What media-player are are you using?, or Winamp against the rest of the world Options

[seanyseansean]

I also use XBMP as seen on www.xboxmediaplayer.de

Now that's one project which could do with a foobar core port...

AFAIK they use MPlayer; one of the fastest and most user-unfriendly players in the world.

They use mplayer to decode, I was actually on about the whole audio pipeline - gapless, for example, doesn't really work with their model As a codec, mplayer is fine.

[David Nordin]

If they'd only grab some decoding routines from foobar it would all be fine

[Canar]

If they'd only grab some decoding routines from foobar it would all be fine

I'm really surprised more people haven't taken advantage of the way FB2K is licensed/sourced, especially with the robustitude and excellence of its MP3 decoder.

[plonk420]

I'm using Winamp2 for audio and Media Player Classic for video.

same here

being addicted to IRC, i love /mplayerc

* !ranma2k3 is staring at guano_apes-lords_of_the_boards-[pal-lpcm].vob (00:45/03:36) Size: 208.6 mb



and /song works with Winamp5beta1 so..... :] ...but i still use 2.91. i MIGHT'VE used WA exclusively for video, but it's not the most stable. but it's an awesome step in the right direction

[plonk420]

Winamp 2.95 with Album List 1.42.

If Foobar could do what winamp Albumlist does (can it???) then I'd probably use it. But on my system there are no real advantages in using Foobar. Winamp does all I need and it looks much prettier.

.dd.

where'd you get 2.95?!? i read about it in the what's new of WA5 beta1 ... and didn't think they ever released it....
:\

[ScorLibran]

Winamp 2.95 with Album List 1.42.

If Foobar could do what winamp Albumlist does (can it???) then I'd probably use it. But on my system there are no real advantages in using Foobar. Winamp does all I need and it looks much prettier.

.dd.

where'd you get 2.95?!? i read about it in the what's new of WA5 beta1 ... and didn't think they ever released it....
:\

Winamp 2.95 can be found here. It's not linked through Nullsoft's site, but they answer questions about it there, so it's "semi-supported", whether or not it's officially supported. I used it for a few months before getting Winamp 5 pre-alpha...it works about the same as 2.91 does, as far as I could tell...no major bugs that I found.

[KurtCocain]

Flash,Jul 14 2003, 09:57 PM] Winamp 2.81 for audio
Windows Media Player 6.4 (mplayer2.exe) for videos

SAME here. excellent choice!

[dub_doctor]

I'm now using Winamp5_beta2 with Albumlist plugin for audio. I tried fb2k and quite liked it - it CAN do all I wanted it to do - but (call me shallow) the winamp aesthetics won it over for me. Given the relatively low quality of my audio equipment the difference in sound quality between the two players is negligible if at all noticeable.

For video (in Windows) a great alternative is Media Player Classic

.dd.

[The_Cisco_Kid]

but (call me shallow) the winamp aesthetics won it over for me.

one of the main reasons foobar won me over as well (or lack thereof). simple look with keyboard shortcuts =

[bidz]

iTunes 4.1.1 (win) .. yea i know but after getting my ipod and getting used to its library functions, its actually quite damn nice when i have approx. 13,000 music files (mp3 and aac).

So that will be one of the players you totally forgot to add

[deeswift]

Not prepared to follow the crowd, I use all three of the best players:

1: 1by1 -- the most overlooked piece of software ever created! Dammit, the latest version is only 47 kb to download! Does exactly what it should do with no fuss, plays back almost any format and uses hardly any resources at ALL.

2: QCD -- it does almost everything I need it to and does it very well.

3: foobar2000 -- great player, just a little too over-complex in the wrong hands for it's own good.

[Oge_user]

Flash,Jul 14 2003, 09:57 PM] Winamp 2.81 for audio
Windows Media Player 6.4 (mplayer2.exe) for videos

SAME here. excellent choice!

Same here, except that I use Winamp 2.95

[Iconoclast_a]

Well of course foobar2000!

I also use Gabest Media Player Classic for most video tasks since it can read many formats, including RealMedia and QuickTime.

Just wish they were also available for Mac OSX...

This post has been edited by Iconoclast_a: Nov 12 2003, 12:05

[ScorLibran]

Not prepared to follow the crowd...
...
...
3: foobar2000 -- great player, just a little too over-complex in the wrong hands for it's own good.

But that IS what the "crowd" uses (around here, anyway). Not following the crowd would be to use Winamp.

BTW...I voted (long ago) for Winamp2, but with the release of Winamp5beta2 my preference has changed to that. My favorite features are:

-1- Comfort. Yes, I know...not a seemingly valid argument for an audio player, but once you're thoroughly used to something, it's hard to let go. I use a system-level hot-key plug-in to control it, so I hardly see the interface, and therefore operation is blindingly fast and second nature. (I know foobar2000 is controllable via hot-keys too, but I can't pry myself away from Winamp...yet.)

-2- Milkdrop. I assume this could work with any player, but it comes pre-packaged with Winamp5, and is by far the best visualization I've seen. (Not a priority for personal use, but for parties it gets raves.)

-3- A butt-ugly interface (BUI). I don't care for most skins I've seen. foobar2000 may be called minimalist, but it's still nicer to look at than Winamp's classic skin. And I won't use another skin because one of my critical plug-ins (MuchFX2) doesn't match other skins. Sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm actually fond of Winamp's "BUI", because as said before, I'm used to it. The few times I ever see it, it's strangely comforting...I can't explain it. Mmmm...black and green...so soothing.

As for any other feature/benefit...all these players are just too similar to really compare. The ones I've tried the most (Winamp, QCD, fb2k) all play any format I use, all do playlist management, all have the other features I need, and all have the same sound quality. So all that's left to compare is the menial stuff I guess.

[outscape]

foobar for audio, windows media player 6.4 for video. no realplayer, quicktime, <insert the name of yet another totally useless spyware-infested player> or any crap alike

This post has been edited by outscape: Nov 17 2003, 01:10

[Audible!]

I'm the only one so far who voted for Windows Media Player...I'm not sure how to feel about that, like a standout or like a leper.

LOL!
My experience has been this: if your digits are falling off you're a leper.

I use both winamp (2.95) and foobar2k myself, but I voted for foobar because I use it somewhat more often these days.

Why do I feel like a unitarian?

[Xenno]

1st: Media Center 9.1 (and Media Jukebox 8.0)
2nd: WinAmp 2.91

xen-uno

[amano]

Audio:
Winamp 2/5 because it's the only player with integrated monkey ass raping
Well, jokes aside, I like its handy interface and its loads of plugins for all possible needs. And sound quality isn't as bad as many claim. Peter did a good job ensuring that for some years with his in/out plugins.

Video:
a) BSPlayer: Nice interface, full-featured and ultra fast for my relatively slow (800 mhz) PC.

B) Media Player Classic: To play realplayer and quicktime content.

[Peter]

Audio:
Winamp 2/5 because it's the only player with integrated monkey ass raping
Well, jokes aside, I like its handy interface and its loads of plugins for all possible needs. And sound quality isn't as bad as many claim. Peter did a good job ensuring that for some years with his in/out plugins.

Video:
a) BSPlayer: Nice interface, full-featured and ultra fast for my relatively slow (800 mhz) PC.

B) Media Player Classic: To play realplayer and quicktime content.

And what gave you the idea that input/output plugins (other than mp3 decoder maybe or resampling outputs on a soundcard with broken resampling) affect sound quality ? Your post is in violation of ToS #8.

[Mr_Rabid_Teddybe...]

On Windows:

Foobar2000: All audio. Zoom Player: All video/DVD.

On Linux:

Just started with Linux, tried xmms, but dunno.... any experienced Linux-users view would be greatly appreciated ...and what's good for those divX/Xvids on Linux...?

[danchr]

Just started with Linux, tried xmms, but dunno.... any experienced Linux-users view would be greatly appreciated    ...and what's good for those divX/Xvids on Linux...?

Zinf seems like a nice MP3-player - if it weren't so awfully slow. For movie players - either MPlayer, xine or VLC would probably be your best bet. MPlayer is the fastest and most user-unfriendly player out there (Even on Windows PCs.)

[ciber-fred]

as i'm on linux : lamip (my personnal soft) for audio and mplayer for all others multimedia

[shaohao]

Unfair vote!!!!
HA hosts Foobar--Here users use it more than others. I think if you post this vote in CoolPlayer's or QCD's forum, they will choose QCD or CoolPlayer, Not foobar as their favorite player.

[tsioc]

I'm using WMP 9, for the simple reason that I like the media library. Do any of the other players that have been mentioned have a similar feature? I like that I can simply set it to monitor a specific folder for new files when it's running, the automatically add them to the library.

[jarsonic]

Winamp 5.0 beta 5 (11/14/03 build), baby.

...and foobar2000


Media Player Classic for video.