Music Playing Software
- Thread starter saketselot
- Start date
Finally, Amarra introduced low cost version Amarra Hifi for USD $49.
Sonic Studio : Amarra Hifi High Resolution Music Player and Professional Audio For Mastering and Restoration
Sonic Studio : Amarra Hifi High Resolution Music Player and Professional Audio For Mastering and Restoration
Last edited:
^^ IMO, yes. I recently compared a friend's Hackintosh + Amarra setup with a Foobar + WASAPI install in my HP dm1. Except for the source, everything was kept the same. The Hackintosh + Amarra setup was clearly superior 
But as far as a windows install is concerned, my personal preference is Foobar + WASAPI.
EDIT: IN the interest of keeping the facts straight, the Amarra install I mentioned above was the full-blown Amarra, and not Amarra HiFi (the new "lite" version). But I don't think that will make a difference at all.
But as far as a windows install is concerned, my personal preference is Foobar + WASAPI.
EDIT: IN the interest of keeping the facts straight, the Amarra install I mentioned above was the full-blown Amarra, and not Amarra HiFi (the new "lite" version). But I don't think that will make a difference at all.
spirovious
Well-Known Member
There are few more SW,mostly for mac?
The Well-Tempered Computer
The Well-Tempered Computer
^^ IMO, yes. I recently compared a friend's Hackintosh + Amarra setup with a Foobar + WASAPI install in my HP dm1. Except for the source, everything was kept the same. The Hackintosh + Amarra setup was clearly superior
But as far as a windows install is concerned, my personal preference is Foobar + WASAPI.
EDIT: IN the interest of keeping the facts straight, the Amarra install I mentioned above was the full-blown Amarra, and not Amarra HiFi (the new "lite" version). But I don't think that will make a difference at all.
You mean the software internally EQs the sound, so that it "sounds" superior ... or use something like a sound sharpener (differentiator) - http://foosion.foobar2000.org/components/?id=delta
Except 192 kHz sampling, I don't see anything great.
And even at 192 kHz sampling, remember unless its an audio master, you will CD sampling rate only = 44.1kHz.
Just to make it clear (this is endorsed by foobar developer/support):
- There is no gain in quality from upscaling the bit-depth or sampling rate of any given audio source; it should simply be output at its native resolution (e.g. 44100 Hz and 16 bit for CD audio).
- The output method will make no difference to the audio that is sent to your hardware. The various methods are constrasted by their technical properties/abilities (e.g. WASAPIs exclusive mode), not any assumptions about quality; that is, by how they transmit the audio, not by what they transmit.
So any software that claims better sound is simply pulling a fast one.
Last edited:
If you fuel your journey on the opinions of others, you are going to run out of gas. ? Steve Maraboli
I am using Amarra for years and it is absolutely superior to other music playing softwares.
FYI: Amarra review
Listening #103 | Stereophile.com
I am using Amarra for years and it is absolutely superior to other music playing softwares.
FYI: Amarra review
Listening #103 | Stereophile.com
Last edited:
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Linux* again...
Just found out that Audacious does gapless playback. It is also very configurable with a wide range of available plugins.
*Oh, and Windows too.
I know it's hard to give up foobar, and why should one give up a piece of software that is extremely good? I'd still be physically joined to it if I was still using Windows. But Audacious is another contender with plenty of power and a nice clean interface --- but I have little experience of it yet.
Just found out that Audacious does gapless playback. It is also very configurable with a wide range of available plugins.
*Oh, and Windows too.
I know it's hard to give up foobar, and why should one give up a piece of software that is extremely good? I'd still be physically joined to it if I was still using Windows. But Audacious is another contender with plenty of power and a nice clean interface --- but I have little experience of it yet.
Last edited:
I just mean that Amarra sounded substantially better to me than Foobar, keeping everything else the same. Of course, Foobar was on a Win7 machine, and Amarra was on an OSX/Hackintosh.
The Foobar install was a plain vanilla install, except for Columns UI and a mild interface tweak of mine. It was the same for Amarra: Regular install, with no tweaks or upsampling or anything.
This is what I wrote the day I'd made the comparo: http://www.hifivision.com/home-theater-pc-htpc-media-pc/5000-pc-music-listening-18.html (Post #178)
Maybe the difference had to do with the operating systems? In any case, the reasons don't really matter to me, except to the extent that I'd like to know what is required to reproduce the same results whenever I want
I've tried JRMC17 on the same Music PC and setup I use Foobar with, and I really could not make out any difference between the two. And I vastly prefer the Foobar interface and the lack of unnecessary features in Foobar.
If by any chance that comment was for my post, lets go back again to the post and examine if opinions were aired or facts stated by software devs.
I have used Audacious a lot on Ubuntu, especially when I wanted something similar looking to foobar. But then I realized the ease of usage that Rhythmbox provided, but Rhythmbox doesn't run on Windows, so found out about Quod Libet. QL runs on both Linux and Windows.
I tried foobar/audacious/etc players but could never like their way of organizing and presenting music database. So far only Rhythmbox and Quod Libet (with paned browser view) have appealed to me.
Of course all these software sound the same ...
alpha1, have you tried the Columns UI addon for Foobar? I hate the way Foobar organizes music by default too.
The default setup in Columns UI itself will make a huge difference in the way you can access your music (Genre/Artist/Album/Playlist). You can further edit it easily and get it just right
The live search box (I think it works in the default Foobar install also) will also let you quickly jump to the exact bit of music you want.
The default setup in Columns UI itself will make a huge difference in the way you can access your music (Genre/Artist/Album/Playlist). You can further edit it easily and get it just right
The live search box (I think it works in the default Foobar install also) will also let you quickly jump to the exact bit of music you want.
Foobar somehow hung while searching / indexing my music database.
And after full search it showed only ~6000 songs instead of ~20000.
I wanted foobar to win, but it failed me :'(
Anyway the convenience which I wanted was met only by two softwares.
So what convenience am I talking about?
You simply enter Genre/Album/Artist/Year/... (stuff that is tagged)
And there is a playlist below that automatically springs up (just like a database search).
BUT (this is the biggest but) - you start playing directly off from this queried list.
There is no double click, no import export, no playlist generation.
And the moment you get bored by older query - you change the criteria, the "playlist" changes automatically (while still playing the older song).
Hard to explain, but easy to try or demonstrate. Its a convenience which I couldn't find anywhere else.
And after full search it showed only ~6000 songs instead of ~20000.
I wanted foobar to win, but it failed me :'(
Anyway the convenience which I wanted was met only by two softwares.
So what convenience am I talking about?
You simply enter Genre/Album/Artist/Year/... (stuff that is tagged)
And there is a playlist below that automatically springs up (just like a database search).
BUT (this is the biggest but) - you start playing directly off from this queried list.
There is no double click, no import export, no playlist generation.
And the moment you get bored by older query - you change the criteria, the "playlist" changes automatically (while still playing the older song).
Hard to explain, but easy to try or demonstrate. Its a convenience which I couldn't find anywhere else.
You mean like this?
This is a screenshot of a Foobar2000 install (on Win XP) with a Columns UI plugin and a slightly tweaked UI.
Clicking on a particular artist name in the "Artist" panel on top will bring up a list of all albums and tracks tagged with that artist name in the bottom panel. Same effect on clicking on any entry in the "Genre" and "Album" panels on top.
If you type the name of an artist or track or album into the live search bar on the top marked "Search Filters", the results (anything tagged with the string you've entered) will be presented in the lower (wide) panel.
This is a screenshot of a Foobar2000 install (on Win XP) with a Columns UI plugin and a slightly tweaked UI.
Clicking on a particular artist name in the "Artist" panel on top will bring up a list of all albums and tracks tagged with that artist name in the bottom panel. Same effect on clicking on any entry in the "Genre" and "Album" panels on top.
If you type the name of an artist or track or album into the live search bar on the top marked "Search Filters", the results (anything tagged with the string you've entered) will be presented in the lower (wide) panel.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
So far, I have always used the OS-native directory structure as my means of organising my music. This is possibly good enough for me because there is not yet that much digitised music on my hdds compared to some of you guys.
However, whether I ever go in for database music organisation or not, the ability to interact with my music by simple Opersting-system methods and models, eg file-open and drag and drop is vital. Any player that wither hides this under obscure terminology, or insists that I index my music collection before I can play any of it, gets an immediate rejection.
I have to make an exception for Squeezeplayer :sad: when using my Squeezebox, but still, I always navigate it by My Music Folder...
You mean like this?
This is a screenshot of a Foobar2000 install (on Win XP) with a Columns UI plugin and a slightly tweaked UI.
Clicking on a particular artist name in the "Artist" panel on top will bring up a list of all albums and tracks tagged with that artist name in the bottom panel. Same effect on clicking on any entry in the "Genre" and "Album" panels on top.
If you type the name of an artist or track or album into the live search bar on the top marked "Search Filters", the results (anything tagged with the string you've entered) will be presented in the lower (wide) panel.
Unfortunately I can't view Imageshack right now.
This is what I was talking about.
Just type in the search column, and the playlist is automatically generated.
If you wish to narrow it down to a particular album / artist / genre - you can select it from the middle pane.
T.E.G. -> see if this is intimidating.
Does foobar offer this same functionality?
All the other players do show the list based on search - but you need to drag and drop or double click so that it forms a play list.
And if you change the search criteria, you have to follow the procedures again.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Does Quod Libet do true gapless playback? I haven't looked at it for ages, but, if it did at at that time, I might have kept it on my list. Does it easily play CDs from the CDdrive? This is another reason I've passed over a few players.
One thing that I like about Aqualung is tabbed playlists. They are persistent, too. Whatever selection of albums I'm currently listening to will be there, in separate playists, so I don't have to search or open the files anew each time
One thing that I like about Aqualung is tabbed playlists. They are persistent, too. Whatever selection of albums I'm currently listening to will be there, in separate playists, so I don't have to search or open the files anew each time
I think this Foobar setup has what you are looking for. With the addition of "genre" based live filtering.
Order now for just ₹19,990.00
