Written by Guest on 31.08.2011 at 14:46

The best sounding one: HELIUM MUSIC MANAGER 7 (not distorted or polluted like Media monkey or Foobar - only an opinion of my ears and some other folks on the internet :-) )

How can a player have a different sound from another one ? They all read the same digital files so assuming you're testing several media players on the same gear (sound-card, speakers), where do the differences occur?

And what's wrong with iTunes?

I use Winamp for anything music related, and... CCCP for codecs for reading .ogg, even though I don't have any, haha.

I've only ever used Winamp, though, so I am probably out of my element here in this thread.

Written by Guest on 31.08.2011 at 20:22

This topic was created for audiophiles, not for common users so I understand that not all will be interested :-)

Well in that case, this 'common user' slowly raises his shoulders and wishes you and your fellow audiophile elitists good luck.

What about Songbird?

Written by Guest on 31.08.2011 at 20:22

Trust me, there REALLY are differences in sound (they have different codecs etc.)... you can search through internet for proofs, there are many :-)

iTunes? Software mentioned above is way better than that, IMHO. And it is not possible to store .flac files there...

This topic was created for audiophiles, not for common users so I understand that not all will be interested :-)

This is complete bullshit. All media players sound exactly the same, unless they use some specific sound-enhancement algorithms.
You can compare audio performance between players in terms of latency, but not in terms of sound quality. Its all exactly the same.
Being an 'audiophile' does not give you license to ignore scientific proof. Sadly, most audiophiles still do believe that 1000$ cables will make their system sound better, even though it has been scientifically proven time and again that cables make no audible difference on the sound.

I do agree that iTunes is really bad software though. I would never recommend it to anyone since its a system bloat and offers very little customization (amongst other issues). My personal player/manager of choice is Foobar2k, simply because it has by far the most functionality and customization of all media players out there, including Media Monkey. It just takes a little while to set it up properly, but once you do that, it offers by far the most options. It is also the only free player I know of that handles WASAPI really well, and this is extremely important for me.

Written by Guest on 01.09.2011 at 11:00

Using WASAPI is only a question of placebo effect, IMHO (I know foobar's one well)... And also I do NOT believe that hi-tech cables can improve quality of sound. Also, I do NOT agree that vinyl is better than CD or digi-format... But this is NOT the case, not the topic.

WASAPI doesnt make the sound any better, I never said it did. It does however bypass the kernel and offer low-latency audio. This means that the audio is given higher priority and there are fewer drop-outs in the stream. Since I listen to music while I work, I need an interface that is low latency, otherwise, the audio would skip all the time and be unlistenable.

Quote:

I trust my ears and know that every player has it's codecs, equalizers and so on (I am not an audiophile, I just wanted to discuss with them) and it cleary MAKES the difference. If you think it's bullshit... OK, thank you for your opinion and please try to recommend me the player with best sound-modify plugins and so on to make my music sound the best. Foobar is not the one I am looking for (but it's not a bad software...). :-)

Most players use either the exact same codecs or at least the same code-base for their codecs, not to mention that all codecs are based on the same specifications. There is no difference between how they decode compressed music and even if there is, it is waaay below the noise-floor and completely inaudible to all human beings. Equalizers and DSP are used to modify the sound, so if you are a purist and don't want modifications, there is no difference what media player you use - they will all sound exactly the same.

If you do want to modify your sound in some way; however, Foobar2k is still by far the best player out there because it gives you the most options with its large plugin repository. You want crossfeed for your headphones? Got it. BBE enhancements like in jetAudio? Got them through VST. A full parametric equalizer? No sweat, got that as well.

Quote:

To give you a small clue - try to listen to some track in Media monkey and Foobar for comparison... I am almost sure that you WILL notice differences (better sound in foobar, rather flat sound in media monkey). If not, maybe you don't listen to a lossless file on PC with some good sound card and so on... Many people love media monkey but hate its crappy sound, it is a well-known issue of this amazing player...

Now try doing this test blind (ie. without knowing what player you are listening to) and see if you can tell the difference. Get a friend to help you, make sure the players are volume-matched (since higher volume is perceived as higher quality) and make sure you are not given any clues as to what player is being used. Lets see if you can tell the difference. Since scientifically the probability of you telling the difference is basically null, I think it is far more possible that you are influenced by the various other features of the players, including their interface, responsiveness etc. This is called placebo.

I was merely trying to make you realize that players cannot be compared on the basis of sound quality. Naturally, you can still compare them based on functionality and appearance. Foobar2k is the clear winner in the former category and the latter is really a pretty subjective category that depends on your taste.

My favorite music player is my iPhone and my favorite music manager is iTunes. Fast syncing, cool look and I didn't experience any problem with them.

ITunes is terrible, dont really know how it got too many users.

I use/prefer foobar2k, as jupitreas said, it gives you a lot of options of what to do about eqs ( you can find out there good pre-eqs if you want too ), plugins, dsp manager... and it's for both expert users and common users.

It isnt heavy and it's very good to manage your library. It has native support for a lot of file types.

And other thing to manage you library, but not on the player, but regarding file_names/tags I recommend you to use Tag&Rename or one mp3tag( I think, this one is easier too find and free, but I never used it ), this Tag&Rename use masks to rename/organize( it even creates folders depending of the mask), it's easy to use it.

I dont get whats wrong with Itunes. I tried Foobar2000, was slightly confused, and nothing seemed all that visually appealing. Itunes customizes what you want to display (artist, album, year, time, genre, date added, ect.). Playlists are incredibly easy to make, and name. Smart playlists are incredibly simple as well (with a few clicks, I have a playlist for every year since 1980, all put into folders by decade, then put into another folder titled "year-by-year". It takes up about a centimeter on the itunes page, but I can within seconds open it up, and see what music was released in that particular year.

At the bottom I can see the album cover, and by double tapping it I have a fullscreen view of the album cover. Itunes story is nice for listening to 90 second snippets and hearing other's opinions. Genius is actually a quite nice feature. I can throw some oldschool death metal track in there, and it gives me 25 or so similar songs. Quick way to make a playlist. Genius mixes are nice as well, as they are basically premade mixes based on your music.

So, besides the individuals in us all hating Itunes, I don't see the problem.

My prefered music device is an mp3 player so I can get an endless stream of songs I like in a random order. I'm currently using an ipod, but only cause I can't get an mp3 player larger than 16gb here. My ipod has 160gb and I have over 4000 songs on it (about 20gb worth).
My faverite mp3 player was a Sony Walkman 16gb. I prefer the copy and paste method of storing the mp3s on the player to the itunes program. Plus the controles are easier to use.

Written by JCJen7 on 02.09.2011 at 10:06
(artist, album, year, time, genre, date added, ect.)

Etc.

I guess you're all referring to explicitly portable players, not those for PCs / laptops? Except... Metalorgy... hmm...

I use iTunes, I find that it works perfectly fine for me and sounds good enough to me for the files that I have. I tried Foobar and while the EQ is much better and you can really play with the sound...I find I've just gotten so used to iTunes that I just can't be bothered to sit and try and use another player/manager.

Vinyl. End of story.

I liked MediaMonkey the best, especially the tagging options. I tried a few out, but not all mentioned. I used iTunes previously, and was sick of the long load times and lack of customization.

Written by Guest on 03.09.2011 at 00:41

Vinyl. End of story.

Meh. The slightly increased dynamics for me are cancelled out by the little popping sounds that start to appear after you spin it a couple dozen times. And how expensive it is. I myself own about 50 vinyls, but from now on will probably only buy albums that I love the cover art for. Because for me, the sound is not a huge plus, but having a physical copy like that is so cool.

Dudes, wtf. Get winamp and learn how to EQ properly to your own preferences and stop this bullshit about audio players, they all play the files with the same algorithm.

Written by JCJen7 on 04.09.2011 at 10:56

Written by Guest on 03.09.2011 at 00:41

Vinyl. End of story.

Meh. The slightly increased dynamics for me are cancelled out by the little popping sounds that start to appear after you spin it a couple dozen times. And how expensive it is. I myself own about 50 vinyls, but from now on will probably only buy albums that I love the cover art for. Because for me, the sound is not a huge plus, but having a physical copy like that is so cool.

Actually, vinyl doesn't even have a larger dynamic range than Redbook audio, its all a myth.
The theoretical maximum dynamic range of a vinyl record is 120dB, and the real-world average is 80dB.
The dynamic range of properly dithered Redbook audio is 150dB. What this means is that no vinyl, under any circumstance, will ever have a higher dynamic range than a CD.

The myth might come from the fact that music released in a digital format is often more compressed during the mastering process. Digital audio can handle more compression without audible distortion than analog audio and this is why CDs are often mastered this way. This leaves the vinyl with the less hot master and thus with more dynamic range in the signal itself.

I have been using Google Music like crazy. It has worked wonders. It has totally eliminated the problem of having a smartphone and a IPod. Can use my phone as each. Also a good feature to have is the option to access your music anywhere.

Written by jupitreas on 06.09.2011 at 01:23


Actually, vinyl doesn't even have a larger dynamic range than Redbook audio, its all a myth.
The theoretical maximum dynamic range of a vinyl record is 120dB, and the real-world average is 80dB.
The dynamic range of properly dithered Redbook audio is 150dB. What this means is that no vinyl, under any circumstance, will ever have a higher dynamic range than a CD.

The myth might come from the fact that music released in a digital format is often more compressed during the mastering process. Digital audio can handle more compression without audible distortion than analog audio and this is why CDs are often mastered this way. This leaves the vinyl with the less hot master and thus with more dynamic range in the signal itself.

Well yeah I always thought the increased range was because the audio was compressed in to a digital format. I am not expert on the subject matter though. And, my speakers that I play from the turn table are much nicer than my CD player, so that probably has a lot to do with me thinking of vinyl as having a crisper, wider sound.

I've learned alot reading through these posts (thank you jupitreas), further reading I would recommend: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jun/24-forget-3d-screens-need-3d-audio-real-life

The future of audio? Who knows?

Right now, I use EAC to copy my CD's for backup and burn FLAC copies for everyday usage. I have a 160gb Ipod, but I usually compress to V0 (VBR) when I really want to use it. iTunes is what I use because I simply don't care that much, I prefer to have a tangible collection on-hand.

If anyone wants some invites to Google Music, let me know.

Written by Guest on 06.09.2011 at 20:19

If anyone wants some invites to Google Music, let me know.

I'd surely like an invite if you still have one.

Written by jupitreas on 06.09.2011 at 01:23

Written by JCJen7 on 04.09.2011 at 10:56

Written by Guest on 03.09.2011 at 00:41

Vinyl. End of story.

Meh. The slightly increased dynamics for me are cancelled out by the little popping sounds that start to appear after you spin it a couple dozen times. And how expensive it is. I myself own about 50 vinyls, but from now on will probably only buy albums that I love the cover art for. Because for me, the sound is not a huge plus, but having a physical copy like that is so cool.

Actually, vinyl doesn't even have a larger dynamic range than Redbook audio, its all a myth.
The theoretical maximum dynamic range of a vinyl record is 120dB, and the real-world average is 80dB.
The dynamic range of properly dithered Redbook audio is 150dB. What this means is that no vinyl, under any circumstance, will ever have a higher dynamic range than a CD.

The myth might come from the fact that music released in a digital format is often more compressed during the mastering process. Digital audio can handle more compression without audible distortion than analog audio and this is why CDs are often mastered this way. This leaves the vinyl with the less hot master and thus with more dynamic range in the signal itself.

Not to mention that all recordings today are done digitally (Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase), so transferring that digital information to an analog medium is kind of backwards.

Written by Metalorgy on 07.09.2011 at 03:36

Not to mention that all recordings today are done digitally (Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase), so transferring that digital information to an analog medium is kind of backwards.

This is quite true. It also amuses me when audiophiles replace op-amps in their amplifiers claiming that this will improve the sound, while the signal must have gone through thousands of op-amps of various quality during the production process

Written by Metalorgy on 07.09.2011 at 03:23

Written by Guest on 06.09.2011 at 20:19

If anyone wants some invites to Google Music, let me know.

I'd surely like an invite if you still have one.

Message me your gmail and ill send one out.

If anyone is running a Android phone I would suggest that you check this out.