Old 19th February 2007, 13:33   #1
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Winamp not cool anymore?

Hi,

I have been using Winamp since the last millennium and never looked at anything else since the player has been doing what I need it to do even though I have to admit it's doing a bit more than I need now. Good late additions have been portable player support, Replay Gain and very good podcast support. What's currently missing is being able to burn music DVDs directly from Winamp. I have to use Roxio for that, but would like to be able to use the Winamp library for it instead.

A lot of my audiophile friends has been trying to push me toward the foobar2000 player saying it now is what Winamp used to be: In the forefront of music playback.

I do not want to spend a lot of time evaluating alternative players, so I ask here if anyone have been using foobar2000, and if it really has all the coolness and sonic excellence people are telling me it has?

I really do not want to switch. But I have to admit that a lot of the AOL content pushed into Winamp is beginning to bother me a little. Especially since it's also in the paid version.

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2007, 15:22   #2
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Not sure what you mean by music dvds, unless you mean data discs, which is on the wishlist. But with regards to the audiophile reference, the foobar2000 FAQ actually answers that:

Quote:
* Q: Does foobar2000 sound better than other players?
* A: 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.
The key is that last phrase, other players have been following the steps that foobar lays. Winamp is no different in this regard with newer versions supporting both replaygain and 24bit as you state.

I guess, use whatever you are happy with.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2007, 15:50   #3
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
Not sure what you mean by music dvds, unless you mean data discs, which is on the wishlist. But with regards to the audiophile reference, the foobar2000 FAQ actually answers that:



The key is that last phrase, other players have been following the steps that foobar lays. Winamp is no different in this regard with newer versions supporting both replaygain and 24bit as you state.

I guess, use whatever you are happy with.
Yes, I mean DVD and CD data discs. My car stereo can play mp3 CDs so it would be great to be able to burn them directly from Winamp.

I did read the foobar2000 faq also, but I have some pretty persistent friends saying that this player is something special. I guess I will stick with what I am happy with which has been and still is Winamp.

Thanks!

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2007, 16:10   #4
qwert73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 118
Yes, the player is special and also my favourite player. However, i would recommend only to switch when you really need foobar: You can't write Data Cds/Dvds - for that i would take free version of Mediamonkey.
qwert73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2007, 16:55   #5
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by qwert73
Yes, the player is special and also my favourite player. However, i would recommend only to switch when you really need foobar: You can't write Data Cds/Dvds - for that i would take free version of Mediamonkey.
I guess another strongpoint for Winamp is the way it handles podcast subscriptions, and it can play movies. I've been looking around a little this morning, but there's no player that can do all the, in my opinion, important things Winamp can. foobar2000 seems like a nice pure music player with tons of optrions and plug-ins. Reminds me of a couple of the players I've been using on Linux actually.

Oh well, nice not having to make changes (unless Winamp stops working with my portable player like it did a couple of versions ago).

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2007, 01:05   #6
jamesl
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Send a message via AIM to jamesl
Honestly, I dislike Foobar2000 because of it's Windows 95 style interface. Not the fact that Winamp has skins but the fact that just look at the album view, it's a simple disgusting tree view.
jamesl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2007, 09:07   #7
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
swings and roundabouts. foobar certainly had the benefit of not having to worry about legacy support (and certainly not maintaining it throughout its development cycle so far).

I guess that keeps plugin developers on the scene, and up until now they've had the benefit of being more supportive than most of the project in general, so I assume havent gotten pissed off at each build breaking their addons until recompile.

Still, media players have had a lot to learn from foobar. I just think that the advantages it had on the playing field are not standing out from the crowd anymore.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2007, 17:39   #8
videocrew
Moderator Alumni
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 136
foobar does not in fact whip the llama's ass

Mi nombre es Paco
Me gusta comer el taco
Es bueno para mi!
videocrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2007, 18:38   #9
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
videocrew! Wow! Long time no see.

Hi :-)

and I agree entirely

Winamp 4 ever !

Notepad is for text.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2007, 20:38   #10
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
videocrew! Wow! Long time no see.

Hi :-)

and I agree entirely

Winamp 4 ever !

Notepad is for text.
I did actually go and install foobar2000. And it does in fact look kinda dated. Seems like I would have to play around with tons of plug-ins to get it to do what I want. Also, seems like plug-ins aren't following the development of the main program, so it would be a mess for me every time there was an update. Can't have that.

Winamp stays!

And as for the lama's ass, foobar2000 won't even get close to be givin it a whippin', not even a friendly slap!

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2007, 21:04   #11
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
so I ask here if anyone have been using foobar2000, and if it really has all the coolness and sonic excellence people are telling me it has?
- foobar doesn't sound better than winamp (and winamp doesn't sound better than foobar)
- new foobar versions don't support older plugins
- foobar is ugly (this is just my point of view)
- Winamp supports most 2.x plugins and tons of the beautiful classic skins
- I prefer the Winamp GUI
- Winamp classic doesn't use many resources, when people say foobar or Winamp 2.x are faster and use less RAM than Winamp 5.x, it's simply not true

Well, I don't use stuff like Dashboard etc, but as long as you can uncheck these things, Winamp is still cool and I have many plugins, which I won't miss anymore.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2007, 21:19   #12
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
foobar breaks component support with every 0.x release until 1.0 and then i think they're meant to go stable. remember that it's not even classed as a 1.0 so things can be broken but yeah, is a bit annoying i guess but that's what the devs have decided on to get the best api out of things (remember that the winamp api is essentially a hack in most cases but has the greatest ability to be used by any development platform - foobar is essentially limited to MS's latest c/c++ compiler for development).

it's all really a matter of choice, a clean foobar install is dire but it has a greater level of flexibility in areas to tweak it to what's needed and winamp likewise in other areas.

both players i think are niche (that is the correct word) players and fit different areas/things for different people. the main thing is that there is choice available for the user and if one works well for everything that's needed then that's the main thing to the user

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2007, 13:18   #13
LeadFoot
Senior Member
 
LeadFoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 192
Check out these threads:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=43077
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...175690&st=6030

To me, foobar's popularity is with how it can be customized by each user. I've finally started using foobar for certain tasks, and I am at the point to where all the type of plugins I use in winamp are now available for foobar (pause on screen lock, toaster, etc.) I've started with other people's configs and started to modify them.

It seems to boil down to how you want to use it: do you want it easy to get set up (Winamp) or do you want to tweak everything (foobar)? Just don't do it for the sound, as mentioned above.
LeadFoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2007, 13:25   #14
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by LeadFoot
Check out these threads:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=43077
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...175690&st=6030

To me, foobar's popularity is with how it can be customized by each user. I've finally started using foobar for certain tasks, and I am at the point to where all the type of plugins I use in winamp are now available for foobar (pause on screen lock, toaster, etc.) I've started with other people's configs and started to modify them.

It seems to boil down to how you want to use it: do you want it easy to get set up (Winamp) or do you want to tweak everything (foobar)? Just don't do it for the sound, as mentioned above.
I agree that foobar seems extremely tweakable. But when I'm done tweaking I want to be able to update the player without having to start all over again since the plug-ins that worked in one version aren't necessarily working in the next.

But again, what I was really interested in in initially was if it actually sounds better. It doesn't seem to be the case.

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2007, 13:52   #15
gorbe010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to gorbe010
Reply : Winamp not cool anymore?..maybe!! not good...certain!!!

Try to load a 20.000 list on winamp..and go for a search with a list like that... Foobar is much faster than winamp but not as fancy though. If you want better sound reproduction go for Vuplayer. Winamp does not stand a chance in my opinion in a world of 24 bit sound cards, lossless codes: .ape, .ogg, .flac, .wma pro; not to mention DTS or Dolby Pro Logic. Belive me, for all in a day use go for foobar2000, for decent sound quality in standard formats...go for Vuplayer. If you only have an onboard sound card stick with winamp, if not, try any of the players i have mentioned before. Vuplayer also has a nice mini player ...mini control which is very practical. Winamp is a drawback for sound cards like audigy series, X-Fi series!!!! I agree that are some plugins to improve the quality of reproduction but why bother when better players are available?? Good luck..
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 5_1751_174balboa.jpg (6.9 KB, 444 views)
gorbe010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2007, 13:57   #16
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Re: Reply : Winamp not cool anymore?..maybe!! not good...certain!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by gorbe010
Try to load a 20.000 list on winamp..and go for a search with a list like that... Foobar is much faster than winamp but not as fancy though. If you want better sound reproduction go for Vuplayer. Winamp does not stand a chance in my opinion in a world of 24 bit sound cards, lossless codes: .ape, .ogg, .flac, .wma pro; not to mention DTS or Dolby Pro Logic. Belive me, for all in a day use go for foobar2000, for decent sound quality in standard formats...go for Vuplayer. If you only have an onboard sound card stick with winamp, if not, try any of the players i have mentioned before. Vuplayer also has a nice mini player ...mini control which is very practical. Winamp is a drawback for sound cards like audigy series, X-Fi series!!!! I agree that are some plugins to improve the quality of reproduction but why bother when better players are available?? Good luck..
Thanks for the advice. Now that you mention it I think Winamp is a bit slow dealing with my 10k song library, but it's nothing I can't live with. I have gotten used to the way Winamp deals with podcasts, so I would miss that if I ever were to change players. And then there's the fact I would need a movie player to play my Donald Duck movies for the kids!

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2007, 11:32   #17
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
10k is nothing, the media library is just fine at filtering through all that.

If you playlist that many songs and try to jump through them, maybe, but I think jtfe offers much benefit over the standard jump dialog. Dunno. definately never had any issue with that myself and I have twice as many tracks and some.

as far as vuplayer sounding better, the author clearly didnt read the text as written on the foobar faq. ALL players are pretty much equal on sound reproduction now.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2007, 13:04   #18
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
Quote:
Originally posted by gorbe010
Try to load a 20.000 list on winamp..and go for a search with a list like that... Foobar is much faster than winamp but not as fancy though. If you want better sound reproduction go for Vuplayer. Winamp does not stand a chance in my opinion in a world of 24 bit sound cards, lossless codes: .ape, .ogg, .flac, .wma pro; not to mention DTS or Dolby Pro Logic. Belive me, for all in a day use go for foobar2000, for decent sound quality in standard formats...go for Vuplayer. If you only have an onboard sound card stick with winamp, if not, try any of the players i have mentioned before. Vuplayer also has a nice mini player ...mini control which is very practical. Winamp is a drawback for sound cards like audigy series, X-Fi series!!!! I agree that are some plugins to improve the quality of reproduction but why bother when better players are available?? Good luck..
And can we ask... when did you last use Winamp?
More than 3 years ago, by the sounds of it.

Winamp supports 24bit soundcards (Prefs > Playback > Allow 24 bit)
Winamp natively supports ogg, flac, and lossless wma encoding & decoding (.ape is provided by a 3rd-party plugin)
And my 30,000+ list loads instantly (whether via the media library, or via a saved playlist - sure it might take a bit longer if it's got to read all the metadata first, if loading via Explorer, but there's an option to not read metadata on load for that).

Hmm, never heard of Vuplayer before... but I've just looked at its feature list, and there's nothing on there that Winamp can't do, including gapless playback, cd-text support, audioscrobbler support, etc etc. And Winamp doesn't look like a glorified version of Notepad either :-p

Get with the times dude. Winamp blows the competition away :/
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2007, 14:16   #19
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
Haven't looked at foobar for a while, if it comes even close to Winamp's radio support I shall be very surprised.

Same with 'vuplayer'. (although the companion 'Player' prog is useful if you use CDex/EAC)

UJ
ujay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2007, 14:45   #20
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
And can we ask... when did you last use Winamp?
More than 3 years ago, by the sounds of it.

Winamp supports 24bit soundcards (Prefs > Playback > Allow 24 bit)
Winamp natively supports ogg, flac, and lossless wma encoding & decoding (.ape is provided by a 3rd-party plugin)
And my 30,000+ list loads instantly (whether via the media library, or via a saved playlist - sure it might take a bit longer if it's got to read all the metadata first, if loading via Explorer, but there's an option to not read metadata on load for that).

Hmm, never heard of Vuplayer before... but I've just looked at its feature list, and there's nothing on there that Winamp can't do, including gapless playback, cd-text support, audioscrobbler support, etc etc. And Winamp doesn't look like a glorified version of Notepad either :-p

Get with the times dude. Winamp blows the competition away :/
Okay, so I have now spent a lot of time comparing players. All of them! This discussion should be over. Winamp is THE player! None of the others have the balanced array of features Winamp has.

I did try a player that I think sounded better than the others, but that one is simply too limited in functionality. The trade-off was is too big, but it did sound phenomenal especially on my living room high end speakers.

All in all, Winamp still rocks big time. I will NOT change unless AOL fills Winamp with spyware.

The only wish I have is that Winamp would rid itself of it's IE dependency and use another rendering engine like for instance Opera's which is very small. Actually, a tight integration between Opera and Winamp would be a killer combo in my opinion.

Now, back to the music. 'nuff said..

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2007, 15:32   #21
qwert73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 118
I just can repeat what Dro said: Both are nice players and are for different people.

The most popular UI for foobar is still ColumnsUi which gives you opportunity to place your playlists and panels how you like. Additionally to that you can organize panels in tabs. Just set background color, font color and font of your panels , choose a nice visual style and you will get a powerful and beatiful userinterface. I really can't hear anymore the sentence: "the default ui is ugly" - it is just simple and that means also an incredible workflow (just work a few days with this simple ui)

So why is foobar superior to Winamp? That is not a question of how many features/plugins exist or of better sound quality placebo. Just look in Winamps view file info... dialogue for ogg files. That is the real first version of foobar.

If Winamp could do what foobar can following would be possible in WA:

- i could store everything as tag
- i could use each of the tags f.e in the panes: Instead of Artist/Album i could create also (not senseful but for example) Month of release/Label/Style/Country/Whateveryoulikeandneed
- i could define the columns in medialibries tracklist. F.e
i could define title as "$if(%album artist%,%title%/%artist%,%artist%)" and artist as "$if2(%album artist%,%artist%)
- i can define sorting of my playlist by using ATF

Once again: Both are nice player (and i still use winamp) but i can't stand fanboyism. Many people are talking about things they don't really know

(sorry for that crappy english)
qwert73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2007, 16:14   #22
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Re: Reply : Winamp not cool anymore?..maybe!! not good...certain!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by gorbe010
Winamp does not stand a chance in my opinion in a world of 24 bit sound cards, lossless codes: .ape, .ogg, .flac, .wma pro;
Er, not only are both Winamp and foobar capable of 24bit playback, even bit-perfect via ASIO or Kernel Streaming for those who think they can hear noise at -144dB, but how many of your lossless files are 24bit?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2007, 09:17   #23
Musky Melon
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4
Winamp just needs a tree view for the playlist editor and DVD playback and it would be fine.
Musky Melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2007, 10:23   #24
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally posted by cdysthe
The only wish I have is that Winamp would rid itself of it's IE dependency and use another rendering engine like for instance Opera's which is very small.
QFT

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2007, 13:32   #25
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
QFT
"Quoted for Truth" or "Quit f****** trolling"?


//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2007, 14:11   #26
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quite Frankly Terrible (your idea of course)
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2007, 14:15   #27
cdysthe
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Quite Frankly Terrible (your idea of course)
Didn't see that one coming... Well, the idea may be terrible, but the result would be good

//C
cdysthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2007, 02:01   #28
Thunder Pussy
Feed me a stray dog
(Major Dude)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,122
It's not true to say Winamp maintains legacy support, because 5.2 broke a few plugins that I was very fond of using. Just saying, I know it has to be done sometimes.

If I were comparing fb2k & Winamp my only complaint about Winamp is that it requires a lot of mouse use. To use the mouse I have to take my feet off of my desk. What's ideal for me is a player that lets me do anything the player can do with the keyboard, but what's ideal for everyone is that users have two good music players to choose from.

For my use the best thing Winamp has going for it right now is jtfe and separators.

edit: Winamp has quite a lot more going for it than jtfe and separators, those two just happen to be my most-used.

Last edited by Thunder Pussy; 27th February 2007 at 02:31.
Thunder Pussy 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