Old 12th November 2003, 23:11   #1
pieman3141
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3
A better MP3 decoder.

After using FB2k 0.73a, and listening to the differences in sound quality without ANY DSPs (and no EQ), fb2k sounds better than winamp. How do I know? I can actually understand (or rather, make out what they're pronouncing, but not actually understand the language) teh German in any german songs that I have (No, I'm not German). In Winamp, I could not do this without DSPs taking 50% CPU (dee3, enhancer, etc.)

Can you guys develop a better decoder? like.. if foobar can do it, I'm sure you can too. I like winamp. Foobar is too lacking in features.
pieman3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2003, 23:33   #2
Sawg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Winamp has one of the best decoders available. Check your sound card drivers and try using DirectSound output. You might also want to check and make sure you do not have the equalizer on. For most modern players the actual decoder makes very little difference on the output quality. Most of what you probably think you hear other than that is Placebo. There is NO real reason to change the Winamp decoder. If you think Foobar2000 sounds better to you than Winamp feel free to use it then.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2003, 01:23   #3
peter
ist death
 
peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,704
Re: A better MP3 decoder.

Quote:
Originally posted by pieman3141
After using FB2k 0.73a, and listening to the differences in sound quality without ANY DSPs (and no EQ), fb2k sounds better than winamp. How do I know? I can actually understand (or rather, make out what they're pronouncing, but not actually understand the language) teh German in any german songs that I have (No, I'm not German). In Winamp, I could not do this without DSPs taking 50% CPU (dee3, enhancer, etc.)

Can you guys develop a better decoder? like.. if foobar can do it, I'm sure you can too. I like winamp. Foobar is too lacking in features.
Never underestimate the power of placebo.
peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2003, 06:02   #4
swhite
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 84
After all, Steve Martin got high on "PLACEBO," didn't he?
swhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2009, 16:43   #5
chuongster
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Sawg
Winamp has one of the best decoders available. Check your sound card drivers and try using DirectSound output. You might also want to check and make sure you do not have the equalizer on. For most modern players the actual decoder makes very little difference on the output quality. Most of what you probably think you hear other than that is Placebo. There is NO real reason to change the Winamp decoder. If you think Foobar2000 sounds better to you than Winamp feel free to use it then.
Way to invalidate someone's sincere testimony. There are an inordinate amount of people on HA forums and elsewhere what agree (esp. 'out of the box') Foobar2k sounds much better than Winamp. Before you make such judgements, it might help to either 1) try out both yourself, or 2) bring some hard data to the table.

I am one of those people. I have used winamp since winamp 1.91 or maybe a version or two earlier; I have been using winamp for over a decade. For functionality, features and versatility, I love winamp. I love it. I have tried plenty of other players along the way, like Sonique when it was big, and stuff like AIMP and Media Monkey, but nothing comes close to winamp.

I have an X-Fi, set of z-2300's, good Sennheisers -- no DSP, no EQ... and Fb2k kills Winamp in sound quality. Even when Winamp's in_mp3 is set to allow 24-bit vs. Foobar's default setup, Foobar wins. It's closer, but foobar still sounds better, clearer, cleaner. WAV, FLAC, Kernal Streaming Output for Winamp, you name it. The only way I cannot tell the two apart is if both are set to 24-bit and AISO output. The downside is I like listening to music while I play games, and AISO is a single application process.

So for sound quality (and customizations) Foobar2000 wins. I tried as hard as I could to get winamp to sound as good, but all I could get is close. I still use winamp for every day use, but when I really need to feel my music, I boot up Fb2k.
chuongster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2009, 20:57   #6
Sawg
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,456
Send a message via ICQ to Sawg Send a message via AIM to Sawg Send a message via Yahoo to Sawg
So if you like Foobar200 better, and think there is somehow a sound quality difference, why not just use that?

| Brought to you by ^V ^C | The one... the original... no seriously!
Sawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th June 2009, 14:30   #7
homes32
Senior Member
 
homes32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally posted by chuongster
Way to invalidate someone's sincere testimony. There are an inordinate amount of people on HA forums and elsewhere what agree (esp. 'out of the box') Foobar2k sounds much better than Winamp. Before you make such judgements, it might help to either 1) try out both yourself, or 2) bring some hard data to the table.
errrr. I don't see anything that can be considered hard data in your post...

homes32
homes32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th June 2009, 12:46   #8
Rocker
Hiding in plain sight (mod)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,910
Re: Re: A better MP3 decoder.

Quote:
Originally posted by peter
Never underestimate the power of placebo.
Quote:
Originally posted by chuongster

So for sound quality (and customizations) Foobar2000 wins. I tried as hard as I could to get winamp to sound as good, but all I could get is close. I still use winamp for every day use, but when I really need to feel my music, I boot up Fb2k.
abx your theory, or don't tell us your lies. also incase you don't know, peter in the above post is the developer of fb2k, he also contributed to the winamp project.
Rocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th June 2009, 17:33   #9
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Originally posted by chuongster
There are an inordinate amount of people on HA forums and elsewhere what agree (esp. 'out of the box') Foobar2k sounds much better than Winamp.
On HA? Suuure.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2009, 20:44   #10
chuongster
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5
Re: Re: Re: A better MP3 decoder.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rocker
abx your theory, or don't tell us your lies. also incase you don't know, peter in the above post is the developer of fb2k, he also contributed to the winamp project.
Most ABX programs I find deal with comparison of different files, and not the comparison of output from different players. If there is such a program, please let me know. Furthermore, I am the one here not bashing the OP. I am agreeing with him. It's funny, as like much of any kind of media consumption, 'better sound' is closely tied to personal preference -- i.e. some people prefer brighter sounds from their music (like what Shure monitors produce), some people don't. Some people prefer fuller sounding music, or more bass. I didn't know personal opinions were subject to the domain of lies or truths. So who's to say the OP or myself are wrong, when we say we like the sound of fb2k better?

And Mr. Pawlowski should be aware of that even if he developed an application, there may be people that have senses or training that will allow them to pick up the nuances of his work better than he might:

(from Peter Pawlowski's foobar2000.org FAQ)

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 the other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now."
Right. So maybe people with high-end sound cards, maybe submarine sonar technicians, maybe those wearing $700 in-ear monitors... they can tell the difference between the two programs. I'm taking the cue that he states the word 'most' and not 'all' here.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...hp/t29014.html

In this forum thread, a 'Peter' moderator is also present, and it appears as if this might also be Mr. Pawlowski. In either case, it seems as though he is a person who has a habit of dissecting the people that praise and admire his original developed application -- a habit which I don't understand.

http://jimmyauw.com/2008/03/04/why-foobar2000/
chuongster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2009, 20:46   #11
chuongster
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by homes32
errrr. I don't see anything that can be considered hard data in your post...
Nope. I am also not the one telling someone they are wrong.
chuongster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2009, 20:54   #12
chuongster
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
On HA? Suuure.


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=64098

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...hp/t71431.html

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...hp/t30749.html

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=20322
chuongster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2009, 23:28   #13
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
How about you come back when you actually know what you're talking about?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2009, 18:23   #14
chuongster
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
How about you come back when you actually know what you're talking about?
(From the linked thread, specifically the addressed section)
Quote:
Winamp @16bit (These stats are identical to the Underbit page)
RMS: 8.602x10^-6 (-101.31dB)
Peak: 1.526x10^-5 (-96.33dB)

Winamp @24bit
RMS: 8.278x10^-8 (-141.64dB)
Peak: 2.384x10^-7 (-132.45dB)

Foobar @16bit (skipped first 529 samples as I was unable to disable decoder delay compensation)
RMS: 8.611 x 10^-6 (-101.30dB)
Peak: 1.538 x 10^-5 (-96.26dB)

Foobar @24bit (skipped first 529 samples as I was unable to disable decoder delay compensation)
RMS: 4.156x10^-8 (-147.63dB)
Peak: 2.384x10^-7 (-132.45dB)
Out of 8 pieces of data, you picked the 1 where it fits your purpose, and ignore the 4 that don't, and use that for a personal attack? Not to mention ignoring the other threads altogether...

All I'm doing here is posting information to explaining the reasons why, maybe, fb2k sounds better to myself and the OP. I was under the impression that this was going to be a civil discussion. I have no idea why this incites so much animosity from forum members, because it's pretty obvious both myself and the OP adore Winamp. Otherwise, we wouldn't use it (almost exclusively, I might add), and otherwise we wouldn't be registered on its forum.
chuongster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2009, 00:22   #15
Wildrose-Wally
The Albertan
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,122
Irrelevant data. There will not be a different mp3 decoder.

You are suffering from a severe case of Placiboitus.

There is no noticeable difference in the sound quality between Winamp and Foobar, this from the developer of Foobar, who also was involved with Winamp at one time.

Give it up, discussions like this lead nowhere.
Wildrose-Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2009, 12:43   #16
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Originally posted by chuongster
Out of 8 pieces of data, you picked the 1 where it fits your purpose, and ignore the 4 that don't, and use that for a personal attack? Not to mention ignoring the other threads altogether...
What other data? All the results show that Winamp's decoder is at least as good as foobar's, which would be blatantly obvious if you weren't so ignorant and obviously only interested in trolling.

And none of the other threads have anything to do with decoder quality.
Nor are they full of people saying that foobar sounds a lot better out of the box than Winamp, which was your original claim, remember?

Fail troll is fail. Time to get out the sock-puppets to come to your rescue.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Wishlist

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump