cascade9 |
11-23-2013 12:27 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane
(Post 5069013)
|
When I said that I found winamp unstable, it wasnt newer versions but 1998-2003 (mostly 2.X) releases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane
(Post 5069013)
FINE! Use Foobar2000 then for offline music. People still brag how great this one is... :rolleyes:
|
FINE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane
(Post 5068319)
There really is no reason to be rude.
|
You are _way_ too late with your foobar suggestion, and there was no need to be dismissive. I dont use foobar anymore because I'd rather use a linux native player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myk267
(Post 5069031)
The best part of foobar2000 is that you can customize the UI. I'll take that option over a static UI anytime. Otherwise, it does everything that every other music player does.
|
Not quite, theres a few codecs, etc. that are only supported on foobar. They are silly 'we can get a 1% improvement over codec XXXX, arent we smart' codecs. So rather pointless at best. But it does show that many of the people who do play witrh audio files and codecs use foobar for whatever reason.
There are other players that let you customise the GUI, but I havent found any with as many options as foobar.
I've always been a big fan of the honesty of foobar. Rather than telling you how foobar sounds better than other players, they state blunty-
Quote:
Does foobar2000 sound better than other players?
No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples).
|
http://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ
|