Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Best sounding mp3 desktop player?
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Hydrogenaudio Forum > General Audio
huh-hah
Not sure if this is the right forum to ask, but I just searched through the archives and was surprised by the absence of any exhaustive discussion on this subject.

So, assuming identical mp3 files, no equalizer, ceteris paribus, etc., what is the best sounding desktop player? Does the answer depend on the type of music/song/speakers/headphones used?

Right now I'm stuck between iTunes and foobar, but with the speakers I use now I'm not sure which one sounds best.



VCSkier
most desktop players should be able to give you proper playback. i doubt you would be able to find any differences between most players when dsp's are disabled. fb2k will certainly give you more control and flexability than any other player, but the idea that some players sound better than others is a common myth.
huh-hah
VCSkier, that's an interesting and surprising answer. I am new around here, as you can see by the post count, and I was sure there would be widely held opinions that various players sound different.

So are you saying there is no difference, or just that no one sounds better only different? To my ears, iTunes 6 and foobar2000 v0.9b12 definitely sound different.
Shade[ST]
QUOTE(huh-hah @ Dec 1 2005, 10:20 AM)
Not sure if this is the right forum to ask, but I just searched through the archives and was surprised by the absence of any exhaustive discussion on this subject.

So, assuming identical mp3 files, no equalizer, ceteris paribus, etc., what is the best sounding desktop player? Does the answer depend on the type of music/song/speakers/headphones used?

Right now I'm stuck between iTunes and foobar, but with the speakers I use now I'm not sure which one sounds best.
*



Some players have a different bit-depth precision, but generally all the players on your computer will be at least precise to 12 bits (eg 72 db SNR) (the worst go down to 12), winamp and wmp are around 14 IIRC (83 dB SNR), in 16 bit decoding, which is plenty for when you're not exclusively listening to your music.

Otherwise, I haven't heard numbers about itunes, but It must be along those numbers.

MAD and SHIBATCH decoders for winamp are precise to 15-16 bits in 16 bit decoding, and to 22-24 in 24 bit decoding - when dithering is active (remember that mp3 is floating point and needs to be converted to integer (PCM) before being played on a soundcard)

Foobar has perfect precision, since it decodes internally at 64 bits floating point and trucates to the required length.
bubka
you go to any other website (neowin) and you will hear about how X is better than Y, but here, we know thats BS
Shade[ST]
QUOTE(huh-hah @ Dec 1 2005, 10:29 AM)
VCSkier, that's an interesting and surprising answer. I am new around here, as you can see by the post count, and I was sure there would be widely held opinions that various players sound different.

So are you saying there is no difference, or just that no one sounds better only different? To my ears, iTunes 6 and foobar2000 v0.9b12 definitely sound different.
*


Generally, if a player sounds louder, people will have a tendancy to think it sounds better. It may be due to a different volume setting that you hear a difference.
btocher
QUOTE(huh-hah @ Dec 1 2005, 04:20 PM)
Not sure if this is the right forum to ask, but I just searched through the archives and was surprised by the absence of any exhaustive discussion on this subject.

So, assuming identical mp3 files, no equalizer, ceteris paribus, etc., what is the best sounding desktop player? Does the answer depend on the type of music/song/speakers/headphones used?

Right now I'm stuck between iTunes and foobar, but with the speakers I use now I'm not sure which one sounds best.
*



From the foobar2000 FAQ:

http://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ.html

"Does foobar2000 sound better than other players?
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."

--
Baxter
huh-hah
Everyone, thanks for your replies. Very informative. After some more digging I did come across a few posts (e.g. in the 'Tell us why have you chosen foobar200' thread) claiming certain players sound better, but you are right in that these opinions are scarce around here. This should make my choice of players easier. I just want to pick one and then stop worrying about it.
Shade[ST]
Personally, I'm on foobar 0.9b12, and though the learning curve was a bit steep at first, I am very glad to have learnt to use this piece of software : I can do all I like with it, and it hones my programming skills.
southisup
There's a bit about sound quality in these mp3 decoder tests. Remember this is old, and even then they didn't seem worried by how most of them actually sounded.
AutumnRain
VCSkier wrote
QUOTE
..but the idea that some players sound better than others is a common myth


they surely can sound diff, that's no myth. ;)~~
its a diff question that the preference can vary from person to person.
I remember some 3x version of winamp that sounded particularly bad(io ,my preference) compared
to the 2.81 winamp i used before.(i could say which one was playing without looking at the screen.) - went back to the 2.81.
the 2.81 also sounds diff from the foobar 0.83 that i use, though not as pronounced as
the above example. - I prefer foobar. & of course much more to it than only the sound.

other things like..
i've come accross mp3s which had a sharp screech at the end, could hear this screech
on one player but not on the other. - guess it depends on the decoders they use.

-
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.