mp3 on the computer

[Tinitus]

I spend a lot of time listening to my mp3s on the computer. For players, I've tried MusicMatch, Windows Media Player, Real Jukebox and dBpowerAMP. To me, they all sound about the same.

Has anyone found a player that you think stands out as far as quality of sound? That is, all things being equal, not using any enhancements like EQ or WOW. Just a head to head test.

Bob

[Reel 2 Reel]

Basicly ...I think they all sound the same....but.....Musicmatch has an 'add-on' that works wonders for MP3s...it's called DFX........and you can get a free version that gives limited use...and it works fine for me... I dont need to crank all the controls anyway.......


clik for DFX (http://www.musicmatch.com/info/plug-ins/?plugin=dfx&version=9.00.0128MMD&os=pc)



If you like ...you can open up the jukebox....Clik on options...scroll to 'Add new features.....then clik on sound enhancments...then 'try DFX now'.....it will initiate a download....and install.....


Let us know how you like it.....

[Tinitus]

R2R- I just checked that out. I used to have that a while back before I managed to wipe my drive (bummer).
It's a nice toy to play with, but I prefer to set the EQ on my soundcard and leave it there. The DFX is a little too colorful sound-wise for my tastes.

Just wondering what plays a raw mp3 the best.

[THOR]

I like winamp the best and if you are so inclined there are thousands of plug-ins to do everything from playlist stuff to stuff that effects the sound.

[dennab]

I use foobar2000 .
IMO one of the best 'cause i use a dll Kernel streaming for playback not wave or direct sound for playback.
Fast, tight bass and more transparency in all musical spectrum.

den.

[mike hatt]

another vote for winamp, and yes, the amount of available plug ins is staggering.

[soundmotor]

I like winamp the best and if you are so inclined there are thousands of plug-ins to do everything from playlist stuff to stuff that effects the sound.

Any users of the latest Winamp 5.x version? Favorable comments about it? I know it has gone througn many updates since I had it.

When Winamp 5.x came out I "upgraded" to it. After a week of lock-ups, I removed it. Fortunately I'd kept the 3.x installer. I've been using that now for nearly 2 years and it performs flawlessly. You can get the earlier installer @

Winamp Heaven (http://www.winampheaven.net)

[matt001]

Winamp sounds really good,even through the line out of an old soundblaster 32 card :nono: .The computer is windows 98 se with an overclocked cpu (320 Mhz Pentium 1 Used to be 200 Mhz)

[mushy]

Anybody know how to print out play list on windows media player or can it be done>
Mushy

[The Modfather]

I use Winamp if I'm going to do any lengthy listening but to just play MP3's in the background I use a little MP3 player widget for the Yahoo Widget Engine, nice and convenient and doesn't soak up resources. The sound quality is pretty much in the file itself. Most of my MP3's are in lossless format, which doesn't necessarally mean they all sound great, depends on the source they were recorded from originally. I tend to prefer to not color the sound, I set everything flat and listen to it as pure as possible.

[inconnu]

Any users of the latest Winamp 5.x version? Favorable comments about it? I know it has gone througn many updates since I had it.

When Winamp 5.x came out I "upgraded" to it. After a week of lock-ups, I removed it. Fortunately I'd kept the 3.x installer. I've been using that now for nearly 2 years and it performs flawlessly. You can get the earlier installer @

Winamp Heaven (http://www.winampheaven.net)
Just installed winamp 5 today,supports new file formats and looks sleek too,but you need a newer computer to run it and it sounds alright too.I Installed on my old computer last year was way too slow so i went back to 2.9xx,i dont know how long this new installation is gonna last.

[uofmtiger]

Foobar2000 is my favorite for sound because it allows you to kill the upsampling to 48khz that Windows embeds in it kmixer. I still have not messed around with the plug-ins, but the program is easy to use, even though it is not the prettiest standard interface.

[Artie]

Winamp was my favorite until I discovered VU Player (http://www.vuplayer.com/). VUPlayer uses the BASS, (pronounced like the fish), sound engine and most folks say it has better sound than the Winamp decoder. VUlayer has a nice simple interface, and, it uses all the Winamp plugins. ;)

As far as plugins go, I've tried a bunch, and so far, my favorites are iZotope Ozone and OSS3D. Unfortunately, both of those cost money, but both are well worth it. IMHO

Artie

[Dusty Chalk]

I agree that they all sound pretty much the same. I use winamp.

One thing that may make a difference is the driver to the soundcard, so I specifically use a M-Audio Sonica, because it has a driver that bypasses the kmixer. I didn't realize that foobar2000 could also do this, I may have to check it out.

[Artie]

I agree that they all sound pretty much the same. I use winamp.

I hope I don't sound argumentative here, but they do not all sound the same. They use different decoders and software. To say that they all sound the same would be like saying that Pioneer, Sansui, Technics, Yamaha, etc, all sound the same. If that were true, we wouldn't have this forum. :)

I would think that most of you have the type of sound systems that would allow you to hear the subtle differences. The BASS sound engine comes from here (http://www.un4seen.com/) if you'ld like to read a bit more about it.

[Dusty Chalk]

Hey, you're allowed to disagree with me, even argue with me.

I disagree that the analogy is as extreme as you describe it.

Ultimately, the job of the software is to take the same stream of bits, and output them to the soundcard in the same way. There might be subtle differences -- WMP has HDCD decoding, everything else does not, for example. But if you output either a CD or an MP3 to the soundcard without processing -- no EQ, no "TruThis", no "TruThat" and, for the moment, let's leave HDCD out of this -- they should all do exactly the same thing.

And for the record, I was only talking about the actually players, not the plugins. I.E. I was addressing the initial question with my previous post, not yours.

[Artie]

I disagree that the analogy is as extreme as you describe it.
I was in a rush. My glass was empty. :D

But if you output either a CD or an MP3 to the soundcard without processing . . . they should all do exactly the same thing.
This is where I think thats not quite right, but I'm not positive. I don't really understand the internal workings of an mp3, but from what I've gleemed over at Hydrogen-Audio, an mp3 is more of a mathmatical algorithm of the sound as opposed to an actual digital representation - ie., the PCM data on a CD. Not all mp3 decoders "work the math" the same way, so what they send to the soundcard is not the same. Somewhere, in my bookmarks, is a website that did a test of all the different mp3 players. There was a huge difference, in some cases, between players. Some completely choked on things like VBR and low sample rates. If I can find it, I'll post it.

And for the record, I was only talking about the actually players, not the plugins.
Me too, on this one. ;)
Edit: I just realized, you may have thought the BASS engine to be a plug-in. Actually, its the heart of the music handling routine. All different mp3 players use some sort of "sound engine" to do their job. For WinAmp, for example, I believe its the "in_mp3.dll".

Artie

[Dusty Chalk]

MP3 encoders might be different, but because MP3 compression is a standard, the decoders have to work the same way.

Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Decoding_audio)

It's possible that those that choked just plain didn't work correctly in isolated circumstances. I'd be interested in that link if you can find it, please.

[Artie]

It's possible that those that choked just plain didn't work correctly in isolated circumstances. I'd be interested in that link if you can find it, please.

I'll see if I can find it, but the more I think about it, I believe that website was refering to the "encoding" process, rather than decoding. Of course there will be a difference between say LAME and Blade_Enc. I think I got my wires crossed on that one.

At the same time, I know there have been discussions on the differences between "decoders" over at HA. I'll try to find a definitive link to one of those also.

[Artie]

MP3 encoders might be different, but because MP3 compression is a standard, the decoders have to work the same way.

That was an excellent link. I hadn't seen that before. It cleared up a couple of questions I had on MP3 technology. The little blurb about Suzanne Vega being "the mother of the mp3" was cute too.

[Dusty Chalk]

Wikipedia rocks.

[Artie]

I found the link I was looking for. It was decoders after all:

http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/overall.html

The trouble is, I believe these tests are fairly old. The info may not be relevant anymore.

[KingBubba]

ANother vote for Winamp. I still use the old version, last release, 2.95 and am very happy with it.