I have been wondering the difference between Winamp , Itunes and foobar2000 for quite sometime.

I have only tried before Winamp(Free) + DFX audio enchancer(Paid) and foobar2000(Free) but honestly I think winamp with/without DFX has a much better sound quality compared to foobar2000 .... The only thing foobar2000 is better is the lower memory usage.I have seen quite some ppl here in Lowyat.net prefer foobar2000 over Winamp , can some1 pls tell me why or mayb I need somemore plugin for it.

I have only started using computer for a short period so foobar2000 user pls dont me.

i dunno foobar but i know itunes and winamp


itunes sux cause itunes use alots mem and kinda slow need to convet 1st to mp3 or any normal music format to hear using itune i just use itunes for insert mp3 to Ipod


winamp very good light sofware user friendly and got alots interface

Another winamp user T.T , I thought i was 1 of the very few ppl in lowyat.net who support winamp.

ive been using winamp since 1998, and has seen the way it evolved over time. At that time it was better than any other music alternate, especially for slower PCs since it didnt take many resources. In my opinion its the best...as far as sound quality is concerned, you can always get awesome plugins for it..

i use winamp
itunes is ram-eater

am i rite?

Foobar user here

winamp with enchancer is better than winamp with dfx. Itunes long time never used alredi. foobar also havent tried... hehe

I would like to know why u choose foobar over wianmp and Itune?
Personally I think foobar has a very low sound volume and quality compared to winamp , winamp have many plugin(I only used 1 lol) and its easy to find skin for winamp instead of foobar.

---

Added on December 20, 2008, 1:19 amenchancer? mind putting the link here? Going to slp now gudnight.

This post has been edited by ahinigami: Dec 20 2008, 01:19 AM

I'm not sure if this is what ericpires mentioned but go check it out: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/06/h...und-better.html

I've used foobar or a while and it's really good. It has a more detailed equalizer config and loads of component to make your audio experience better.
But in the end I reverted to Winamp back since it has a more easier and efficient library management and many choices of skin. If you've a good set of speaker, soundcard (any better onboard soundcard is enough) and nice player config (equalizer or dsp), then Winamp should be enough.

foobar2k user ere ;p simple user interface, take 13Mb memory oni, if hide at system tray, 4mb memory ni...low proc usage even when using many plugins such as resampler, limiter, and ASIO output(me running celeron 2.4@2.62), got awsome plugins. Last time use winamp, until they got winamp5 which take so much memory and user interface getting so messy =\

foobar2k with convolver plugin works fine with me, I don't use its equalizer.

Yeah , I notice the the low memory usage with foobar but I still think winamp have a better sound quality compared to foobar , mayb I need to do some hardwork on the plugin.

hahah...if it sounds better than stick with winamp loh different ppl different ear, different hardware, different software...diff settings...diff mixtures of everything...so not all will get same results

Foobar2000 works well (if properly configured) with Asio drivers, better than Winamp in my experience. Also it allows use of high quality VST plugins without any trouble. So Audio processing is possible. The resulting sound is much better and controllable with EQ and compression etc. All the sonic advantages, although great, are only discernable in a high-end or pro audio environment.
If you are using regular soundcards and no external pro audio interfaces, I might recommend Winamp. You won't hear much difference. To me Foobar looks terrible and is a bit cumbersome. On the other hand it is very customisable (winamp is not).
Winamp is more a "works straight out of the box" kindof thing. It also plays video, and has an internal browser. These are things I personally hate to see with an audio player and librarian, but not everybody feels the same way, so if that's what you want choose Winamp. 'nuff said!

XM Player anyone??!!!!!!!

as for me,
foobar2k for better customization experience,
winamp is essential, and
itunes for more organize music (well alot ppl complain it consumed alot od RAM usage, n mostly ppl use it bcos of their ipod/iphone)