Senior Member
2,257 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
foobar more stable
winamp always crashes |
|
|
Sep 28 2008, 12:14 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#8
|
Senior Member
1,764 posts Joined: Sep 2008
|
foobar has more plugins which play most of my loseless, flac, ape
|
|
|
Sep 28 2008, 01:37 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#9
|
VIP
4,567 posts Joined: Oct 2004 From: Bangi, Selangor 
|
QUOTE(kernah @ Sep 27 2008, 09:31 PM) Sound quality sure foobar far win winamp... The heck? foobar uses low memory consumption plus it's heavy customization for those who prefer it. Winamp, however, has became slower when loading. Especially when there are many plugins. I'd rather use Windows Media Player 11 tho. The best library for music there is for me. |
|
|
Sep 28 2008, 03:39 PM
|
Senior Member
1,072 posts Joined: Jan 2008 From: MY
|
Foobar definitely....
 Been using it for a while now aside from WMP 11....  |
|
|
Sep 28 2008, 04:54 PM
|
Senior Member
2,933 posts Joined: Nov 2007 From: Kuala lumpur
|
i vote for foobar
|
|
|
Sep 28 2008, 08:17 PM
|
Junior Member
215 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
Ya once u try Foobar u won like winamp anymore
|
|
|
Sep 28 2008, 08:48 PM
|
Senior Member
539 posts Joined: Apr 2007 From: Serdang
|
I think it's largely depending on your computer processor, memory and sound card. Yes, Foobar may use lesser memory than Winamp but it may also require better processor if you use a low end sound card and various of plugins.
I'd rather use Winamp though since it has nice interface and good library management. This post has been edited by light bulb: Sep 28 2008, 08:50 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2008, 08:50 PM
|
All Stars
35,468 posts Joined: Oct 2006
|
sure foobar wins i using for 5 years edi
It just sound more amazing on my 5.1. After i add another plugin all my song becomes even clearer without me needed to spend 500-1000 worth sound card. This post has been edited by aspire2oo6: Sep 28 2008, 08:50 PM |
|
|
Sep 29 2008, 05:58 AM
|
Senior Member
4,895 posts Joined: May 2008
|
I installed both but use Winamp instead.
 |
|
|
Sep 29 2008, 06:32 PM
|
Senior Member
2,910 posts Joined: Oct 2007 From: Melaka 
|
winamp
 wmp is the suckest,eat alot of resources and alway crash |
|
|
Sep 29 2008, 09:20 PM
|
Senior Member
785 posts Joined: Dec 2007 From: Perth
|
QUOTE(xk2 @ Sep 29 2008, 06:32 PM) winamp crash as in lost the play lists, color theme etc? wmp is the suckest,eat alot of resources and alway crash |
|
|
Sep 29 2008, 10:30 PM
|
Senior Member
1,864 posts Joined: Jun 2008
|
Sorry offtopic, but what about foobar vs WMP? Had another forumer recommend foobar to me saying sound quality was better..
|
|
|
Sep 30 2008, 12:03 AM
|
 
Elite
4,541 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: BSRPPG51 Access Concentrator
|
I use Winamp, mainly because its media library function is better than the one in foobar. Adding albums to an existing database is easier too in Winamp (incremental updates) than foobar (needs to rescan my whole watch folders, easily taking 30 minutes or so).
|
|
|
Sep 30 2008, 01:50 PM
|
Senior Member
528 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Seremban::PJ
|
since i started usin foobar, hvnt hv a feelin of changin to any other players til nw..
-i din seriously compare its sq wit others bt it satisfy me so far, sounds nature wit no eq configurations.. -memory usage vry low, less crashes thn others.. -i hv the freedom to mod my foobar as i wish in term of interface o plugins.. -open source is powerful~ enjoy~ |
| Change to: |  0.0147sec
 0.69
 6 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 22nd December 2025 - 10:15 PM |
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025 IPS, Inc.