Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Adamski]

Hi Guys,

A simple question: Is the output sound quality of MP3's or similar affected by the kind of player software that you use??  Obviously enough I hook my computer up to my Hi-Fi and the sound is pretty good but was just wondering if the software I use to play the MP3's makes much difference to the sound quality coming out of the Hi-Fi Speakers!?

Cheers
Ad.

[xen-uno]

Probably not, the "good" players like MJ and WinAmp (to name a few) use (as you know) plug-in's for Playback-Encoding-Decoding. Thats why they are able to play so many different formats. That's also why you can use WinAmp 2.xx plug-in's in MJ.

Xenno

[zevele10]

My answer is yes.
If you play a song with MJ or FreeAmp,you get a very good sound.
Play it with RealJukebox,the sound is not as good.Play it with Windows Media Player,you get another sound,metallic,no good.

Xen-uno

WinAmp has a good sound!!?!!!!??.
I really do not think so.But last time i used WinAmp was 2 years ago.Maybe it improved with new version

[Skinnyfatz]

I would definitely have to say yes!! Using Winamp, or Windows Media Player,  the sound quality is extremely different than MJ. I have Klipsch 5.1 system on my puter, and there is a definite difference in sound quality among the three. I would have to say that Winamp sounds the worst, because unless you use a plugin like DFX, most of what comes out is muffled. The new Windows player is not at all as good as MJ, but it does compare somewhat(the reason behind this, is because of what they "borrowed" from MJ). However, it really doesn't matter about the sound system you use, MJ still has the best sound output and quality.

[zevele10]

Yes,the WMP 9 has a good sound.
And yes MJ and FreeAmp are the best.
I have also my computer plug to my stereo and never use any kind of DFX.
MJ is neutral and very clear

[xen-uno]

>>WinAmp has a good sound!!!!!!?.

Sure does, it's the consensus favorite at Hydrogen, and those guys DO know audio. Besides, as I pointed out previously, with the plug-in's you can make one player sound identical to the other (if it supports plug-in's, that is).

RealJukebox and WMP DO NOT use standard plug-in's.

For what it's worth, I used RJ before MJ. It was a good sounding player. A player will sound only as good as the file. So......what has made the most difference in sound quality the last couple years has been improvements in encoding/decoding - not the player itself.

Xenno

[zevele10]

Hey Hey! From RJ to EAC ,OGG and MJ..
I used RJ also.And to this day i still say that it was he best'mister average' user jukebox.And fast  encoded VRB 192 kps are acceptable.

But WinAmp! I do not say WinAmp is not good.But it is far from MJ or FreeAmp.

As far as i can see ,not that much people on hydrogen know MJ orFreeAmp.
And there is a lot of short-minded-sighted people thinking they have the best opinions .
Nothing against the place.I read very often and learn a lot

[xen-uno]

>>But WinAmp! I do not say WinAmp is not good.But it is far from MJ or FreeAmp.

Your talkin about the interface/DB capabilities. In that regard MJ is superior to all.
In sound quality, MJ is "transparent", which is what all players strive for. MJ is not alone in that arena.

>>As far as i can see ,not that much people on hydrogen know MJ orFreeAmp.

That's true. Some may resist conversion until the end of days. But in their waning moments, in the light at the end of the tunnel, they will see a jukebox riding a surfboard, and all will be well.

Xenno

[rocketsauce]

The impression I get from reading Hydrogen Audio is that the main reason most of the people there prefer Winamp is because in general their preference is for programs that use low amounts of system resources (and I'm not saying that MJ is a resource hog).

As for sound quality, on my hi-fi system I find absolutely no difference in the sound produced by either MJ or Winamp 2.81.  They both sound great.  My primary reason for switching to MJ was the Music Library features.

Rob

[xen-uno]

Thanks for backing me 'sauce. It was like being in the ring with Mike Tyson & Tonya Harding. They were coming at me from all sides, Bit both my ears and whacked me in the knee! But I landed a left hook with my last post. And your's.... Oh baby!! That uppercut put em down for the count!  

Xenno

[zevele10]

Most of them prefer WinAmp for other raisons than quality.
WinAmp was the first,and the first to have this 'community' feeling.With people making plug-in,skins.
It is still the same today.I have to say that when you see all the plug-ins and skins,you start to love the player.
I am not sure than WinAmp 3 use much less ressouces than MJ.Doing the same i mean.
It was the case with RealJukebox and FreeAmp.RJ needed a lot of ressources,FreeAmp not,and the sound was better.
There is a lot of idiots using WinAmp as there is a lot of idiots on Hydrogene.
Nothing to do with boths'products'.Hydrogene is a great place,WinAmp may be a great player.I do not know ,i do not care about WinAmp.
But the sound was dreadfull 2 years ago when i gave a try.
Maybe on 'all plastic' $5 computer spearkers it sounds good

[xen-uno]

>>WinAmp was the first,and the first to have this 'community' feeling........There is a lot of idiots using WinAmp

Your as much of a snob w/ MJ as the worst supporter of WinAmp may be.

>>i do not care about WinAmp.

Good. That's the first step in learning how to be objective.

>>Maybe on 'all plastic' $5 computer spearkers it sounds good

Are these what you use now with MJ? What brand are they? I want a pair.

Xenno

[rocketsauce]

But the sound was dreadfull 2 years ago when i gave a try.

Maybe someone who knows more details can enlighten us, but if I recall correctly (IIRC ), there was a point a few years ago when Winamp was using a different decoding/playback engine that did produce pretty bad sound quality, but they realised their mistake and returned to the original.  So, if you use the most current version (2.81) you should get great sound from it.

Of course, it doesn't have the great Media Library that MJ has, but I still use Winamp for quickly previewing music from Windows Explorer or just listening to a single track.

Rob

[phelt]

I believe that the quality of a player's output is related to the decoder that is used. Quite a few folks who use WinAmp (and other players) choose to use MAD: MPEG Audio Decoder. And you probably have noticed that MJ offers multiple decoding options - 24 bit, 32 bit, etc. FYI, the utility of the higher bitdepth options is dependent upon your soundcard's ability to process them - if your card doesn't handle 32 bit, you probably won't hear anything.
Hopefully Matt or another of the developers can offer comments about decoders.

[sekim]

Another reason Winamp is so big over there. It's free. Who in the world wants to part with $25.00 for a jukebox?

Well, I guess there is a sucker born every minute.   So I'm a sucker. I fall for this kind of stuff all the time. Yeah right.

Also, ChicoSelfs poll on what jukebox is the best had many that preferred to use seperate programs for everything. One for encoding. One for playing. One for tagging. Blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. The consensus was build one program that does one thing very well. And there is no way some jukebox, a 'Jack of all trades', was going to do it better. Although I wonder how many had actually taken the time to try MJ before blasting away?

In some respects they may have a point. EAC does do a great job at ripping. And Winamp does playback exactly the same as MJ, on my system, while using very little resources. But it seems like a lot of work to use several different programs to end up with the same result.

For myself, I like the way MJ works. Everything in one tidy package that is easy enough to learn if some effort is put in on my part. Beats learning upwards of half a dozen different apps to listen to music. Which is the main objective, isn't it?

[Matt]

Interesting thread.

Like everyone said, most popular players do a fine job of decoding a file and playing it.  Play an mp3 in Media Jukebox and play it in Winamp and there won't be a difference.

However, where MJ pulls away is in all the other things it's playback engine natively supports like:

- cross-fading and gapless playback
- 32-bit internals for higher precision DSP's
- stackable DSP chains (with MJ and Winamp DSP plugin support)
- built-in optional silence suppression

And in version 9:

- ASIO output (for high end cards where bit-for-bit accuracy is important)
- output format independent of input format (i.e. a 44.1 khz 16-bit 2 channel CD can be output at 192 khz 32-bit 5.1 channel)
- DirectX audio plugin support
- DirectX DSP plugin support (opens up 100's of professional quality DSP options)

Not sure if that's helpful at all.  For those reasons (and a few others), I would argue that Media Jukebox has the most powerful and optimized playback engine there is.

As a disclaimer, I would also argue that the Vikings could still win the Super Bowl this year, so take what I say with a grain of salt  

[xen-uno]

>>As a disclaimer, I would also argue that the Vikings could still win the Super Bowl this year

Disclaimer accepted....

We know your still hung over from the other day and that being argumentative is part of your semi-intoxicated state.  

Xenno

[michel]

Everything in one tidy package that is easy enough to learn if some effort is put in on my part. Beats learning upwards of half a dozen different apps to listen to music.

I toke a long time to try MJ because it is an all-in-one package and I am (was) against that because in most of cases these all-in-one package (in any area) are not the best-in-class for each functionnality. Moreover they are generally very memory hog (I am not sure of this expression... my english is so poor   ).

I have not changed my mind about all-in-one package, I have just admit there is exceptions, MJ is one of them.

But I am a little preoccupated when I see that MJ is becoming also a picture manager...

[zevele10]

Xen-uno

Ok,we are saturday,it is the week-end,time to calm down.

My opinion was only about sound quality.Not to know if MJ the best or not.
With MJ 7 i,and some others on this forum had hard time to put MJ or FreeAmp first.Look like that with 8,the sound is better.
I have hundreds and hundreds of programs [registered] on russian cdrs.
I gave a try to all concerning players and jukeboxs.There is no way i can change what i said:WinAmp was dreadfull.
I have two $5 each JBL speakers and two $5 each BEO speakers.As you see it is allready a $ 20 speakers system.
I never had a good soundcard,just the one coming with the motherboard.

If here on this forum since long ,you had see that i posted many times about problems and limitation concerning MJ.Sometimes,very upset posts.
I am not a MJ snob,far from it.
Playing music with MJ does not eat a lot of power on my computer.So i don't care about any other player,WinAmp,even FreeAmp and so on.

I never used FLAC and do really think that SHN sound bad.Means that i do not need any WinAmp fonction for it.
I just convert SHN to wav,it takes very short time,before playing it.

Yes there is A LOT of idiots using WinAmp.Just look at many forums.'jukebox are stupid-WinAmp best" on any comment about a jukebox,there is allways many posts'WinAmp is better'.
WinAmp is a player,no way it can be better than a product who is not a player.Jukebox,firewall or expresso machine
To say WinAmp is the best player,this is ok.
There is a lot of idiots on hydrogene as well.You know it better than me because i'am sure you use it since much more time than me.

But this has nothing to do with the quality of WinAmp or Hydrogene.
There is some idiots here as well-you and me right now,but we know it is only  some kind of fantasie from us-.There is less idiots here because there is much less people and that any kind of very specific  product  attract less idiot on they forums.

I was not saying that you are an idiot in an indirect way,using WinAmp as a way to say it.
You are far far from it  as far as your posts speak for you.

Anyway ,have a nice week-end with WinAmp,MJ or any other thing