Old 20th December 2003, 00:15   #1
CraigDDG
Junior Member
 
CraigDDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Send a message via ICQ to CraigDDG Send a message via AIM to CraigDDG
Who bought pro?

So who's bought pro? And are you excited?

I'm still trying to decide if I want to part with the money for pro..help me decide people
CraigDDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2003, 00:29   #2
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I just got it and felt it was the right price. SO LONG MUSICMATCH! POS

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2003, 05:45   #3
bass4ms
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 268
If I buy pro and they decide to add DVD playing to pro, will I have to pay more?

I'd pay the $14.95 for a good DVD player, but on the download page it just says that I get faster CD burning, mp3 encoding and faster CD ripping. I bought MMJB Pro a long time ago and it does the encoding and ripping just fine. Nero does the burning.
bass4ms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2003, 05:57   #4
hfhf6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5
I bought Pro as well, and I hope that I don't have to pay any more if they add DVD playing... That would be logistically difficult anyhow...
hfhf6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2003, 06:36   #5
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I would really like DVD playback, and there have been a few free programs and I think one plugin for winamp at one time that did play DVD. But the sound was so soft. Any idea why? I guess it is a different audio type but still.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 00:09   #6
bass4ms
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally posted by hfhf6
I bought Pro as well, and I hope that I don't have to pay any more if they add DVD playing... That would be logistically difficult anyhow...
There was a lot of dicussion about why they would have a pro version and having DVD support was one of the main resons given.
bass4ms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 00:56   #7
norky
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: teh webbernet
Posts: 23
i bought it. just felt like the right thing to do.
norky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 03:55   #8
inthegray
Major Dude
 
inthegray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 704
Send a message via AIM to inthegray
i would really like to give some money to nullsoft, but i can't within my frugal thinking hand it over for just ripping/burning access. i already have a great application, which although isn't built into winamp, has a lot more functionality that i prefer.

if there is more incentive, even slight, i'll probably jump at the chance to donate.

right now, all i want is brightness/contrast control for Video, like on all my other video applications (Real, QT, WMP). i'd much rather have that over DVD playback.
inthegray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 06:22   #9
lnxguit
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2
I bought Winamp Pro. I am dissatisfied with the mp3 encoder options, though. If we're using LAME, why not just let us select the "alt-presets", such as "--r3mix" or "--alt-preset standard". Also, I notice the lame_enc.dll is for lame-3.90 instead of 3.92.
Using the Winamp LAME interface, I'm finding my mp3 files have larger size, higher bitrate and lower quality compared to the "alt-presets".
As an example, I find that using VBR mtrh/Joint Stereo with a minimum bitrate of 32 kbps and a maximum of 320 kbps and a Quality setting of R3mix and a VBR Q of 2 is not the same as "R3mix" if I use EAC. I'm also interested in approximation "--alt-preset standard".
Sorry for the long post, but this does bug me.
lnxguit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 11:36   #10
disabledvet
Junior Member
 
disabledvet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol, VA
Posts: 20
I bought the Pro Version for one reason only, I believe the 15 bucks was worth giving to Winamp just for v.5.1 alone. I own musicmatch jukebox as well but am finding that I am using Winamp more than the other........just because I like the look and feel and all of the stuff you can get for it, which you can't for musicmatch. Plus MMJB is getting really heavy, if you know what I mean!

I just think that Nullsoft deserves the money just for all the work that they put into the new product. I have several programs I can use to create music CD's or rip them so that isn't the reason I bought it.

If you like the product, use it a lot like I do, then what is 15 bucks? Nothing....even for a disabled vet on my salary. I buy very few programs but I buy what I feel deserves the money, especially if it is reasonably priced.

Sorry this is long winded but in my very humble opinion I think everyone who uses the new v.5 should purchase the pro version. I know you can afford it, if I can. Buy it everyone!!! Money well spent!
disabledvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 12:07   #11
MikeWarner
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by bgesley
SO LONG MUSICMATCH!
That is exactly what I thought until I tried to rip something. I always rip high quaility VBR mp3 files and to my shock Winamp rips at less than 10x and MusicMatch at around 30x!!!!

Please please please can this be sped up in a future release (oh - I am using the plus version).

I will not be upgarding to MusicMatch 8.2 though, and 8 is so buggy it take 2 mins after running to make it stable enough to use!.

Please Please make WinAmp5 rip CDs faster!!!!
MikeWarner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 12:13   #12
disabledvet
Junior Member
 
disabledvet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol, VA
Posts: 20
Hmmm, my pro version is ripping faster than that. I really don't pay attention to that much because, what's the hurry? In fact I make it a point to lower the speed so that I know that there won't be any errors on the CD.
I guess I don't understand the rush. I would rather have quality than quantity anyday. But then, I guess that is just me!
I have both programs you do...I don't notice the difference!
disabledvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 17:27   #13
squall14716
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 349
Send a message via ICQ to squall14716 Send a message via AIM to squall14716 Send a message via Yahoo to squall14716
Quote:
Originally posted by disabledvet
If you like the product, use it a lot like I do, then what is 15 bucks? Nothing....even for a disabled vet on my salary.
It's a lot to a 15 year old without a job, though. I'd be lucky to see $15 once during the year and the next $15 I get will be spent on a spindle of CDs.

I'll have to actually *gasps* get a job if I want Winamp Pro. Oh, the terror.
squall14716 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2003, 19:57   #14
Moguta
Senior Member
 
Moguta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally posted by lnxguit
I bought Winamp Pro. I am dissatisfied with the mp3 encoder options, though. If we're using LAME, why not just let us select the "alt-presets", such as "--r3mix" or "--alt-preset standard". Also, I notice the lame_enc.dll is for lame-3.90 instead of 3.92
I also find this unacceptable. If you're made to pay to use WinAmp's MP3 encoding, why should you be blocked from using the encoder's best quality settings? At the least, there ought to be a "custom commandline" text box that allows you to enter any coding method like --alt-preset standard, if not a specific choice for that mode.

3.90 is the most quality-tested encoder version. Really, WinAmp ought to use 3.90.3, but it is certainly good enough.

Quote:
Originally posted by disabledvet
In fact I make it a point to lower the speed so that I know that there won't be any errors on the CD.
I guess I don't understand the rush. I would rather have quality than quantity anyday.
While lowering the speed does help prevent a bit of errors, what's more important is a program that does error detection & correction. The only I know of is Exact Audio Copy, which fortunately is a freeware CD ripper. Just download EAC and the LAME encoder I linked above, and you'll get top-quality MP3s.
Moguta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2003, 07:23   #15
disabledvet
Junior Member
 
disabledvet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol, VA
Posts: 20
Yep, you are right....and I do use EAC, so we agree. I was only trying to point out to the young man that it isn't necessary to rip so fast. Your generation seems to want everything yesterday. Guess it has something to do with TV, computers, etc.
Anyway, thanks for pointing that out.
disabledvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2003, 13:08   #16
skavey
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1
I guess i just bought it to thank nullsoft for winamp since version 1. Not going to even use ripping much. So thanks.
skavey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2003, 15:05   #17
Dipso
Senior Member
 
Dipso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 379
The best reason for buying it would be that they have said that more features will be included in the future, and i betting it won't get cheaper as time goes by.

Also, the overall product will just get better and better as time goes by aswell

ill be buying my copy as soon as i get my student loan come january

Phear the headbanging llama!!!

http://dipso.deviantart.com <- Art, Graphics, Photography.
Dipso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2003, 03:41   #18
Moguta
Senior Member
 
Moguta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 190
*hint*
If you want to give Nullsoft money for their fine work, send a DONATION to Nullsoft. It doesn't help them if most of that $15 goes towards paying off MP3 & ripping licenses that you aren't going to use.



Magnatune - A role model for ALL digital music stores!
Moguta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2003, 06:33   #19
murassmeblade
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 47
I am also dissapointed that Winamp doesnt allow acces to the advanced power of the Lame encoder, and that the file sizes seem to be much larger.

however i am pleased that even tho with my cd drive and system configuration maxing out at 10X ripping the files are ripped, encoded and ready for use extremely fast.

much faster than Easy CD DA Creator wich i have been using, v6.2 was at least 7x slower than WA5.

on my creative SB LIVE audio card that has a maximum play rate of 44.1khz the actual quality of the mp3 file isnt as noticable as say on a creative audigy 2 platinum pro studio soud card.

but i would again reitterate that you WinAMP guys should impliment advanced encoder configurations at aleast, if not allowing custom user configurations
murassmeblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2003, 16:27   #20
Jumper001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 125
30x ripping? Egads!

I just re-ripped a bunch of albums using EAC for the first time (great program) an I was lucky to get 6x overall. But it was all error corrected, --alt-preset standard goodness.
Jumper001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2003, 18:55   #21
decairn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 14
I payed the $15 - have been waiting to get Winamp2 with a usable media library for a long time. While I was waiting I used Musicmatch but honestly, it's so bloated and slow now, not to mention just a channel for their download and radio payola channels that they lost me. Winamp5 can handle my 10000 tunes library, Musicmatch cannot.

I'm still using Musicmatch for ripping, not getting good results from Winamp yet, maybe I just need to search for some elusive settings somewhere, but I get no more that 7x as opposed to 40x in Musicmatch.
decairn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2003, 19:52   #22
Jumper001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 125
Faster ripping != better ripping.

At least, not if you want the absolute best quality possible
Jumper001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2003, 22:18   #23
Moguta
Senior Member
 
Moguta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally posted by murassmeblade
on my creative SB LIVE audio card that has a maximum play rate of 44.1khz the actual quality of the mp3 file isnt as noticable as say on a creative audigy 2 platinum pro studio soud card.
Mmm, actually the Live! plays all its sounds at 48KHz. Every audio source that isn't gets resampled. Same thing for the Audigy/Audigy 2.

It's more likely that differences are noticable because of speaker equipment, or the signal-to-noise ratio & distortion of the soundcards.

*just noticed the presence of a bang-equals, sure sign of a certain brotherhood* =o
Moguta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2003, 20:56   #24
CraigDDG
Junior Member
 
CraigDDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Send a message via ICQ to CraigDDG Send a message via AIM to CraigDDG
I dislike SB cards anyway, they tend to focus on high end and low end sound, and miss out the middle

aimed more towards general users and gamers rather than music people
CraigDDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2003, 23:06   #25
steve
Intolerant Ex-Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 483
Send a message via AIM to steve
those people experiencing slow performance problems with ripping, can you please list your make and model of your cd rom with other tech specs for your pc?

Steve Gedikian
Ex Llama Wrangler
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2003, 01:02   #26
poopstick
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4
all this talk about ripping mp3's. MP3 sucks. This sound quality is so bad when compared to .ogg or even other newer formats. Get a clue
poopstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2003, 03:42   #27
Moguta
Senior Member
 
Moguta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigDDG
I dislike SB cards anyway, they tend to focus on high end and low end sound, and miss out the middle

aimed more towards general users and gamers rather than music people
Soundcards do not equalize sound, so should have very little to do with "highs", "lows", or "mids."

The factors decisive to soundcard quality are Signal-to-Noise Ratio, harmonic distortion, vulnerability to noise from other components, sampling rates handled (otherwise resampled), and bit depths handled.

However, I do agree with your last statement. Creative cards cannot be beaten for their EAX & EAX 2 sound effect engines, although the audio clarity can be less than desirable for die-hard music fans.


@poopstick:
LAME --alt-preset standard is a high quality to which Vorbis cannot (YET!) compare. Venture on over to the Hydrogen Audio forums and ask Ogg Vorbis developer Garf yourself. That's why his whole GT3 encoder is under development.
Moguta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2003, 08:48   #28
jtorchy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 21
I purchased winamp 5.01 pro this christmas. I didn't buy it for the features (though they are a nice addition), but I felt that nullsoft derseved it. Winamp has always been my main media player since the first time I got into downloading and playing music on my comp. Seriously, is 15 bucks too much to spare?
jtorchy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2003, 22:50   #29
Moguta
Senior Member
 
Moguta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally posted by Moguta
*hint*
If you want to give Nullsoft money for their fine work, send a DONATION
Moguta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th December 2003, 20:55   #30
Joe Siegler
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 11
Re: Who bought pro?

Quote:
Originally posted by CraigDDG
So who's bought pro? And are you excited?

I'm still trying to decide if I want to part with the money for pro..help me decide people
I did, and I probably won't use the Pro features very much, I just feel that Winamp 5 is an awesome program. I also registered the program back in 1999 as well back when there was really nothing to be gained by registering it.

I did it because it's a damn good program, and the developers deserve the money. I used to be a staunch Winamp supporter back when v2 was the only one available. I went away for awhile, and I'm back again with v5. I wrote about that in my blog.
Joe Siegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th December 2003, 23:17   #31
Snarl
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Purchased the Pro for $14.95, considering all the use I get out of Winamp, a bargin and money well spent.
Snarl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2003, 21:28   #32
satanicmonk
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3
i dont think il buy pro ..
like whatsisface earlier on im only 15 nd dont have much money spare at the mo (still owe parents 90 quid for a bass guitar) so thats one reason

also i dont think its worth buying it, because the extra things it offers can easily be tackled by other programs. i have nero nd use that 4 burning nd ripping nd stuff.

and lastly i dont like it because it signals a change in nullsoft as a company. it shows they are becoming comercialised. it doesnt matter that they are also providing an alternative no - pay version, its the ideas. They are holding back certain features to get us to pay. before it always seemed that winamp was good because you did not have to pay, and it was a nice open source (is that the write phrase? sinky used it once) program that allowed you to change it and add stuff.

i dunno ... it just seems wrong somehow. violates my image of nullsoft


p.s llamas ... is that anything to do with maxis, the sim city games, and their obsession with llamas. for example any newspapers on their games are always llama related. nd i think u can have a llama statue or something.
satanicmonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2003, 07:14   #33
dig_sparx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I love pro

I bought a license not that I'm going to use the new features such as ripping and burning.

I bought it because I love Winamp! It's the best player ever created by humans, I dont know about other intelligent lifeforms out in Universe.

So that's it actually...

//Dig_Sparx
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2003, 06:22   #34
murassmeblade
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 47
Steve, i have for a system a DELL Dimension 8250 Workstation,

Pentium 4 2.6ghz NON Hyper-THREADED,

533mhz front side buss,

512mb (4x 128mb rimms) of PC1066 RDRAM (NON-ECC),

main system HDD is a Western digital 80gig (8mb cache)7200 rpm,

Secondary HDD is a SEAgate 60gig (standard cache and rpm i think 5600rpm maybe higher) system Pagefile is also located on it owns primary partition at the begining of this secondary drive and it is set to double the physical RAM amount at 1024mb,

Primary Removable drive is a LiteON 16x DVD-ROM drive

secondary Removable drive is a samsung SW-248F 48x24x48 CDRW (wich with Easy CD DA Extractor ripps and converts at an average of 42x with).

if you need further information or details please just let me know and ill post them.
murassmeblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2003, 18:40   #35
[FAIL]Pagannn
Junior Member
 
[FAIL]Pagannn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Your mom's house
Posts: 12
I paid for Winamp twice.

$10 in the old HonorWare days
$15 for 5 Pro

I think $25 for many years of use is worth it.
[FAIL]Pagannn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2004, 20:41   #36
GURT
Junior Member
 
GURT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper001
Faster ripping != better ripping.

At least, not if you want the absolute best quality possible
if people wanted the "absolute best quality possible" they wouldn't be ripping things to mp3 at ANY speed.
GURT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2004, 20:26   #37
lunarboy1
Forum King
 
lunarboy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somewhere, USA
Posts: 2,233
Quote:
Originally posted by GURT
if people wanted the "absolute best quality possible" they wouldn't be ripping things to mp3 at ANY speed.
lol... wav's all the way

(i use all mp3's, I don't have giant 200gig raid drives :-D)
lunarboy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2004, 20:30   #38
GURT
Junior Member
 
GURT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally posted by lunarboy1
lol... wav's all the way

(i use all mp3's, I don't have giant 200gig raid drives :-D)
i dont have a 200gig raid drive or use WAV.
Besides the size of a hard drive has nothing to do with "absolute best quality possible"
GURT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

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