# What is the best music player (software)?



## asdfjkl

Which music player program is the best for good sounding music/ music management/ supports flac, m4a, etc


----------



## bixby

no such thing as best
   
  best advice would be to search threads here based on what os you run to get impressions on how some of them sound


----------



## Terja

A perpetual question! OS of course dictates what you can use. Notes below are strictly Windows based.
   
  Foobar 2000 has been on all the top lists since forever, and that's mostly due to sound quality. +1 on that. But as far as organization, intuitive interface, iTunes is by far the best audio software program I've come across. I know there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction when iTunes is mentioned, but it really is quite good. I also dig the revamped look of the interface.
   
  The problem is finding a program that does all these things well, sound quality plus music management and organization. JRiver is quite good, but I've found the interface somewhat restrictive.
   
  I'm still asking myself the OP's question so if anyone else has found a palatable answer I wanna hear. PS - I searched the forum for this sometime ago and could barely get past GO! So if anyone has links please post.Ta!


----------



## fuzzyash

Quote: 





terja said:


> A perpetual question! OS of course dictates what you can use. Notes below are strictly Windows based.
> 
> Foobar 2000 has been on all the top lists since forever, and that's mostly due to sound quality. +1 on that. But as far as organization, intuitive interface, iTunes is by far the best audio software program I've come across. I know there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction when iTunes is mentioned, but it really is quite good. I also dig the revamped look of the interface.
> 
> ...


 
  for mac users, there are add ons one can buy that use the itunes interface but apprently make it sound better


----------



## jake120

try media monkey... or look for equivalents
   
  edit: yes iTunes is great for music playing


----------



## TwinQY

On *nix, cmus and mpd for simple playback/management. Handles large playlists (okay, not really handle) like a champ, you can configure ALSA, Pulse, OSS, what have you, to bit perfect, add all the DSPs you want, etc. Deadbeef/Audacious/Amarok for the graphical-inclined.
   
  Windows - Mediamonkey, winamp, and foobar will give a run for your money. Not a fan of boutique players.
   
  And I think Amarok and Clementine are ported to Mac as well. Heard good things about Songbird as well. iTunes still works pretty darn good on their native platform as well, so sticking with stock could be more enticing.


----------



## Terja

Quote: 





fuzzyash said:


> for mac users, there are add ons one can buy that use the itunes interface but apprently make it sound better


 
   
  Yeah, I found that out. There are also some freebie add ons to play Flac files in iTunes, but only on the Mac OS. Nothing for Windoze and that sucks.


----------



## Satellite_6

foobar200, but not because of sound quality - that's utter ********. Just because of features.


----------



## Terja

Another one I didn't get to mention - AIMP3. It has improved by leaps and bounds and now rivals Foobar (in my book), but not in terms of 'tweakability.' If you're so inclined, Foobar 2000 is still the champ.


----------



## elliott44k

Media monkey is definitely one of my favorites.


----------



## HeatFan12

Whatever you are looking for in a media player, there is surely one out there (or 5) to fit your needs...I like Foobar, MusicBee, MediaMonkey, uLilith...
   
  Cheers!!!
   
  Foobar and Freddie and Co. to wind down the day....


----------



## Terja

A very useful page for this thread: Comparison of audio player software ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_player_software)


----------



## pogy

No love for old school winamp with WASAPI plugin? I like the simplicity of it 
  And I am to lazy to get used to a new one.


----------



## 65535

I'm completely content with iTunes, I convert any FLAC to ALAC if I need to using the Max app on OS X.
  As for sound quality, there really shouldn't be any difference between any player, if there is it's filtering which you may or may not desire.


----------



## asdfjkl

65535 said:


> I'm completely content with iTunes, I convert any FLAC to ALAC if I need to using the Max app on OS X.
> As for sound quality, there really shouldn't be any difference between any player, if there is it's filtering which you may or may not desire.




Yeah I'm using iTunes currently, but I just find it really annoying to convert any flac I have to alac. Plus I don't really like the idea of supporting an "apple" codec over an open source one.

I'm going to try out foobar and see how I go. Is there anything in particular that makes foobar standout? Thanks heaps!


----------



## jake120

i like the audio output in foobar easy to change that setting, comes in handy.
   
  aside from that mostly i just prefer the minimalist view i dont really want too many graphics if im having the music minimised.
   
  decent amount of information readily handy for bit rate etc.


----------



## 65535

ALAC has been as open source and royalty free as flac since 2011. Apple just designed it. Added bonus if you, like me have an iPod ALAC goes on it nicely where as FLAC doesn't, though if you use a different player or none at all that won't matter.


----------



## Terja

Ditto ... I use iTunes for managing my iPod so I've basically defaulted to ALAC especially since pretty much all software music players now support it. I simply use iTunes to organize my music and create playlists which I then play in my favorite player - Foobar. Actually I'm experimenting with JRiver right now (for the what-th time). I still get pissed because JRiver can't do a simple thing like random shuffle a playlist by album during playback - I mean C'mon! Other than that I'm finding JRiver greatly improved, both in terms of interface and sound.
   
  Don't wanna poke that hornet's nest 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 - but audio software does sound different in nuance. For example with exactly the same set up and chain - using ASIO as the output for all - I can still detect differences in nuance between say Foobar, JRiver, and AIMP. JRiver edges Foobar just slightly. If you can't hear differences leave your smoking torches outside the moat .. he, he ..


----------



## kinubic

i love winamp with WASAPI plugin . easy to use plain and simple!


----------



## MixNeco

Quote: 





kinubic said:


> i love winamp with WASAPI plugin . easy to use plain and simple!


 
   
  I'm using Winamp + WASAPI too.
   
  DO you guys know the best MP3 input plugin for Winamp?


----------



## Gustav Mahler

On my linux box I like Audacious.........selectable ouput plugin, bit depth, buffer size.......also has a sample rate converter and interpolation method selector.  Handles my flacs alacs and wavs suavely.
   
  Cheers!
   
  Gustav


----------



## negura

After a while using, of course, Foobar, I decided to check again what's out there, and so far I am very pleased with AIMP3 as an alternative, due to:
   
  [size=small]- default ASIO/WASAPI/FLAC/APE/etc support[/size]
 [size=small] - remote control apps for Android smartphones via Wifi/LAN - Nice for couch/bed headphones listening! They DO work.[/size]
 [size=small] - very fast[/size]
 [size=small] - compact yet detailed playlist with bitrate/format/size[/size]
 [size=small] - nice default VU-meters[/size]
 [size=small] - very nice playlist auto-sorting[/size]
 [size=small] - seemingly everything can be customized/toggled on/off[/size]
 [size=small] - hover windows tray icon to see file playing + can copy file info[/size]
 [size=small] - scheduler[/size]
 [size=small] - IT JUST WORKS! no clicks,pops,crashes wtvr... I've had that with Foobar when seeking through a song.[/size]
 [size=small]  [/size]
 [size=small] I can't detect sound differences to Foobar. I am aware there may be a hint of new toy syndrome, but look forward to what others think. And yes the looks resemble Winamp. [/size]
 [size=small]  [/size]
 [size=small] This was with the latest 3.50 Beta 2.[/size]
 [size=small]  [/size]
 [size=small] Hint: Just make sure you set it up taking the volume to 100% and going to Preferences -> Sound Effects > Disable all the effects/fade non-sense. I also didn't care for the Information Bar when a new song is starting. To disable it: Preferences > Plugins > Information Bar > Untick[/size]


----------



## nagual

Quote: 





negura said:


> After a while using, of course, Foobar, I decided to check again what's out there, and so far I am very pleased with AIMP3 as an alternative, due to:
> 
> [size=small]- default ASIO/WASAPI/FLAC/APE/etc support[/size]
> [size=small] - remote control apps for Android smartphones via Wifi/LAN - Nice for couch/bed headphones listening! They DO work.[/size]
> ...


 
   
        +1.  I think  *AIMP3*  sounds better than Foobar, and the online radio browser it´s just great !


----------



## Painterspal

Quote: 





> Don't wanna poke that hornet's nest
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  +1
   
  I've used Fidelia on my MacBook Pro for a while now and like it a lot. It isn't perfect - particularly the functions to create play lists - but is does sound better than iTunes on its own, and sound is the most important consideration for me. I'm currently auditioning Amara too but the jury is still out. However, YMMV.


----------



## TJ Max

For a few years I've been using MediaMonkey, and I really like it. But I would also recommend the completely free MusicBee which in a way is a little better.


----------



## netdog

How do people here feel about J.River?  
   
  I am particularly interested in the Mac version for a house-wide networked system.


----------



## etys rule

For Windows, foobar. For Mac, Audirvana.
   
  I don't use iTunes as it doesn't natively support FLAC. And please don't tell me it does. It doesn't. Anything I've got to convert to play is not natively. I drop two iTunes in the toilet every morning.


----------



## Terja

Quote: 





netdog said:


> How do people here feel about J.River?
> 
> I am particularly interested in the Mac version for a house-wide networked system.


 
   
  I finally jumped onto the "pay to play" JRiver boat-wagon. I have tried it over the years and it has really improved by leaps and bounds. I really like the cool theater view when I want to play tunes via speakers away from my desk. Sound is fantastic and customizable. Not sure how the Mac version compares but you can try the full program for a month before committing. I'm using mine simply as a standalone, so haven't explored networking aspects. Check the Jriver forum for ideas; the forum is somewhat sparse so you may have to leave some questions.


----------



## nostrata

Quote: 





gustav mahler said:


> On my linux box I like Audacious.........selectable ouput plugin, bit depth, buffer size.......also has a sample rate converter and interpolation method selector.  Handles my flacs alacs and wavs suavely.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Gustav


 
   
  I'm just getting my feet wet with this 'hi-fi' stuff and as a linux user this suggestion is appreciated. Currently using banshee and it seems okay, are there any features that I should look for in a player as far as sound quality goes? I just placed an order for Grado SR80is and that will be my first 'real' headphones (as in that didn't come from the bargain-bin).


----------



## HPiper

Just kind of stumbled on this thread but thanks to whoever suggested JRiver. Just downloaded and installed it and I am loving it. Awesome program, has every feature I wanted and then some. Yeah it's not free but I think it is well worth the asking price all things considered.


----------



## morpheusx

Foobar with Wasapi and Facets plugin


----------



## volumeup

Albumplayer, and by quite a margin. It is not the most flexible player - but in my opinion it's the best sounding one out there to date. This is my choice for critical listening via pc audio. http://albumplayer.ru/english.html The programmer of albumplayer is on this forum.


----------



## Hellenback

Quote: 





asdfjkl said:


> Yeah I'm using iTunes currently, but I just find it really annoying to convert any flac I have to alac. Plus I don't really like the idea of supporting an "apple" codec over an open source one.
> 
> I'm going to try out foobar and see how I go. Is there anything in particular that makes foobar standout? Thanks heaps!


 

 You can customize pretty much everything about it and it's updated very regularly to accommodate new developments. Stick with it...it pays off


----------



## Tiramisu

JRiver handsdown is the BEST high end and advanced media player. It took me almost 2 full weeks to fully understand and tweak every possible settings/features offered in JRiver. Currently Using ASIO with my Asus Xonar DGX and it's my primary audio/video playback player now. Foobar2000 comes second to JRiver for audio playback/utility, but once you dig in all the advanced features that jRiver has to offer, your heart will stay with it. JRiver is also on constant regular update (~avg bi-weekly for each new beta updated small patches regularily). Check out their forum section, you'll be sold again when you see the knowledge of their staff/devs and the amount of involvement with the community over there.


----------



## derbigpr

Quote: 





tiramisu said:


> JRiver handsdown is the BEST high end and advanced media player. It took me almost 2 full weeks to fully understand and tweak every possible settings/features offered in JRiver. Currently Using ASIO with my Asus Xonar DGX and it's my primary audio/video playback player now. Foobar2000 comes second to JRiver for audio playback/utility, but once you dig in all the advanced features that jRiver has to offer, your heart will stay with it. JRiver is also on constant regular update (~avg bi-weekly for each new beta updated small patches regularily). Check out their forum section, you'll be sold again when you see the knowledge of their staff/devs and the amount of involvement with the community over there.


 
   
   
  I have to agree. I've been using Foobar for years and was avoiding anything else since everyone was always saying that its the best sounding one....but when I decided to try the Jriver trial version, I was floored with how much better it sounded. Honestly, its as if foobar takes music, and flattens it out. Jriver sounds more dynamic, full of impact, like there's more meat on the bones when it comes to its sound. Its also more detailed, or at least the details pop out more obviously on the Jriver. I've heard things in music on Jriver that I didn't notice in foobar, so when I went back to foobar and checked that same part of the song, that same detail was there, but it was lost in the mix, didn't pop out.  That's why Jriver does, it makes sound more separated. Also, it has nice crossfeed features for headphones, very subtle differences, doesn't color sound like the foobar2000 crossfeed plugins do.


----------



## chewy4

I never understood why people attribute different sound quality to different music players.
   
  It's funny because foobar is frequently listed as having above average sound quality, yet they explicitly state in their FAQ that it does _not _sound better than other players. It also explicitly states that using ASIO/WASAPI has no effect on sound quality and should only be used if needed.
   
  That being said, you should always choose your media player based on its features and support. I like Winamp because it has the best visualizer and supports all the formats I need. It's interface isn't very good though so I'm tempted to switch. I keep foobar for its plugins like the ABX plugin amongst other things, but there are some things with its interface and organization that I can't live with.
   
  Songbird and Rhythmbox are probably my two favorites in terms of interface. I'm thinking about switching back to Songbird...


----------



## laon

If you can't hear the difference between some audio player (like recent version of AIMP) to other like foobar, then well, I'm just glad to not have your ears (and you're probably glad to not have my "placebo"), neither you or I have to understand it.


----------



## derbigpr

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I never understood why people attribute different sound quality to different music players.
> 
> It's funny because foobar is frequently listed as having above average sound quality, yet they explicitly state in their FAQ that it does _not _sound better than other players. It also explicitly states that using ASIO/WASAPI has no effect on sound quality and should only be used if needed.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I never understood why people attribute different sound quality to different music players.
> 
> It's funny because foobar is frequently listed as having above average sound quality, yet they explicitly state in their FAQ that it does _not _sound better than other players. It also explicitly states that using ASIO/WASAPI has no effect on sound quality and should only be used if needed.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  There's a clear difference between playing a same song in foobar and jriver, not hard to hear.


----------



## Moolok

I personally use both Foobar2000 and JRiver Media Center 18. Can't make my mind which is better. So I just use both  

Sent from my LG-P970 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ROBSCIX

I use Foobar and Albumplayer, I would say there is no real "best music player" as everybody has their favorites based on features, I/O,,plugins...etc.  Try out the common players and find the one that works best for you.


----------



## negura

Quote: 





laon said:


> If you can't hear the difference between some audio player (like recent version of AIMP) to other like foobar, then well, I'm just glad to not have your ears (and you're probably glad to not have my "placebo"), neither you or I have to understand it.


 
   
  recent AIMP vs Foobar. Your thoughts?


----------



## laon

Quote: 





negura said:


> recent AIMP vs Foobar. Your thoughts?


 

 I use AIMP 3.5 beta 5 with wasapi exclusive and 60MB cache size, surprisingly it sounds really unexciting and dull, the difference isn't even subtle like it used to be but very apparent when you switch to other player like xmplay and foobar both with wasapi. But YMMV.


----------



## negura

Quote: 





laon said:


> I use AIMP 3.5 beta 5 with wasapi exclusive and 60MB cache size, surprisingly it sounds really unexciting and dull, the difference isn't even subtle like it used to be but very apparent when you switch to other player like xmplay and foobar both with wasapi. But YMMV.


 

 It was only when I got my Audiophilleo 2 the differences between software players and plugins became very clear. I have been hearing differences, but using my Burson Conductor direct USB connection the resolution proved insufficient and I was struggling to form a clear image of one player and plug-in combination compared to the others.
   
  I agree with you that AIMP 3.5 beta is lacking when using the wasapi exclusive. However, I do recommend that you try ASIO4All with it. I am not impressed with Foobar and Wasapi either.
   
  I could expand but it's a bit late tonight.


----------



## laon

Wasapi exclusive (event) on foobar is very good. Asio4all refuse to play bit perfect on mine so no dice.


----------



## benbenkr

Still on the good ol' Winamp.
   
  I know people are going to shout on this one, but I'm just way too used to Winamp to bother changing to something else.
  JRiver is better indeed and so is Foobar2k, but I couldn't be bothered with changing because realistically.. audio quality from any of these players are neglible, in which case I put it in the "placebo effect" category.


----------



## RonaldDumsfeld

Foobar.
   
  Or if you wanted something even more powerful try Traktor. You can get a copy free with the $100 dual channel NI Audio 2 DAC.


----------



## BigAl-67

iTunes drives me nuts, I can't flow with the interface I'm constantly trying to figuring out how to do things and where things are. Honestly playback seems pretty poor on sound quality as well like certain ranges are omitted and others are [size=small]exaggerated[/size].  As a result I'm doing Apple Lossless and Windows lossless too. When I find a player that manages music better I'll stick my library there.


----------



## Sherwood

Foobar is excellent, and a model player in many respects. With some time and effort, you can make it truly great.

But really, if you're looking for the all-in-one end game player, that absolutely has to be JRiver Media Center 18 (19 is on the way).

jRMC is pay to play, unlike Foobar. Also unlike Foobar, it's well configured out of the box. The JRMC iPad app is an absolute dream, the sound quality is as good as you could possibly hope for, the compatibility is unrivaled, and the support is instantaneous. Jim and Matt make the whole thing, and also administer their own support forum. Problems are solved in hours, feature requests are listened to and addressed by the actual people who write the code, and their hardware support is absolutely bleeding edge. You can configure it as simply as you like, but there's always more to dial in under the hood, if you like to make changes.

The tagging and organization in JRiver is comprehensive and granular, which helps organize large libraries easily.

It's constantly updated, and updates are really good. I'm usually excited to download them. Your purchase price buys you all the upgrades for the life of a given version, and anyone who buys it now gets MC18 and MC19.

I've used everything listed here (only mpd on *nix) and prefer JRiver to every other solution on every other platform. Every cent of your investment goes into a good developers pocket, and you get a world class product for your money. Can't beat it.


----------



## derbigpr

Quote: 





sherwood said:


> Foobar is excellent, and a model player in many respects. With some time and effort, you can make it truly great.
> 
> But really, if you're looking for the all-in-one end game player, that absolutely has to be JRiver Media Center 18 (19 is on the way).
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'd also put my hand in fire that Jriver sounds better than Foobar. I don't know why. I didn't do a blind test, but somehow it sounds nicer. If I compare the songs side by side, I FEEL like Jriver's soundstage is slightly more natural, with more depth. Simply, it feels like there's a slight crossover turned on, but its not, its all turned off.


----------



## audio duck

Played around with Amarra. I like it and they have a free trial. I like that it interfaces with ITunes and I haven't found a player that is better at managing a library.


----------



## Aerial Wave

Quote: 





asdfjkl said:


> I'm going to try out foobar and see how I go. Is there anything in particular that makes foobar standout? Thanks heaps!


 
   
  Foobar uses less ram/cpu than itunes. tons of features, its very fast and customizable. 
  I also made the switch from itunes, and i don't want to go back.


----------



## daigo

I've always hated iTunes so I don't use it much more than to sync my iphone for updates and to manage music on the phone.  Foobar2000 is a nice player once you overcome the customization learning curve, and there are some nice configurations contributed by people out there that make it very usable and visually pleasing.


----------



## FredrikT92

Ive gone from winamp Pro with Wasapi plugin to AIMP3. I dont know if its placebo, but I belive that AIMP3 sounds a little better. Little more clear and "natural".
  I cant get foobar2000 to work with wasapi plugin, but foobar also sounded better then winamp


----------



## wenyuanalive

I am using foobar 2000 and it's great. It supports almost all lossless formats but for ape you may need to do download some file first.


----------



## swspiers

I just converted to JRiver from Media Monkey.  Maybe it's just me, but I find it extremely easy to use and flexible.  It just feels like a more polished product


----------



## Jiffy Squid

On my MacBook Air, I generally just use iTunes, but I'll switch to Decibel when playing 24/96 content. On my PC, I use Foobar.
   
  Sound quality-wise, I don't hear a difference between the different applications, but that's to be expected.


----------



## mfaoro

I have tried Decible, Pure Music, AudioNirvana, IRiver and Amarra is -by far- my favorite player. The sound is just more natural and transparent to me. Pure Music in particular felt too harsh to my ears. Decible was neutral but its lack of Itunes integration was a non-starter.
   
  This is with LCD3s and a Meridian Explorer out of a Mac Mini.


----------



## trane1992

what about KMPlayer


----------



## FredrikT92

I just tryed the JRiver trail and I have to say... It sounds like its got better seperation/soundstage then AIMP3 and Winamp, sounds very open. I think im in love.


----------



## pdrm360

For me it was worth to pay $50 for the JRiver although the foobar 2000 is a great music player for free.


----------



## Ahriakin

Another JRiver vote here. I've been using Mediamonkey for the last few years, Foober2K before that - all very competent players. I only really looked at JRiver when deciding on DSD capable players but what I have seen of both it's current capabilities, excellent plugin quality (and native VST hosting !)  and the forward thinking attitude and responsiveness of the Devs sold me on it.


----------



## Anarion

I mostly use Foobar but I really like WMP too, I love the UI. WMA lossless is my format of choice (great compatibility with WP8 and of course native support in Windows, no issues with Foobar either). MP3tag handles my metadata needs.


----------



## drumiha

Don't kill me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 but my vote goes to Jplay ; it tooked my system to another level.. it's free to try, decide for yourself.


----------



## TheGame

Hi fellow Head-fi'ers! I just purchased JRiver to upgrade from iTunes but I haven't really used it yet. It seems a bit overwhelming at first (I haven't really dived into all of it's features).
  
 My Primary cans are Sennheiser HD 650's and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on good settings in JRiver for those cans. Since JRiver doesn't have a manual (well at least I couldn't find one) only wiki documents I am at a lost at what settings I should use with HD 650's. Anyone have any advice on what would be the best settings in JRiver for the HD650's? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
  
 Thank you all for any expert advice you can give!


----------



## Sherwood

Your DAC matters far more than your headphones for JRiver settings.  Optimal settings for your DAC will be optimal for every headphone.
  
 If you're interested in EQing your JRiver setup to match your headphones, that's a different conversation, and there's an awesome thread on Head-Fi on how to do just that.


----------



## OneSec

Foobar here, but I do agree its not an out of box product, and painful learning curve. Also features and settings are move to different places between different version upgrades, and making half of those "guides" out there obsolete. Even the Foobar support site is showing version 0.9 print screens ><.
  
 I am curious however, how would JRiver sound, against a Foobar that has been properly configured, on the same box.


----------



## Ari33

onesec said:


> I am curious however, how would JRiver sound, against a Foobar that has been properly configured, on the same box.


 
  
 I have both and have compared back to back. I always try to avoid any software EQ or DSP of any sort and use the hardware tone controls on my Pioneer stereo seperates amp for that.
  
 Equipment- Creative Audigy 2ZS, 3.5mm jack-RCA's to Pioneer Amp and unknown, Sony bookshelf sized (twin driver + bass reflex port) speakers.
  
 I have only spent a little time setting them both up correctly with the necessary basics and my findings are..
  
 Jriver-19 is more punchy, sharper, much harder hitting... wider soundstage, seperation and with perhaps a slightly treble heavy 'sheen', it's better suited to dance, R&B and electronic music. The layout is excellent and it imported all my music automatically. It has a comprehensive list of 'ready out the box' features and explains all the main features/settings well. It also provides pop up boxes informing you of reasons for conflicts, reason why a track wouldn't play etc which is very helpful for relative beginners like myself.
  
 Foobar is far simpler and with next to no bells or whistles as a vanilla download without the plug-ins, it's smoother sounding, probably with a flatter EQ out the box and better suited to vocals - ballads, rock, love songs etc.  I can see exactly why it would have a painful learning curve but I like it also and I'm going to keep it for when listening to the above music genres.
  
 You should try the trial version of Jriver19, it would be interesting to hear what you think of it and if your findings are similar..


----------



## mindflayz

Musicbee is my fav.


----------



## Terja

thegame said:


> Hi fellow Head-fi'ers! I just purchased JRiver to upgrade from iTunes but I haven't really used it yet. It seems a bit overwhelming at first (I haven't really dived into all of it's features).
> 
> My Primary cans are Sennheiser HD 650's and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on good settings in JRiver for those cans. Since JRiver doesn't have a manual (well at least I couldn't find one) only wiki documents I am at a lost at what settings I should use with HD 650's. Anyone have any advice on what would be the best settings in JRiver for the HD650's? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
> 
> Thank you all for any expert advice you can give!


 
  
  


sherwood said:


> _Your DAC matters far more than your headphones for JRiver settings.  Optimal settings for your DAC will be optimal for every headphone._
> 
> If you're interested in EQing your JRiver setup to match your headphones, that's a different conversation, and there's an awesome thread on Head-Fi on how to do just that.


 
_+ 1 on this._
  
 I'm using JRiver 18 with HD650 (sometimes). I never thought of trying to match the headphone to the player so take this with a pause but I'll tell how I've set it up for what I consider outstanding playback.
  
 Player --> Playback Options --> Audio --> Output mode: ASIO // DSP & output format --> Output @ 96,000 Hz (matches my DAC capability).
  
 JRiver outputs at 32bit so my output according to the JRiver output icon [ ||| ] is 96Hz 32bit 2ch using ASIO.
  
 After that it's really about your amp. I drive my HD650s using a vintage Onkyo receiver that has a fabulous headphone out synergy with the HD650s.
  
 P.S. Coming from iTunes like you, most of my files are Apple Lossless and JRiver handles them beautifully. Have you  tried Theater View while playing Audio -- you'll love it. Good luck.


----------



## Technex

MusicBee - I love it, after trying many players I could not get on with any of them until I found this wonderful gem.
  
 Many themes... Great sound... Customizable as you want - although I love it in the standard format.
  
 It's amazing - for me at least! WASAPI and AISO if you wish... And Android remote support which is just awesome .


----------



## Thunderbolt

Ive always been a winamp user, but would like to try something new with wasapi exclusive mode. the thing is I want a really compact player like winamp. something that just covers a small part of the screen and has a simple playlist with just interpret - title & time and nothing like a windows which covers my entire screen, has a library with fancy pictures to show off etc. just something with a very basic GUI. which other player comes closest to this?


----------



## tattoou2

I'll have to give another vote for MediaMonkey.


----------



## Muinarc

thunderbolt said:


> Ive always been a winamp user, but would like to try something new with wasapi exclusive mode. the thing is I want a really compact player like winamp. something that just covers a small part of the screen and has a simple playlist with just interpret - title & time and nothing like a windows which covers my entire screen, has a library with fancy pictures to show off etc. just something with a very basic GUI. which other player comes closest to this?



 


Probably Foobar2000. Media Monkey has a "micro player" which is in between full window and minimized to tray if that's something you like, but Windows Media Player can also do this.


----------



## Thunderbolt

foobar is also this big window.


----------



## Schonen

Musicbee+foobar2k
  
 For video I like Daum Potplayer
  
 Weird name but very good.
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PotPlayer


----------



## kurt bermuda

Foobar


----------



## ranhoubeiyin

i think so,there really shouldn't be any difference between any player, if there is it's filtering which you may or may not desire.thanks


----------



## Terja

thunderbolt said:


> Ive always been a winamp user, but would like to try something new with wasapi exclusive mode. the thing is I want a really compact player like winamp. something that just covers a small part of the screen and has a simple playlist with just interpret - title & time and nothing like a windows which covers my entire screen, has a library with fancy pictures to show off etc. just something with a very basic GUI. which other player comes closest to this?


 
  
 JRiver has all these options and more - at free to try for 30 days you can put it through its paces to see what it does. It's pay to play though after that but worth it in my view.


----------



## RonaldDumsfeld

foobar


----------



## hogger129

foobar2000


----------



## Ari33

terja said:


> It's pay to play though after that but worth it in my view.


 
  
 Unless you have one of these calender dateshift programs like 'time stopper' which allows an indefinite trial.. I _know a guy_ who does that, I keep telling him if you like the software, pay for it. His excuse is he can't afford it.. what a cheapskate freeloader!!


----------



## TheGame

terja said:


> JRiver has all these options and more - at free to try for 30 days you can put it through its paces to see what it does. It's pay to play though after that but worth it in my view.


 

 I like JRiver as well. A friend of mine here on Head-fi recommended that I try it out, and I fell in love with it. I was an avid iTunes user for many years, and while iTunes is ok, it doesn't play FLAC files, it wants to convert them to apple lossless. Besides that, there is a distinct difference to my ears for sound quality from JRiver compared to the other players I have tried. You can also set audio output mode to WASAPI exclusive, AISO etc. Foobar is great too and it is free.


----------



## neergan1216

I've auditioned maybe a hundred players.  For sound quality: SockPlayer. Also, it's free.


----------



## TheGame

I've never heard of SockPlayer, will have to look into it!


----------



## neergan1216

I monitor this CNET site weekly. You can find what players they have downloaded recently. There are many under-the-radar players out there. http://download.cnet.com/windows/media-players/?osNamesExact=Windows+7


----------



## StudioSound

JRiver gets my vote.


----------



## Hellenback

Tried J River when it was at version 16, compared it to Foobar and heard no difference using a mid-fi set-up (in this day and age) with approx $1500 invested in DAC -> AMP -> Cabling -> HD650s)
  
 I'm not sure if J River has improved since then but when I read people use it for "high end" functions (like DSD playback and continual updates) I tend to think perhaps they haven't spent the time required to set up Foobar properly/completely. It has all the audio playback functions of other players (not into much eye-candy) and the components are updated when a better version is developed, as is the player. It also has quite a large community base from around the world.
  
 I've used Foobar exclusively for many years (outside of trials) and have a hard time believing you can get better sound if you know how to set it up properly.
  
 To be fair, I'll spend some time configuring/listening through the newer version of J River to see if their really is (as in I hear) a SQ difference. If there is, I'd be _very_ interested in the science behind different sounding bit perfect playback through the same hardware.


----------



## Terja

... in the meanwhile ... no butter please.


----------



## StudioSound

hellenback said:


> Tried J River when it was at version 16, compared it to Foobar and heard no difference using a mid-fi set-up (in this day and age) with approx $1500 invested in DAC -> AMP -> Cabling -> HD650s)
> 
> I'm not sure if J River has improved since then but when I read people use it for "high end" functions (like DSD playback and continual updates) I tend to think perhaps they haven't spent the time required to set up Foobar properly/completely. It has all the audio playback functions of other players (not into much eye-candy) and the components are updated when a better version is developed, as is the player. It also has quite a large community base from around the world.
> 
> ...


 
  
 If you believe that software can make a difference, JRiver is doing a few things which should make it better than Foobar.
 If all you want is bit-perfect playback, I don't think it matters what software you use, and JRiver should sound no better or worse than any other bit-perfect player.
  
 The thing about JRiver is that everything is integrated into one package. I don't need to figure out what plugins I need to get to enable ASIO output or WASAPI Event, and what I need to get DSD playback working - it's all built in out of the box.
  
 JRiver also has native support for VST plugins, so if you want to use them, there's no need to mess about trying to get VST Bridge applications working. (I never got them working right)
 This can be quite important for headphone users, as the best quality sound is normally achieved with a crossfeed or HRTF plugin. (I like Redline Monitor)
  
 And once you start doing processing to the audio, it's working with 64-bit precision to avoid degrading the quality.
 Even if you don't want to be using EQ or VST plugins, there are features like R128 Volume Leveling built in which benefit from this.
  
 It also has a lot of very advanced library management features, and in addition to top-quality audio playback, you also get the best video quality playback as well.
 Rather than only playing to one device at a time, with the Zone feature, JRiver running on one PC can be the center of your home audio/video system, handling playback to any number of devices. It's far more powerful than a simple music player like Foobar or iTunes.


----------



## Ari33

hellenback said:


> To be fair, I'll spend some time configuring/listening through the newer version of J River to see if their really is (as in I hear) a SQ difference. If there is, I'd be _very_ interested in the science behind different sounding bit perfect playback through the same hardware.


 
  
 Objectivist vs the golden eared subjectivist?  In theory bit perfect playback _should_ sound the same with all players. Maybe I didn't configure Foobar correctly as it always sounded quite different to Jriver. Foobar was warmer, more analogue sounding but slightly lacking in detail in comparison to Jriver. 
  
 There is a good blog on this subject where a number of music player programs were tested in bit perfect mode and according to the tester were all found to be identical sounding... the actual objective tests all showed results (which could be argued) to be identical in frequency response, noise THD, stereo crosstalk and jitter too.
  
 See- http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/measurements-bit-perfect-audiophile.html


----------



## Hellenback

studiosound said:


> If you believe that software can make a difference, JRiver is doing a few things which should make it better than Foobar.
> If all you want is bit-perfect playback, I don't think it matters what software you use, and JRiver should sound no better or worse than any other bit-perfect player.
> 
> The thing about JRiver is that everything is integrated into one package. I don't need to figure out what plugins I need to get to enable ASIO output or WASAPI Event, and what I need to get DSD playback working - it's all built in out of the box.
> ...


 

 As you seem to be aware, all of the audio "bells and whistles" you mention are available for foobar. It _is_ a bit difficult to configure fb if you're new to it but I've been using it so long I doubt I'm going to spring for $50 for things I know how to configure in my sleep (or don't need).
  
 1. I don't listen to anything that truly requires cross-feed with headphones (although foobar has competent components for it)
  
 2. I don't "process" audio
  
 3. I don't volume level as I usually like to hear things as recorded/mastered. If there's a significant volume difference I use the remote or the volume knob (or replay gain, but rarely as in I can't remember when I last used it).
  
 4. I don't like/use "advanced library management features" as I prefer to configure things manually (ie playlists, tags etc.). Foobar's audio library is very straightforward, fast and comprehensive. I can load a Terabyte of music into an NG playlist in literally 2 seconds (with the columns UI). I use "Everything" search if I need to find something quickly outside of any audio/video software.
  
 5. If I had a large house I might need video management but I just plug my 55" plasma into the HDMI out from my computer (as a second monitor) and use VLC to watch everything other than BR movies.
  
 So, I will still likely give the trial of JRiver #18 a spin but as you've highlighted most of it's advantages already, I don't see at this point how I'd need/want to shell out the cash.
  
 To each their own and I'm glad you have a player you're happy enough with to pay $50 for (until #20).
  
 @Ari33 Thanks for the link...although it's for Mac computers it's still very informative


----------



## TheGame

studiosound said:


> If you believe that software can make a difference, JRiver is doing a few things which should make it better than Foobar.
> If all you want is bit-perfect playback, I don't think it matters what software you use, and JRiver should sound no better or worse than any other bit-perfect player.
> 
> The thing about JRiver is that everything is integrated into one package. I don't need to figure out what plug-ins I need to get to enable ASIO output or WASAPI Event, and what I need to get DSD playback working - it's all built in out of the box.
> ...


 

 Can you suggest a good VST or Plug-in with JRiver MC 19 for an equalizer? I do not like the one built-in to the player itself. Any you recommend (paid or free)?


----------



## StudioSound

hellenback said:


> As you seem to be aware, all of the audio "bells and whistles" you mention are available for foobar. It _is_ a bit difficult to configure fb if you're new to it but I've been using it so long I doubt I'm going to spring for $50 for things I know how to configure in my sleep (or don't need).


 
  
 For me, the biggest convenience was actually the video side of things. It keeps you up to date with the latest version of LAV Filters and madVR automatically, and you don't have to configure anything to get it working - just pick the "Red October HQ" setting.
  
 But when you move between machines, it's nice to not have to spend a lot of time reconfiguring everything when 90% of what you need is already set up optimally.
  


hellenback said:


> 2. I don't "process" audio


 
  
 If you even adjust the volume inside the PC, that is processing the audio. Things like EQ do as well.
 And for that matter, adjusting volume inside JRiver is probably better than adjusting volume inside most devices if you have a 24-bit output and are using less than 48dB of adjustment.
  


> Originally Posted by *Hellenback* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 3. I don't volume level as I usually like to hear things as recorded/mastered. If there's a significant volume difference I use the remote or the volume knob (or replay gain, but rarely as in I can't remember when I last used it).


 
  
 Volume leveling does not affect the mastering of an album. JRiver's Volume Leveling feature smartly switches between track and album mode depending on the current playlist.
 So if you're just playing an album from start to finish, the track dynamics are not changed at all. But when it switches over to the next album, you don't have to touch the volume control because it's played back at the same level.
  
 Volume Leveling is also important from an audiophile perspective, because it plays back highly dynamic recordings and very compressed modern recordings at the same level.
 This means you can actually hear the difference in dynamic range between tracks rather than the highly compressed loudness-war versions sounding "better".
  


hellenback said:


> 5. If I had a large house I might need video management but I just plug my 55" plasma into the HDMI out from my computer (as a second monitor) and use VLC to watch everything other than BR movies.


 
 VLC is not a high quality player. It's designed to be fast on low-end systems, and play just about anything you can throw at it.
  
 The madVR video renderer used in JRiver offers the highest quality video playback with a 16-bit processing engine that utilizes your graphics card's power for image processing. (image scaling, color correction, and other processing)
 It will also play Blu-ray movies if you have decryption software installed (e.g. AnyDVD HD) and it skips all the menus & trailers when doing this - it goes directly to the main feature with the highest quality audio track selected.
  


thegame said:


> Can you suggest a good VST or Plug-in with JRiver MC 19 for an equalizer? I do not like the one built-in to the player itself. Any you recommend (paid or free)?


 
 I don't really use EQ, but I know a lot of people like the Parametric EQ options inside JRiver rather than the basic "Equalizer" DSP option.


----------



## Schonen

Still not worth what it costs and all video players utilize your graphics hardware.


----------



## aprairie

Cost vs value is subjective. For me, cost of jriver delivers way more value vs free options for what I ext to do with my system. 

And trust me, not all players use your GPU the same. Full disclosure, I work at AMD and can tell you not all players are equal in terms of performance, power consumption, quality etc. Is there one that is "best"...I don't think so. But they are not all equal. 

Drew


----------



## itchyears

Went from winamp to Foobar and never looked at anything else really
  
 Mind you never ever really set up foobar I just use it with defaults and it sounds fine


----------



## StudioSound

schonen said:


> Still not worth what it costs and all video players utilize your graphics hardware.


 
 Most video players are using DXVA's built in decoding and scaling which is generally rather poor quality.
 madVR uses your graphics card's pixel shaders to run custom scaling code which looks a lot better.


----------



## nagual

To me it's the Jaguar Free RTOS http://www.jaguaraudiodesign.com/ (running from the pendrive),  for streaming music.


----------



## Imamuppet

Foobar2k with wasapi event.


----------



## HPiper

I prefer Foobar as well, though there is absolutely nothing wrong with JRiver either. One thing that makes me real happy is I found dbpoweramp had an hdcd encoder and Foobar has an hdcd decoder so I can now listen to all my hdcd's in true hdcd sound. Not a huge thing but I can certainly tell the difference, subtle though it may be.


----------



## StudioSound

hpiper said:


> I prefer Foobar as well, though there is absolutely nothing wrong with JRiver either. One thing that makes me real happy is I found dbpoweramp had an hdcd encoder and Foobar has an hdcd decoder so I can now listen to all my hdcd's in true hdcd sound. Not a huge thing but I can certainly tell the difference, subtle though it may be.


 
 If you are using dBpoweramp to convert 16-bit HDCD rips to 20-bit in a 24-bit container with the HDCD plugin, make sure you don't add the +6dB boost.


----------



## Schonen

aprairie said:


> Cost vs value is subjective. For me, cost of jriver delivers way more value vs free options for what I ext to do with my system.
> 
> And trust me, not all players use your GPU the same. Full disclosure, I work at AMD and can tell you not all players are equal in terms of performance, power consumption, quality etc. Is there one that is "best"...I don't think so. But they are not all equal.
> 
> Drew


 
 Give this free video player a shot and tell me what you think of it.
  
 http://www.videohelp.com/tools/PotPlayer


----------



## nagual

PotPlayer main difference, imho, is the audio (english is far from being my first language. so, with it I can understand  dialogues in films, that I can´t with other players).  Anybody else has experienced this (wasapi enabled) ?


----------



## Schonen

I just installed the "touted" JRiverMC. As soon as I opened it it scanned my whole PC and added every damn file it can play to my library, including my porn collection. Then I clicked Performer Store wondering what it is and it installs some online store software without my permission. Plus it has built in links to amazon etc. SQ is same as foobar, mediamonkey, Musicbee, etc. They want me to pay $59.99 for this abortion? Seriously?


----------



## TheGame

You can select which files to import, it does not import all your media files automatically unless you click the option for it to do so.

  
  
  
 As far as the Performer Store goes, yes it will install the Performer Store software IF you want to use it, and it tells you it is installing it. If you do not want to install it, just cancel the install.
  
 If you think the other players you mentioned are better than JRiver then that's great, save yourself the money. What matters most is what sounds best to you and fits what you're looking for in music player software.


----------



## Schonen

It did not give me any such option upon opening JRiverMC, it auto scanned my PC and added every possible file to my library. Game files, porn collection, you name it. Yes, I could have cancelled the scan and done it manually but ti should offer that option when starting it up and not just go into auto-scan mode, same with that Store software. Ask first!
  
 Doesn't matter now because I have already uninstalled JRiver and won't be demoing it again. Didn't even like the library layout anyway. Musicbee is the best for me and it is free.


----------



## NyquistRate

schonen said:


> They want me to pay $59.99 for this abortion? Seriously?


 

Is it possible that you meant "abomination?"


----------



## Ari33

nyquistrate said:


> Is it possible that you meant "abomination?"




'Abortion' = Bl***dy mess.. so no probably not 

Maybe a new feature with the latest version?With JRiver MC19 mine auto imported all media automatically on installation too. I actually thought that was quite neat... but if you do have a porn collection I can see why that might really bother some!


----------



## Schonen

jake120 said:


> try media monkey... or look for equivalents
> 
> edit: yes iTunes is great for music playing


 
 I was just reading about the Bonjour program that gets installed along with iTunes (on Windows too). Always wondered what that garbage was that they had auto-loading on boot up. Apparently it is a network sharing discovery service and provides zero configuration for network devices, and yes, it has had security issues in the past and has messed up peoples networking settings so that they can't even get on the Internet. Pure garbage and is why iTunes will never be allowed to run on my PC again.


----------



## Schonen

nyquistrate said:


> Is it possible that you meant "abomination?"


 
 Freudian slip.


----------



## Schonen

ari33 said:


> 'Abortion' = Bl***dy mess.. so no probably not
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I don't have much of a porn collection and just added that for drama, but why would anyone want game files in their library? Some of the files it added can't even be viewed. I had to clear the library and do it all over again manually because the only thing I want in my library is music, which is kept in one folder and it is not MyMusic on C:.  Jriver was a time waste for me.


----------



## swspiers

I just installed JRiver19 on a second computer about fifteen minutes ago.  It performed flawlessly, and gave me the options on what files to scan as soon as it opened, just like did on my first install.
  
 Just sayin'...


----------



## hogger129

foobar2000.  recognizes all my metadata and embedded album artwork.  plays all my aac and flac files.  it's not a memory hog like iTunes.  i understand it can rip cd's with accuraterip too.


----------



## Schonen

swspiers said:


> I just installed JRiver19 on a second computer about fifteen minutes ago.  It performed flawlessly, and gave me the options on what files to scan as soon as it opened, just like did on my first install.
> 
> Just sayin'...


 
 Another person in this thread has confirmed what I said is true, it auto-scanned with no options ever asked. Same with that store link, it auto-installed with no yes/no option. Maybe it is a bug depending on which OS you have, I was using Win8.1.


----------



## pervysage

Foobar2000! Nice and simple to use and awesome looking once you find the right skin.
  
 Tried Jriver and did not like it. Perhaps it was just the look and feel of the software. I guess people who use it want a software that can do it all, but that's not what I'm looking for. I already have VLC media player for video files and have never had problems with it EVER. I simply want a nice dedicated music player, and that's what Foobar2000 gives me.
  
 There is no difference in sound quality between Foobar2000 and Jriver, so I simply went with the one that works better for my usage. Did not try skinning Jriver, but I did not like the stock look it has. But then again, Foobar2000 doesn't have the greatest stock look either.... you gotta skin it.


----------



## A1Dan

Would like to give JRiver another go, using Musichi Suite at the moment, the UI is not great at present, hope it gets updated in time, it's got some very good tagging functionailIty built into it esp. for classical, There's a free one month trial here http://www.musichi.eu/


----------



## StudioSound

schonen said:


> Another person in this thread has confirmed what I said is true, it auto-scanned with no options ever asked. Same with that store link, it auto-installed with no yes/no option. Maybe it is a bug depending on which OS you have, I was using Win8.1.


 
 It asks, but it only gives you a 45 second countdown before it will automatically start scanning your drives for media.
 This process can be cancelled, and it takes all of 5 seconds to create a new library and delete the old one.
  
 Hardly a reason to avoid using the player.


----------



## hogger129

pervysage said:


> Foobar2000! Nice and simple to use and awesome looking once you find the right skin.
> 
> Tried Jriver and did not like it. Perhaps it was just the look and feel of the software. I guess people who use it want a software that can do it all, but that's not what I'm looking for. I already have VLC media player for video files and have never had problems with it EVER. I simply want a nice dedicated music player, and that's what Foobar2000 gives me.
> 
> There is no difference in sound quality between Foobar2000 and Jriver, so I simply went with the one that works better for my usage. Did not try skinning Jriver, but I did not like the stock look it has. But then again, Foobar2000 doesn't have the greatest stock look either.... you gotta skin it.


 
  
 Same here.  Foobar2000 for music, VLC for video files.  Never had a problem with either one.


----------



## Busted

I haven't tried that many media players but here is what I have tried in the past.
 
- Quintessential Media Player (QMP) :  Used this a long time ago, was better than Windows Media Player had some decent features.  I don't think it's a good option anymore.
 
- iTunes:  iTunes for some is great, for me I hated it.  Still hate it, it's layout, it's features, everything about it.  However, it's better than WMP, and QMP.
  
 - KMPlayer:  This is actually a decent player I think, supports plenty of file types and provides decent features.  The sound quality is better than VLC for music.  VLC is a better video player I think in both sight and sound.  Overall not bad, never hurts to try it.
  
- VLC:  This became my go to media player for a while, still use it for video.  Nice features, supports pretty much any file type, and simple to use.  I find the EQ to be lacking.  Overall, you cannot go wrong with this player.
  
- Foobar2000:  Recently discovered this while looking for a better player for music that had a better EQ.  I find this to be a much nicer player for music, more features, easy on system resources, and nice sound quality.  Personally I think this needs to be on everyone's list.
  
  
 I cast my votes for Foobar2000 for music and VLC for video.


----------



## Schonen

studiosound said:


> It asks, but it only gives you a 45 second countdown before it will automatically start scanning your drives for media.
> This process can be cancelled, and it takes all of 5 seconds to create a new library and delete the old one.
> 
> Hardly a reason to avoid using the player.


 
 Guess I missed the window of opportunity. 5 seconds to create a new library? Maybe if you only have 5 songs. Try it with 22,000 and it is far longer than 5 seconds. I only installed to see what it offered and it offered me nothing worth $59.99, not even close.


----------



## Honkytime

A couple years ago now i started this exact quest to find the best media players and found that no one program does everything well. I have, tried, tinkered, modified,put add-on's, skinned, listened to, watched so many media players threw the years now, to me each one has its advantages and disadvantages. Here are some of my findings for some of the different media players i have tried.
  
 Windows Media Player - Great if you want to watch movies and play music but that's about it.
  
 VLC - Greatest video player ever there really is no video format that this this will not play. Prefer to listen to music on other players thou.
  
 Winamp - Even in retirement Winamp is still "whipping the lamas ass!" used Winamp for years and still do on my smart phone. The best part of Winamp has to be milkdrop visualizations and with a add-on milkdrop can be used in Foobar.
  
 J River - Loved the way it organized and played your music and videos, didn't like the auto check and some of the functions.mostly the 60$ price tag.
  
 Foobar 2k - I like foobar, thou it takes some learning curve to use foobar properly, there is really no end to how far you can modify this program to tailor it to your music needs (other than death), but foobar does not play video and i find that it does not do good with lower quality recordings (had the same issue with J River)
  
 Lilith Audio Player - I found this media player on the head fi Forums and red the thread and found that there was great controversy about people saying that it sounded better than other media players, so i gave it a shot to see if i could hear a difference. For my test i took the music files that i have that i found (sounded funny, bad recording file) in foobar and j river and played them in Lilith. I don't know why but the imperfections in the music that i hear in Foobar/J River are not there. I find that Lilith did sound better than the rest of the media players that i tried but
 its pretty plain. if you just like to cue up music and keep it simple this is the media player for you.


----------



## jiiteepee

I'm still using the NI Traktor Beatport SYNC from '07.
  

 (minimized)


----------



## Yodeb

Can you recommend me an audio-player FREE (GPL) as good as foobar? Thank you very much.


----------



## Terja

Try AIMP3. It's a good stand alone player that does not really require as much of a learning curve as Foobar to get the best out of it.


----------



## MikoLayer

I am not sure what special learning curve is there to be overcome with foobar. At the very least, all you need is to download the wasapi plugin and change the output, no?
 You can do all those cool things with different plugins, but none of them are really 'must' items. I think it is as easy/intuitive as any other player unless you demand the level of customization that don't exist in the competitors.


----------



## elmoe

Problem is, foobar is quite ugly by default and skinning it can be a pain in the butt. That said, it is literally the ONLY player I've found that will show me my media library in a "tree style" menu, by FOLDERS only. For my extensive library, this is really the only way to go, as I hate searching and much prefer browsing:
  
 Thus, through the "music" tab, I select an album from a list ordered by FOLDERS:
  

  
 That selected album automatically create a playlist in the playlist tab:
  

  
 And that gets the job done. However, it is annoying having to switch tabs. I would love to find a good looking player which integrates playlist view + albumlist by folders, but I haven't found a skin for foobar I liked more than this one, and no other player I've tried can do this.


----------



## Schonen

yodeb said:


> Can you recommend me an audio-player FREE (GPL) as good as foobar? Thank you very much.


 

 MusicBee.
  
 http://getmusicbee.com/


----------



## dirtythekid

+1 for MusicBee. It has everything I want. WASAPI and ASIO support, nice skin out of the box, plugin support (via Winamp Plugins, but you can use the Winamp VST plugin to expand on this), and it's a reliable performer. I'm among the people that DON'T believe all 'bit-perfect' players sound the same. Having that said, MusicBee sounds great to my ears.
  
 YMMV, but I think you'll always do best to play music through WASAPI or ASIO, so your (free) options are:
 -MusicBee (my personal pick)
 -MPC-HC or PotPlayer with ReClock
 -uLilith (or Lilith, but meh)
 -foobar2000 (duh)
 -StealthAudioPlayer (strong contender for best sound, but zero interface and unreliable playlist management)
 -Winamp with Maiko WASAPI output plugin (best interface of the bunch IMO, but Maiko is somewhat unstable and the sound is just a little off to my ears)
  
 If you're going against the WASAPI route and just want a simple DirectSound player with great sound, I strongly recommend MesonPlayer. It has the same minimalist approach as StealthAudioPlayer, but without the playlist hiccups.


----------



## dirtythekid

I'd like to add there are options for system-wide parametric equalization with Equalizer APO if you go the DirectSound route:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/?source=recommended
  
 and you can adjust it via GUI addons:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension/?source=navbar 
 or 
http://jiiteepee.tripod.com/eq31gui-2.html


----------



## nerady

+2 for MusicBee. I used the clean interface skin for foobar2000 for years, so I was right at home with the default musicbee skin.
  
 Quote:


dirtythekid said:


> +1 for MusicBee. It has everything I want. WASAPI and ASIO support, nice skin out of the box, plugin support (via Winamp Plugins, but you can use the Winamp VST plugin to expand on this), and it's a reliable performer. I'm among the people that DON'T believe all 'bit-perfect' players sound the same. Having that said, MusicBee sounds great to my ears.
> 
> YMMV, but I think you'll always do best to play music through WASAPI or ASIO, so your (free) options are:
> -MusicBee (my personal pick)
> ...


----------



## jfaaz

I use strictly Mac OS.  I used to use iTunes, but my library is too large and iTunes would crash or be too slow.  Furthermore, the audio quality is poor with iTunes. 
  
 I used Decible for a while and was impressed with the sound quality and fact that it switches the sample rate.  However, it takes too long to import playlists with Decible.
  
 Then I tried Swinsian.  Swinsian will completely replace iTunes as an audio library and also adjusts the sample rate.  I can even take songs from my iPods and import them into Swinsian.
  
 Therefore, I am staying with Swinsian.


----------



## elmoe

Just gave MusicBee a try, it's actually pretty good. Now that my foobar is all configured I'll stick with it, but if it wasn't MusicBee would be a good alternative.


----------



## adisib

I tried out AIMP3 and am enjoying it.


----------



## fiascogarcia

I now have MediaMonkey, iTunes, JRiver, and Foobar loaded on my computer, and I still can't really decide which one I like the most.  Does anyone know how to copy cover artwork from iTunes to FooBar, BTW?  iTunes is great for capturing artwork (even WAV), but I don't know how the heck it stores it.  Unfortunately, iTunes is the only source of some of my cover art.


----------



## Terja

Foobar, JRiver should be able to read iTunes embedded artwork by default. I use all three and artwork displays properly for all three. I actually use iTunes for all tagging and for running my library and JRiver mostly for playback (and Foobar sometimes). Does your artwork display properly in iTunes?


----------



## fiascogarcia

terja said:


> Foobar, JRiver should be able to read iTunes embedded artwork by default. I use all three and artwork displays properly for all three. I actually use iTunes for all tagging and for running my library and JRiver mostly for playback (and Foobar sometimes). Does your artwork display properly in iTunes?


 
  
 The artwork is properly displayed on iTunes, and I've even been converting any WAV tracks to AIFF.  I can just copy and paste the iTunes cover image to JRiver tracks, but it seems Foobar sends me to my computer file tree to find and copy an artwork file.  At that point, finding the specific artwork in iTunes is impossible because I think iTunes encodes them in a different way!  Oh well!


----------



## Terja

Are you using JPG as your artwork file format within iTunes? I noticed that other formats (like Tiff (anyone still uses it ..mmm?) or PNG, etc), all cause translation problems with other players. I think it's the way iTunes handles those formats. JPG seems universally transferable.


----------



## fiascogarcia

Frankly, I don't know.  iTunes automatically downloads artwork (for me anyway) when I burn a CD to it or add files like HDTracks files.  I still don't know where to find the artwork file properties to know what type of files they are. Bottom line, I haven't found the directory with the artwork files.  Any help?  Thanks.


----------



## Terja

As far as I know it is not individually accessible and there is no folder for it. iTunes embeds it into the audio file which is why if you navigate to an individual file using Explorer (I use Windows) to look at properties the cover image is also displayed. Sorry not much help. You could try retagging the image files using JRiver -- but to be fair, JRiver is very, very slow when it comes to tagging -- iTunes is much faster, and more intuitive for stuff like that. Good luck..


----------



## StudioSound

schonen said:


> Guess I missed the window of opportunity. 5 seconds to create a new library? Maybe if you only have 5 songs. Try it with 22,000 and it is far longer than 5 seconds. I only installed to see what it offered and it offered me nothing worth $59.99, not even close.



 
File > Library > Clear Library



honkytime said:


> J River - Loved the way it organized and played your music and videos, didn't like the auto check and some of the functions.mostly the 60$ price tag.



 
Auto-import is 100% optional, though once you actually have things set up, you will probably appreciate all that it does.



jfaaz said:


> I use strictly Mac OS.  I used to use iTunes, but my library is too large and iTunes would crash or be too slow.  Furthermore, the audio quality is poor with iTunes.



 
http://www.jriver.com/speed.html



terja said:


> Foobar, JRiver should be able to read iTunes embedded artwork by default. I use all three and artwork displays properly for all three. I actually use iTunes for all tagging and for running my library and JRiver mostly for playback (and Foobar sometimes). Does your artwork display properly in iTunes?



 
I think the problem is that iTunes typically stores cover art in its library rather than embedding in the file.

Can't understand why you would want to tag in iTunes instead of JRiver - that's one of its best features.
You can write rules that are as simple or as complex as you want to quickly make changes to groups of files: http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Media_Center_expression_language
There are a number of built in tools like the "Clean File Properties" option to fix title case etc.

iTunes is painfully slow and limited in what you can do when tagging files.



terja said:


> JRiver is very, very slow when it comes to tagging -- iTunes is much faster, and more intuitive for stuff like that. Good luck..



 
Is iTunes writing tags to the files, or only its database? By default JRiver will write most tag changes to the files, though it does not require you to wait for the changes to be written before you can make new edits. (iTunes is blocked when writing tags to files)


----------



## jfaaz

I still like Swinsian better than Jriver.


----------



## Hellenback

terja said:


> Foobar, JRiver should be able to read iTunes embedded artwork by default. I use all three and artwork displays properly for all three. I actually use iTunes for all tagging and for running my library and JRiver mostly for playback (and Foobar sometimes). Does your artwork display properly in iTune


 
 What's wrong with foobar for tagging? It'll even tag SACDr ISOs and DVD-A and allows for as many tags as you might want to add (or remove). I don't get why people pay for a player when foobar is free, sounds as good or better than any, is exceptionally configurable and has a choice of sound signatures and many functions.
  
 Maybe it's because I've been using it for so long that I find it easy to use, but it let's you decide what you want to do instead of doing things you don't want done/changed. As far as looking good goes; you can make it look as good or as simple as you want it to look.
  
 For me, the less resources used on eye candy the better as it leaves more available for sound quality. It has often been the first player to introduce functions, leaving others playing catch up while foobar perfects what it introduced. I just can't see using another audio player while using VLC for any video needs.
  
 It just makes sense to me to support freeware if/when it does the job as well or better than paid products. I realize others think/feel differently so I'll just keep on enjoying my free music player and not post anymore of my opinions on this matter in this thread.
  
 Long live foobar!


----------



## RonaldDumsfeld

> Long live foobar!


 
  
  
 if you are serious about that this might be a good place to visit.
  
  
http://mobile.foobar2000.com/


----------



## Terja

Quote:


hellenback said:


> terja said:
> 
> 
> > Foobar, JRiver should be able to read iTunes embedded artwork by default. I use all three and artwork displays properly for all three. I actually use iTunes for all tagging and for running my library and JRiver mostly for playback (and Foobar sometimes). Does your artwork display properly in iTune
> ...


 
  
 Well, nothing is wrong with Foobar for tagging. My tagging needs are actually very simple (music tags + artwork mostly). I also have a huge library and I find iTunes does a stellar job of managing my library and providing what I find to be a very intuitive tagging interface (> File Info, etc), so I tend to keep those two functions together. Oh yeah I also have a 240GB iPod I load my library selects onto -- I prefer to keep the process seamless and streamlined.
  
 As far as Foobar being a cutting edge Freeware I'm with you there, so yeah 'Long live Foobar!'


----------



## dizzyorange

Foobar - no competition here.
  
 WASAPI that ***t.


----------



## SSSN

I use AIMP. It supports WASAPI playback without plugins. ASIO too, if you have the driver. I like it because I actually double click the song I want to play (I'm a very picky listener, the concept of playlists is foreign to me ) and AIMP feels best with that.


----------



## wanderingsounds

I'm surprised Swinsian isn't mentioned by more people. 
  
 For me a good player is a combination of audio quality and user experience - think Swinsian ticks almost all boxes for my personal preferences:
  
 Super clean interface, plays FLAC, Gapless playback, uses iTunes library (makes it easier for managing music on any iDevice), loads library super fast, Art Grid view (I love browsing by album cover only), auto adjust output sample rate, nice tag manager. Only unfortunate issue is lack of Windows compatibility.
  
 Among the commercial players, it's also one of the cheapest (USD $20) too.
  
_Edit: corrected price._


----------



## lamode

Windows - I used Foobar back in the day. There was no competition. So many plugins and so configurable. Also tons of support.
  
 Mac - I have looked into several and ended up with Audirvana Plus 2. It plays every format I use, including all the DSD formats, FLAC and WV. It also controls the DAC directly, which works very well, and you can add AU filters. Sonically it seems very good. There are some small library and interface bugs though. Nothing critical but it could use a good update.


----------



## ShadowSkulkerer

I've been using Pono's music player which I guess is pretty much the same as JRiver.  Just because I got it to download some music and never looked into anything else.  I thought it seemed slow so I was looking at other stuff.  I got musicbee and it seemed to clip and have readily detectable distortion when you turned the volume up...  Can anyone speak to this?


----------



## HiCZoK

bump.
 What is the situation nowadays ?
 I've been using winamp for 15 years. Just as it is. Without any setting except look customization.
  
 I have e10k and brainwavz hm5 and as i see... nobody really recommends winamp ? Am I missing out? Is sq lower by using winamp ?
  
 And what is all this all this wasapi ? I cannot seem to find a normal human answer.... I've installed asio (whatever that is) drivers for e10k and all I had was trouble. Sound was randomly freezing or hitching with no difference in sound quality so I removed it


----------



## dirtythekid

I'll start with talking about WASAPI. Basically, you're aiming to sonically reproduce your music with as little coloration as possible. Most audio players, Winamp included, use DirectSound to communicate with your audio device. This adds a level of potentially unwanted coloration.
  
 DirectSound = Music player > Windows mixer > Audio device
  
 WASAPI will communicate a bit-perfect version of your music to your audio device, allowing for as little coloration as possible.
  
 WASAPI = Music player > Audio device
  
 ASIO offers a similar bit-perfect path, but it's a bit more complicated to set up and more prone to issues in my experience. That's about the gist of it. Now if you are really attached to Winamp, there is a WASAPI plugin for it that will allow it to play bit-perfect music just like all the other audiophile grade music players. There is a lot of debate on whether or not all WASAPI players are created equal, as some people (myself included) think that they can sound different from player to player, despite being bit-perfect.
  
 Personally, I would say Foobar and MusicBee are other simple players worth giving a shot. Good interface, wide selection of plugins, and no slouch in sound.


----------



## ksathug

Foobar2000 / MusicBee for music
  
 and for videos media player classic + MadVr no one beats it trust me i have surched eavry player out ther for years 
  
 j river uses madvr also but i love the simple media classic 
  
 also if you want to customize foobar2000 check this video
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5um6NEMZGZo
  
 and sory for my bad English


----------



## HanyTheo

daymm, was a little sceptical on other media player other than foobar. tried the Jriver, the foobar sounded flat and thin in my already fat n full sounding LCD3 compared with the Jriver. Damn damn damn I'm still mindblown by the improvement. BIG THANKS


----------



## guywithphones

I really liked winamp and still do. According to the forums it might get a new build soon. Foobar is excellent, and I'm playing around with AIMP3 right now.


----------



## saddleup

hanytheo said:


> daymm, was a little sceptical on other media player other than foobar. tried the Jriver, the foobar sounded flat and thin in my already fat n full sounding LCD3 compared with the Jriver. Damn damn damn I'm still mindblown by the improvement. BIG THANKS


 

 It wasn't until I discovered JRiver that I realized how good PC audio can sound.


----------



## castleofargh

you guys can just record a song from a few players with audacity, and find out the actual magnitude of differences.
  
 my own experience pushes me to pick a media player for the features and not for the sound, that can be pretty much perfect from most of the well known choices.
 having a functional exclusive bit perfect mode to bypass directsound could be a good idea depending on the soundcard. the rest shouldn't matter much at an audible level.


----------



## billiejoel

jiiteepee said:


> I'm still using the NI Traktor Beatport SYNC from '07.
> 
> 
> (minimized)


 
 nice software, but its a bit old. How I find plugin?


----------



## trung224

For my taste, the best music player is Signaylst HQPlayer + Jplay ASIO driver. The details HQPlayer managed to pull out by upsampling (especially to DSD128) is amazing. Comparing to it, Foobar and Jriver seems very veiled and muddy in details. Adding JPlay ASIO driver enhance the background blackness further.


----------



## coli

MPC-BE, I used to use Foobar but that thing never sounded correct...


----------



## Creeping Doom

I use a lightweight player , called Spider Player . I don't use playlists , never really have . I just pull up my music folder . I tried Foobar , didn't like it much . Jet Audio was ok , had the nicest gui , but their sound engine stinks . At present , I have my headphones (HD598 SE) , plugged in to the headphone jack on my speaker's (Boston Acoustics BA 7900) control pod .


----------



## fuego

ksathug said:


> Foobar2000 / MusicBee for music
> 
> and for videos media player classic + MadVr no one beats it trust me i have surched eavry player out ther for years
> 
> ...


 
 This is cool, I'll try it as I am not satisfied with winamp. Thanks for sharing this.


----------



## rolli1949

I listen to Decibel ,Audirvana plus and some other system but by far the best is ROON which is light years ahead of the competition in many regards .Yes it is expensive but you get so many info ,plays any music files
Keeps your library up-date and you explore your music collection in new ways which all the other systems simply cannot provide .Sonic performance is excellent and future proof .
At least download for two weeks free ! See what it can do and then you decide .


----------



## rolli1949

Hi  should try ROON its so advanced and by far the best !you


----------



## Dobrescu George

I have been wondering what is the best software for audio playback for a while. 
  
 For now, I have been using either foobar2k or jriver as my weapons of choice.
  
 As my free to use project will come to fruition sooner than I expected, people might want to look at it, and give me some advice on how to improve. There are big differences between it and every other software out there, and I am actually into developing it tailored better for users, so if anyone want to request any feature, I am all ears (pun intended).


----------



## sterling1

I've been pleased with iTunes, for a multitude of reasons. My favorite feature is iTunes Match. This service allows me to upload my entire music library to the iCloud. With this feature I can use AirPlay from my iPad or iPhone to stream my music in the iCloud to my home theatre. This saves a lot of space on my iPhone and iPad.


----------



## m-i-c-k-e-y

But when they say it plays Bitperfect its bitperfect right?
  
 However I am more on functionality. Using JRiver (available in MacOS too) as my media player...Audio, Video, TV, Streaming.
  
 Like right now I am watching HDTV material with my HP and DAC + AMP. Most players can't do those.
  
 But one additional feature that I like in JRiver (w/c is available in F2K too) is the ability to use  your VST plugins.


----------



## Dobrescu George

m-i-c-k-e-y said:


> But when they say it plays Bitperfect its bitperfect right?
> 
> However I am more on functionality. Using JRiver (available in MacOS too) as my media player...Audio, Video, TV, Streaming.
> 
> ...


 
  
 This is a great feature, and I always thought that it is important to be able to use VST plugins, especially izotope Ozone plugins are great. 
  
 I remember being able to use VST plugins with foobar too, but I forgot exactly how I set it up to be able to.


----------



## highender

I am using www.albumplayer.com for years now and still satisfied, well worth a try.


----------



## Schonen

I've been using Mixxx DJ software recently when I stumbled upon it by accident. Has lots of features, including asio support, and is stellar for free.
  
 http://mixxx.org/
  
 Another player I like and sometimes use is 1by1, it is a directory player instead of a playlist/tag player.
  
 http://mpesch3.de1.cc/


----------



## yeahaudio

Sock Player. What a revelation. I can hear the minute details of the singers breathing in. Wow.


----------



## GnuB

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Kodi (XBMC) as it is a full featured, cross-platform multimedia software package.  I am using it on Windows 10 and Raspberry Pi for both music and video.  It also has a picture viewer.  It supports WASAPI on Windows and browses libraries in a variety of ways.  I like the Party Mode which randomly plays music from the library.  It may not be the "Best" or have all of the features of some of the other packages mentioned but it works for me.
  
 https://kodi.tv/


----------



## yay101

I'd say mostly because it is quite heavy for "just music" but you are right it does the job superbly. There is also kodibuntu which can be used to give new life to old machines, kodi for both android and iOS in both app and full media centre forms wasapi/ alsa for bit perfect playback, visualisations, automatic metadata retrieval including band images, upsampling for greater than 2.0 setups, is both a upnp renderer and server, has apps for everything including tidal.

It is quite feature rich, and has its own repositories for more plugins.


----------



## Dobrescu George

gnub said:


> I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Kodi (XBMC) as it is a full featured, cross-platform multimedia software package.  I am using it on Windows 10 and Raspberry Pi for both music and video.  It also has a picture viewer.  It supports WASAPI on Windows and browses libraries in a variety of ways.  I like the Party Mode which randomly plays music from the library.  It may not be the "Best" or have all of the features of some of the other packages mentioned but it works for me.
> 
> https://kodi.tv/


 
  
 I think that XBMC can work with madVR, which makes it much more valuable for video playback. 
  
 As a music playback software. it is not the best though. 
  
 SQ wise, Foobar tweaked can provide good quality music, especially for us geeks who take the time to tweak it. For those who find it complicated, there is always jriver, but it is a bit expensive.
  
  (in Romania, at least half of people are still using winamp. It sounds worse than most players, but people continue using it (O.O) )


----------



## goodsguys

I spent half a day downloading trial versions of the most popular music players to try and gauge sound quality differences.
  
 Although they do play video and are paid for as well so may not be what you are after
  
 1. Best for sound quality: Nero
 2. Powerdvd
 3. Windvd
 4. Windows media players
  
 These easily beat kodi


----------



## yay101

goodsguys said:


> I spent half a day downloading trial versions of the most popular music players to try and gauge sound quality differences.
> 
> Although they do play video and are paid for as well so may not be what you are after
> 
> ...


 
 You might want to check your settings. Bits ARE bits. If you think you are hearing things that sound better you might want to check the EQ in those programs. Windows media player doesnt even bypass the windows resampler.
  
 Thats the bad thing about subjective things like "this sounds better" people always forget the "for me" part.


----------



## Creeping Doom

All too true , the "for me" part .


----------



## goodsguys

I suggest you download and try the media players i mentioned then you would have room to talk.
  
 I'm not an expert or a software developer, so cannot provide an explanation as to why some media players sound better than others,
  
 they just do.
  
 I don't agree with you simple bits are bits explanation.
  
 It may depend on how transparent your audio system is.


----------



## Dobrescu George

goodsguys said:


> I suggest you download and try the media players i mentioned then you would have room to talk.
> 
> I'm not an expert or a software developer, so cannot provide an explanation as to why some media players sound better than others,
> 
> ...


 
 1. You are right, software sounds different. However
  
 2. I find it very disturbing that you liked Nero most. I mean... No, I don't meant anything at all. Nothing to see here. You must wither really like it's particular sound, or have a setup which reacts better to it than to other software. 
  
  


yay101 said:


> You might want to check your settings. Bits ARE bits. If you think you are hearing things that sound better you might want to check the EQ in those programs. Windows media player doesnt even bypass the windows resampler.
> 
> Thats the bad thing about subjective things like "this sounds better" people always forget the "for me" part.


 
  
  
 At first I was going to argue over the fact that Nero cannot be the best software for music playback, there is foobar, fidelizer stuff, jriver, etc. but then this statement came up. 
  
 Bits are bits. Data. This data is taken in samples. One second is split in 44100 points of data, in which data is measured in 16 bits, think of them as +8 to -8, where positive and negative are relative to a zero in which the driver is in resting position. These points need to be interpolated, using quite complicated algorithms, high pass, low pass, filters, then OS will resample the music, then OS kernel will add it's own flavor to the music. 
  
 Nothing can bypass this to this day, only players with dedicated OS are immune to this. 
  
 Now, I can assure you want winamp does not sound like foobar, and if you download and test, you will hear obvious differences. It is not relevant which sounds better for you, but that they are different. 
  
 All software sounds different. 
  
 My own project will have it's own sound, it is inevitable. The most important aspect is which sound closest to real, natural music, and if that one is the best for all people. (HQplayer is a king is sound quality, but using it....... I simply given up after having to stop song each time I wanted to change song or modify a setting.)


----------



## yay101

goodsguys said:


> I suggest you download and try the media players i mentioned then you would have room to talk.
> 
> I'm not an expert or a software developer, so cannot provide an explanation as to why some media players sound better than others,
> 
> ...


 
 I AM a software developer, and i have used all of those programs many times. My point stands.
  
 Bias, mood, what you ate, smells currently in the room all have effects on your hearing, and i would put money on bias being a big part of your listening experience.
  
 Bits are bits is a fact, 1 is 1. 0 is 0. If you disagree then you are missing a fundamental understanding of how computers work. They CAN HOWEVER send different bits if they have done processing to the signal to "make it sound better" which is why i suggested checking for equalisation.


----------



## castleofargh

IMO a player should be picked for its features(some of which could be related to sound options), not for how it "sounds" when nothing is set correctly.
 if I start using some with windows mixer including some weird THX DSP I have on my laptop by default, and then get another player that goes with kernel streaming, boom they sound different. if one forces the max resolution of the DAC like asio, and another makes some weird resampling because I didn't care to check my windows settings, they might just sound different from bad resampling or the DAC's low pass at low resolution, or whatever else.
 blaming the player for those stuff is going a little far IMO. now going for the all " a 1 is a 1" thing, is ideally true, but in practice, as soon as something as simple as volume control is used, we're passed the bit perfect concept. so it's not all black and white.  but it should be easy enough to get stuff that are audibly identical. http://archimago.blogspot.fr/2013/06/measurements-part-i-bit-perfect.html
  
 now when everything else is equal and 2 players still sound different, personally I would try to RMAA them or something like that to find out which is doing it wrong, try to solve the issue, or simply unistall the sucker.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 so far I've been happy with foobar for what I do, but plenty of others are just as fine.


----------



## Dobrescu George

castleofargh said:


> IMO a player should be picked for its features(some of which could be related to sound options), not for how it "sounds" when nothing is set correctly.
> if I start using some with windows mixer including some weird THX DSP I have on my laptop by default, and then get another player that goes with kernel streaming, boom they sound different. if one forces the max resolution of the DAC like asio, and another makes some weird resampling because I didn't care to check my windows settings, they might just sound different from bad resampling or the DAC's low pass at low resolution, or whatever else.
> blaming the player for those stuff is going a little far IMO. now going for the all " a 1 is a 1" thing, is ideally true, but in practice, as soon as something as simple as volume control is used, we're passed the bit perfect concept. so it's not all black and white.  but it should be easy enough to get stuff that are audibly identical. http://archimago.blogspot.fr/2013/06/measurements-part-i-bit-perfect.html
> 
> ...


 
  
 Congrats on becoming sound science moderator!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I totally forgotten that for volume control to be lossless, a software must do high resolution resampling, because with redbook there is no chance of lossless volume, unless you use only half of the volume (bit shifting). 
  
  


yay101 said:


> I AM a software developer, and i have used all of those programs many times. My point stands.
> 
> Bias, mood, what you ate, smells currently in the room all have effects on your hearing, and i would put money on bias being a big part of your listening experience.
> 
> Bits are bits is a fact, 1 is 1. 0 is 0. If you disagree then you are missing a fundamental understanding of how computers work. They CAN HOWEVER send different bits if they have done processing to the signal to "make it sound better" which is why i suggested checking for equalisation.


 
  
 I develop music software specifically. It does sound different. It is not about bits themselves, FLAC is compressed to begin with, so it needs decompression, then there is how noisy the current on motherboard is at that moment, or on the external DAC, then there is volume, then there are other things. Of course most of differences will come from a DSP.  (these differences will be much greater than between players)
  
 For fun, you can try a LAV filter based software, against foobar, against jriver, against winamp, against windows media player. If they all really sound the same to you, then it is okay. But without bias, ask someone to blindfold you and change them for you, to not know beforehand. 
  
  
  
  
  
 But, yeah, choosing the best music player should be done based on features, ease of use and other factors. For example, mediamonkey has a ton of features, and so does foobar, while using VLC for music will not let you convert tags, or convert between filetypes. There are a ton of choices for all features you might need, but up to date, I never could satisfy all my needs with one software, so I am having 2-3-4 software only for music enjoyment and management.


----------



## yay101

dobrescu george said:


> For fun, you can try a LAV filter based software, against foobar, against jriver, against winamp, against windows media player. If they all really sound the same to you, then it is okay. But without bias, ask someone to blindfold you and change them for you, to not know beforehand.


 
 http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/overall.html
  
 Even way back then we knew not all decoders are created equal. However all 100% accurate decoders sound exactly the same and will provide the same 1's and 0's every time regardless of which *accurate* decoder is used (assuming bit perfect playback and no dsp).
  
 And out of all decoders i am far more likely to trust ffmpeg which lav and foobar 2000 use over any non open source decoder from a sheer developer talent perspective, a lot of very smart people have made ffmpeg what it is today.
  
 There are hundreds of ways people can screw with audio behind the scenes to make it sound "better" which im sure you would know as a developer yourself. There are tricks and filters and compressors that can do all sorts of things to make music sound "better", but no where will there be a promise of accuracy.


----------



## Dobrescu George

yay101 said:


> http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/overall.html
> 
> Even way back then we knew not all decoders are created equal. However all 100% accurate decoders sound exactly the same and will provide the same 1's and 0's every time regardless of which *accurate* decoder is used (assuming bit perfect playback and no dsp).
> 
> ...


 
  
 Of course, I know too well how you can screw up behind the scenes. 
  
 I like to advertise DSP as such, and bit perfect as such. Given the quality a DSP can carry, I am much more interested in developing a DSP, and a full fledged full feature software than a magic solution. Bit perfect can only go so far, there is so much more to be achieved through a well developed DSP. 
  
 Given this, there are very few situations in which bit perfect exists in this world. Simply because we still get better SQ if we have high priority for music process, and volume is not bit perfect for most software yet.
  
 I would not be so sure that ffmpeg is best, nor that it is not. But I don't think I would develop a decoder, because there are lots of open decoders to chose from. Best is what works best for you, that bit is clear. I am still testing which decoder can do what I need, but for the moment, ffmpeg and LAV are enough mature, and complete. There are many other areas where sound can be tweaked, instead of decoding.


----------



## yay101

dobrescu george said:


> I like to advertise DSP as such, and bit perfect as such. Given the quality a DSP can carry, I am much more interested in developing a DSP, and a full fledged full feature software than a magic solution. Bit perfect can only go so far, there is so much more to be achieved through a well developed DSP.


 
 Then I certainly applaud you on this, transparency in software is something I can always appreciate even in competitive fields like processing I only ask the what is being done, I understand the veil behind the how.


----------



## goodsguys

I am glad you are happy with the media player of your choice.
  
 The arguement was that powerdvd sounds better than kodi, i cannot speak on behalf of every media player in the world,
  
 simply because i have not tried every media player in the world I do not wish to mislead anyone.
  
 But i have tried kodi and powerdvd, powerdvd sounds a lot fuller, more detailed.
  
 I did google this and spent a few days going through a lot of forum posts to find the most popular media players that forum members are using
  
 because i am in the process of setting up a htpc.
  
 Since then i have tried powerdvd against windvd, vlc, jriver, winamp, nero, aurora blu ray player, kodi and media player classic, and also tiny core which is a linux based system.
  
 I need video as well as audio for htpc so some players were ruled out.
  
 I'm using the asus stx2 7.1 with daughter board as the soundcard, which is running into 3 quad 405-3 power amps. (£2.5k / power amp)
  
 The soundcard is packaged with a driver disc which has asio as part of the installation
  
 Nero sounds the best, most natural, true to life, least coloured, with powerdvd a close second.
  
 People prefer using kodi, vlc and media player classic, these are the most popular media players simply because they are free.
  
 Having to pay $60 for powerdvd, or any of the other media players means these media players get less attention simply because less people are using them.
  
 That's why some people are so dismissive of them, because their friends or net acquaintances do not mention them.
  
 What i look for is as true to life and realsitic sound as possible, that is my interpretation of the best media player.
  
 The media players i mentioned are available as free trial downloads so you can try them out at no risk, then perhaps post back from an informed point of view.
  
 Personally i would not pay $60 for a media player, i got powerdvd bundled in software free when i purchased my pc


----------



## DDF

Ffmpeg performance is quite poor unfortunately

See
http://src.infinitewave.ca. and compare to dbpoweramp


----------



## yay101

1. We are talking about decoding, not converting anything, and certainly not re-sampling with UNKNOWN SETTINGS (what's being done there).
  
 2. They are quite vague about methodology, and have no checking of results just email us and we will publish.
  
 3. Different programs that employ ffmpeg get different results, accuracy again seems very dubious.
  
 If you really want some meaningful graphs and i can grab the output of various codecs this weekend and compare their bits to their source.


----------



## Hitesh

I personally use Windows Media player 12 with these 3 plugins (Minilyrics Plugin, WMP Tag Plus and WMP Plus!)
 This setup suits my needs perfectly


----------



## Marmite

MusicBee in WASAPI mode fed via HDMI to my Pioneer AV amp and then out to my speakers (audio) and telly (video). 

To my tired old ears HDMI sounds better than SPDIF from the PC and has the benefit of simplicity in connecting. FLACs from my PC also sound better than my standalone cheapie Samsung CD/DVD player.

For video, I use Kodi, again in WASAPI mode. I run a couple of Pioneer FS 52 speakers and they sound good for music and movies. Kodi also seems to output better picture quality than VLC, my other main video player, which can also be a bit glitchy at times (especially after the latest update to v3.0.3).


----------



## Alotofsilence

I use AIMP player. Total free of charge, regulary updating, skinnable interface. It has a lot of features, audio converter (with options) to flac, m4a, and many other formats. Advanced tag editor with DISCOGS and Brainz.


----------



## manueljenkin

Try Playpcmwin. The sound quality is very good for a windows based player.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/playpcmwin/

Hysolid is also great but it is very buggy.

The best sound I've heard is from a custom audio optimized linux distro - wtfplay. It is completely command line so may not be for everyone. An alternative that has an easier user interface for general audience is daphile.


----------



## manueljenkin

yay101 said:


> I AM a software developer, and i have used all of those programs many times. My point stands.
> 
> Bias, mood, what you ate, smells currently in the room all have effects on your hearing, and i would put money on bias being a big part of your listening experience.
> 
> Bits are bits is a fact, 1 is 1. 0 is 0. If you disagree then you are missing a fundamental understanding of how computers work. They CAN HOWEVER send different bits if they have done processing to the signal to "make it sound better" which is why i suggested checking for equalisation.



If you're a software engineer it means you know how certain codes work. Doesn't necessarily mean you understand everything about analog design/mixed signal design, phy layers, etc. All of which can contribute to noise polluting dac/amp analog section.

Bit perfect players can still sound different is my experience (including dacs like rme adi2 which measured to show no difference with the limited tests we do). It quite has to do with ground plane noises, stress on phy layer and more afaik.


----------



## manueljenkin

Creeping Doom said:


> I use a lightweight player , called Spider Player . I don't use playlists , never really have . I just pull up my music folder . I tried Foobar , didn't like it much . Jet Audio was ok , had the nicest gui , but their sound engine stinks . At present , I have my headphones (HD598 SE) , plugged in to the headphone jack on my speaker's (Boston Acoustics BA 7900) control pod .



I see that spider player is not being developed anymore. Have you tried Playpcmwin? Please take a look at post number 62 and post number 102 here. You might find interesting choices. I'll try spiderplayer soon. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/my-experience-with-different-music-players.923248/page-5


----------



## Sterling2

iTunes only lacks one important capability for me, it does not do multi-channel, so I run Foobar 2000 to enjoy my multi-channel FLAC downloads.


----------



## Bernard23

Used J River in the early days of PC audio, started in MC16 and got to MC21 before the $30 upgrades for no improvement in SQ, all the feature upgrades at the time were in video, final straw when Matt tersely admitted that MC21 -> MC22 had no audio improvement, but that i should still get it. I didn't. I got ride of my separates about 5 years ago and migrated to Sonos, so rarely used my PC / J River until quite recently. Lockdowns and working from home has meant having a good dac amp and phones setup in my office is attractive. Since I can't install MC21 on my office PC, I've installed MusicBee which is great. Simple UI, the album art is a bit hit and miss; J River is better in that respect. Most importantly i can stream WASAPI sing my dac drivers, so that's all good. I couldn't comment on SQ differences between players, even if both were on the same PC,  in the time it takes to switch them over I've lost the nuance already; I've long since moved on from trying to recognise minute tonal or detail changes as that's not enjoying listening to music, it's a totally separate exercise that rarely leads to musical enjoyment in my own experience.


----------

