Does Apollo sounds better then foobar2000?

http://koti.welho.com/hylinen/apollo/

All software audio players sound the same with all DSP and Equalizer setting disabled, and all other things being equal.

I haven't followed the recent development of apollo (if there has been any...). Back in the days, apollo was said to have a custom decoder (i.e. not based on the few existing decoders of the time).
That said, the goals of apollo included to have good sound quality, and just happened to have a nice-to-use UI.
I guess nowadays foobar2000 might be more accurate in the output (due to the designs of foobar2000), but most probably apollo might not be (noticeably) worse.

One can say that apollo was the foobar2000 of that era

I have listened apollo 3 years ago and it souds much beter then Winamp when I played Ogg-files with bitrate (as i remember) 54kbps-64kbps. Then I started to use foobar2000, but I have a friend that says that apollo is still better then foobar in sound quality. I like foobar, but if Apollo realy sounds better i will install it. Does anyone compared them?

Is this a troll?

Guess it doesn't make that much difference anyways considering Apollo will become abandonware soon.

.


Dude... WHY would you listen to music at 64Kb/s!?! That bitrate sounds like crap - no ifs', an's or buts!

Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com

.

Andrew, I suggest you read the forum rules. Also, courtesy never hurt anyone, besides 64Kbits might be enough for some people, not to mention audiobooks or spoken word.

actually for the *most* people outside here is good and widely used.

Digital, try to do an abx test on a modern codec (such as ogg) at 64kbs, if you haven't already done it.

I use foobar, but someone recommended me Apollo, just installed it just for trying. I have lots of lossless files (bootlegs, mainly), but it doesn't play APE nor SHN, either.
Does anyone know where I could get the codecs for Shorten and Monkey's Audio for Apollo? I was googling and having a look at WinAmp d/ls, but they are not there. I got FLAC, though.
Any idea?

Many thanks.

I'd say, yes! It certainly does. "Apollo" sounds much better than "foobar2000".

"Apollo" is simple to say and it's easy on the ears. And it has very positive connotations. Ancient heros, modern astronauts, .... Cool stuff.

On the other hand, "foobar" -- what the hell is it. It's jibberish. It only brings to my mind the old war time joke of somone being "f..ed up beyond all recognition". And on top of that "foobar2000" -- "two thousand" -- it's too long for a name and not catchy.

Make that Apollo3001 and it totally owns foobar2000!

Out of all the umpteen playback software I've tried and used over the course of about nine years I've noticed no "better sound" from one versus the other and I've used Apollo, RIO, MediaMonkey, MusicMatch Jukebox, WMP, Winamp with the included decoder and with MAD, Quintessential Player, iTunes, 1by1, and whatever that player/ripper was from Real years ago (forgot the name of it), etc., the list goes on an on, and I'm currently using Foobar2000 and they all sound the same to me.

The only way I could possibly think of any sounding different is if something is either broken in the decoder, someone has DSP effects on, or is using the equalizer.

I beg to differ. With vorbis I cannot tell the difference for most samples at 64kbps. Let's stop the unfounded bashing shall we?

k, thanks for the help, lol, no wonder no one has answered me, just found out Apollo just can't play APE, nor SHN files, either. So no plugins for that.
What kinda player is a player wich does not play lossless stuf? Oh, Jesus, uninstalled. Why would anyone recommend me Apollo when I have been using Foobar to listen/encode/decode/tag all my lossless stuff?
I guess he was just stoned.
If anyone is reading this, don't get Apollo, no worthy, it plays just a few files and sounds same as any other player. And you can't make it looking cute according to your tastes, only WinAmp skins for it. Boring.

Somewhere on the website I think it mentions that WinAmp plugins can be used for DSP, input, ... wahtever. So it might be possible to use WA-plugins... but if it's causing crashes no-ones going to fix it, since the project was abandoned.

So I conclude: why switch to a dead horse?

It's obvious you didn't look much about Apollo. It is finally discontinued after *years* of just fixes. Apollo predates even Winamp 3!

It was a really good program, *very* wise design, and good quality in general. But it was a one-person project with another job.

I used to use Apollo a lot as it is very streamlined and sorted massive databases very quickly, it sounds good but I think Foobar is better.

As far as I know the only player which plays APE and SHN lossless formats is Foobar, can decode/encode as well
I think no codecs for APE, nor SHN, either, for WinAmp. I have tried tons of players, and I thing I found the perfect one for me: Foobar. Can handle all kinda audio files with it plus it doesn't get many CPU resources. I stick to it.
Maybe Apollo could have been a good player, but well, it's a dead horse, yes.