Well, I've been listening to it for a week every day with a playlist of 1720 FLACs. Works perfectly, without any glitch. No player messes with the source files, including this one, all my files are in order. The guy did something connected with its non-player functions, and that's all. Or contracted some virus..

 

lol'ed at people who compare windows drivers with sound quality, when in reality all those programs, at least Itunes and thos big companies use different codecs to make you think they deliver the best sound quality. The real problem is here that a mastering engineer has to deliver 6 different version of a mastered track to spotify, itunes, youtube and what ever else there is.

 

Yes, this time it's just about Windows players. There's a whole lot of on-line players as well as hardware players.
Your point of view is interesting, you can start a new thread though.

 

Last edited: Feb 7, 2020

I see a lot of references to Winamp, if like me you loved it check: WACUP (WinAmp Community Update Project).

 

AIMP4

 

I gave it a try (v. 4.60). Compared it with foobar 1.5.1 and Winamp 5.666. Foobar is the most precise and has the clearest sound.
Winamp has undoubtedly better transient response, definition and clarity than AIMP (both outputs set the same: to WASAPI exclusive, event (pull). Tested with the same mp3 file @320 kbps.
[Winamp - output: out_yasapi-nt-2.3.5, input: in_ffsox-2a-0.6.1]

 

Last edited: Feb 7, 2020

I know it's about Windows Players. Can you explain what you mean with Hardware players and online players? With online players do you mean that you get your audio-codecs streamed live from the cloud or something? Lol.

I suggest you start reading this, and start your own thread if you got questions:
https://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/term.cfm/codec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_codec

 

i find it difficult to believe that people can program a GUI but cant't pass a floating point value without problems.

 

The same mp3 converted to WAV from Apollo and Foobar. It is clear that Apollo has a better mp3 decoder.

 

Last edited: Feb 8, 2020

I still use iTunes because I've been using iPods since 2006 and because of an old obsession with statistics (how many times I played a certain song, when did I first played it, when I last played it etc.)

It's pretty slow and stupid and I heard that Apple are going to stop developing it, so I would have to move to a different one, hopefully one that could sync to my iPod Touch (yes, I still use a dedicated mp3 player!) and keep my stats.

To just play random audio files or things that I don't want to add to my library I use good ole' MPC HC.

 

Yeah Foobar sound definitly better in that example.. Better decoder? I don`t care if people think its all 0 and 1 when stuff doesn`t sound the same in all this players.. If you think it sounds the same, good for you, one less thing that you should worry about.. i even sometimes have to make changes in the DAW so it sound better in Foobar/WMP/Itunes.. I don`t think its about the drivers, but about the program coding/decoders/codecs.. because if i change the drivers in the same program its sounds the same.. just my two cents..

 

Hardware players: old-school MP3 players, Apple’s iPod touch, or the typical smartphone. etc.
[Online] player ≠ CODEC.

 

WIth mp3s Apollo has better transient response, and foobar has more details. Apollo's output is DS only, which is a pity.

With mp3s, Apollo has better transient response, and foobar has more details. Apollo's output is DS only, which is a pity.

 

@mp5, if you reply me at least read all my posts. We still have a minor difference that I explicitly admit the possibility of. But I'm not so dumb as you make me look in your replies.

One:

Two:

Three:
It seems like most of the people here didn't take much effort to read the posts they reply.

 

Please stop as you actually have zero clue what you're talking about. Like it seems if you're trolling, why in the hell would you convert a inferior codec called mp3 to wav?

And secondly, I advise you to use the links i posted about what audio codecs are as you still have no clue what it is. It seems that you live in a illusion thinking that audio codecs are not related to "Hardware players: old-school MP3 players, Apple’s iPod touch, or the typical smartphone. But online players are? What the hell is a online player, a radio station?

Please enlighten me.

 

Sorry for trying to reason with you, I realized too late you're a pseudo-snobby-elitist:

That and especially the remark on the picture's 1720 really cranked me up

 

Sorry if I seem not to pay enough attention to people who post, but rather to posts' contents.
The most important to me is the issue that it seems at last like most of the people here didn't ever take much effort to test and choose an audio player that is (at least) better sounding. Most of them seem to be 'content' with whatever comes at hand. So I'm not impressed with their knowledge on the matter (I don't mean you). Personally, I can't imagine a music lover to be like that, not to mention a producer or music maker.

 

That has actually an use, but in this context is like me saying:
I converted a 2000MPixels 2GB bitmap to a 1,5GB JPEG, I printed both with a professional photographic printer and I could tell the difference from 5 km away.

 

Last edited: Feb 8, 2020

https://audiosex.pro/threads/the-best-audio-player.52032/page-3#post-453913

 

"Why in the hell would you convert a inferior codec called mp3 to wav.../"
In order to be able to compare the quality of different mp3 decoders embedded in different players. In order for player to play a file, their decoders first decode other formats to WAV format, I guess you know. And those WAVs you can then play directly (without any decoding) in any player in order to compare them without having installed the players /decoders/ under test.