Winamp for sure
BT Rep: +1
Winamp for sure
BT Rep: +30
Originally Posted by Skiz
Foobar kicks ass. But I use the winamp skin with it. I don't like much the iTunes interface and I'm not sure if foobar has a skin like iTunes. it probably does though. It must be because I don't own an ipod and I would never buy one. Oh wait maybe I would get the ipod touch to play some games and surf the net on it.
I really like iTunes but usually I work with winamp because it has better interface.
the easiest and best is winamp. ok, itunes are way better but if you have an bad computer itunes will just kill it. so use winamp !
Hearty
iTunes is not better than old school Winamp.
I've just about completed an a/b 'shootout' between Media Monkey and Winamp, looking to process all my cd's (several hundred) to FLAC or WAVE and then process to AAC for use in my car and other portables.
Right now, Winamp is running away with the contest. Media Monkey doesn't really support AAC very well, relies on a outboard 'plug-in' for ACC that has minimal settings range. Even though it 'looks' more 'integrated' in it's operation, Winamp wins hands down in being able to really, and boy, do I mean REALLY ramp up to to industrial-grade ripping and converting.
In a test I'm right now completing, I took 5cd's and did the entire process (rip to FLAC, convert to MP3 and AAC). Winamp took about 20 minutes total, I'm at an hour plus with Media Monkey. Now, both are 'trail-ware' and have some speed limitations in them, but it's about equal according to the spec sheets (in fact, Winamp is 'supposed' to be slower, particularly on the CD-Rip).
I had used MM a bit a couple years ago, and hadn't used Winamp to do CD-rip/Conversions for at least 6 years (rip to mp3). It took me literally overnight thinking how to do things in MM and Winamp, about 3 hours tops.
I also looked around for something else, and although I have Nero for DVD use, I took a look at that. Blah. Also at least 2-3 others, NONE had the features of either MM or Winamp.
The lousy AAC converter in MM pretty much settled it for me. ('lousy' not in sound quality, but the highest bps it can do is 155, while Winamp and others like iTunes can do up to 320 which sounds excellent).
One last round of 'sound checks' on the converted files and I'm good to go with the 'process'.
BTW, one of my Vista systems (that I'm using for this) has an optical audio output I've run to my big digital audio system, and playing the files is REALLY GREAT. Now, the only thing left in front of me is, like I said, processing all those CD's and then trolling the internets for great FLAC files!
Also, when I started this 'testing' routine about 5 days ago, originally I tried out iTunes (both MP3 and AAC) and it was hands down no contest for AAC. I thought maybe at the time the MP3 encoder in iTunes was... suspect a bit.
Well, it's kinda hard doing a 'true' 'double-blind' test of A vr. B, but Winamp produces, at the same bits (320kb/s for my test and for my 'production runs'), the audible difference, both in my car system and my living room, pretty close. I'd still give the nod to AAC, but it's VERY close. Just a bit here and there on some really complex music with 'sparkling' highs and very deep bass; just that last half an octave is just a squid bit better with AAC vr. MP3. Obviously, perhaps, the differences with lower bit rates would show the gap widening or narrowing, but putting 7 or so CD's on a CD disc, or cramming 80 albums (or lots more depending on the size) on a little USB thumb drive, is certainly enough for me, more compression is simply not necessary.
Last edited by Beck38; 05-25-2009 at 12:09 AM.
n00b
I haven't read the entire thread but people seem to leave out probably the most potential player of all - foobar
http://br3tt.online.fr/
Check this out, isn't that beautiful? Most of the people that are into FLAC from various trackers recommend this one. I do too. It's just the best, and it's open source, fully modifiable.
That's one of the 3 'other' programs I looked at, but from the standpoint of file processing (ripping a CD, transcoding it to MP3 or AAC) it falls way short. You'd need to have another 'collection' of encoder programs to do that, at variable quality.
n00b
There are some "epic" programs that are used for ripping and transcoding (EAC for example) and I don't know why one should judge a player according to those standards. Players are used for playing music. Ripping software is used for ripping. There is a reason why these two rarely come together.That's one of the 3 'other' programs I looked at, but from the standpoint of file processing (ripping a CD, transcoding it to MP3 or AAC) it falls way short. You'd need to have another 'collection' of encoder programs to do that, at variable quality.
You ARE kidding me, right? Virtually every player program out there does ripping, burning, the whole shebang. The differentiation is the range of their operation (like, how fast a cd burn) or how many 'flavors' of compressed (or non-compressed) file types it can deal with, and the integration of the parts into the whole, if any.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks