As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Winamp Debate: Apparently better than Vinyl...

124»

Posts

  • CrashtardCrashtard Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    I just looked up the Zune process while I was playing music. 1-4% CPU and 135MB of RAM. :D

    Same here. Right now mine's running 1-4% and 97MB of RAM.

    Crashtard on
    I pinky swear that we will not screw you.

    Crashtard.jpg
  • ueanuean Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I've been using Winamp for yeeeeeeeeears, but thankfully never dealt with 3. Just stayed with 2 forever. Then eventually I had a need to catalogue all my CD's since they were getting quite bulky and there were these new fangled mp3 players out there. Everyone seemed to be getting these iPod things and raved about iTunes. I don't know how people can use iTunes on a PC. What a bloated piece of garbage with like, three or four extra processes and services that are always there even if you aren't running the program. iTuneshelper? "hello"? Gah.

    Now, back in the day I had put my CD's onto the computer but used WMP to do it. This meant I had a ton of wma files, and installing iTunes pretty much duplicated my entire music collection as it coverted everything to m4a. This made me hate iTunes. LOATHE ITUNES. Urgh. Why in the world a program would say "I can't play that proprietary file format because they are my enemy, so let me transfer them over to a DIFFERENT proprietary format!" doesn't make any sense. I thought I had to have iTunes though so kept it around for the iPod's sake.

    The discovered Winamp 5.54. Loved it so much I paid for the Pro version so I could rip all my CD's to the drive at 48x. Very nice.

    However, I have noticed that it bogs down with more songs. The search isn't very fast either, and the autotagging was a bit annoying. So I grabbed Mediamonkey to organize my music database which has been an incredible experience. Much faster with my music collection (18,000+, 80gig+) and handles tagging much nicer than Winamp, but is clunkier to actually play songs with.

    I'd say Winamp is the best out there for the windowshade mode and visualizations as desktop background alone though.

    uean on
    Guys? Hay guys?
    PSN - sumowot
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    uean wrote: »
    Now, back in the day I had put my CD's onto the computer but used WMP to do it. This meant I had a ton of wma files, and installing iTunes pretty much duplicated my entire music collection as it coverted everything to m4a. This made me hate iTunes. LOATHE ITUNES. Urgh. Why in the world a program would say "I can't play that proprietary file format because they are my enemy, so let me transfer them over to a DIFFERENT proprietary format!" doesn't make any sense. I thought I had to have iTunes though so kept it around for the iPod's sake.

    Just need to clear the FUD here. You could have easily had iTunes convert those songs to MP3 instead of AAC, and AAC is actually a more open standard that MP3 is, but it doesn't have the greatest device support. MP3 is supported on 100% of players, AAC is supported on about 50%(and rising) right now.

    100% of my music is AAC, and it plays on the iPod I own, the Zune I own, and the Sony MP3 player I own, as well as my cell phone.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Crashtard wrote: »
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    I just looked up the Zune process while I was playing music. 1-4% CPU and 135MB of RAM. :D

    Same here. Right now mine's running 1-4% and 97MB of RAM.

    The Zune software is very memory intensive. Then again, it is connected to an online network and interfacing with a device.

    It's not something I'd leave open. Unless I reduced the memory settings.

    Synthesis on
  • ueanuean Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    wunderbar wrote: »
    uean wrote: »
    Now, back in the day I had put my CD's onto the computer but used WMP to do it. This meant I had a ton of wma files, and installing iTunes pretty much duplicated my entire music collection as it coverted everything to m4a. This made me hate iTunes. LOATHE ITUNES. Urgh. Why in the world a program would say "I can't play that proprietary file format because they are my enemy, so let me transfer them over to a DIFFERENT proprietary format!" doesn't make any sense. I thought I had to have iTunes though so kept it around for the iPod's sake.

    Just need to clear the FUD here. You could have easily had iTunes convert those songs to MP3 instead of AAC, and AAC is actually a more open standard that MP3 is, but it doesn't have the greatest device support. MP3 is supported on 100% of players, AAC is supported on about 50%(and rising) right now.

    100% of my music is AAC, and it plays on the iPod I own, the Zune I own, and the Sony MP3 player I own, as well as my cell phone.

    To be fair, I was pissed at WMP for throwing everything into wma format by default, same as I am pissed at iTunes for throwing everything into m4a by default.

    Anyway, what benefit does AAC have over MP3 other than being "open"? *neckbeard bursts forth* I'll take MP3 because it's been around and isn't going anywhere and has basically become the audio standard for recognition and just working. Less time transcoding = yay

    uean on
    Guys? Hay guys?
    PSN - sumowot
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    uean wrote: »
    wunderbar wrote: »
    uean wrote: »
    Now, back in the day I had put my CD's onto the computer but used WMP to do it. This meant I had a ton of wma files, and installing iTunes pretty much duplicated my entire music collection as it coverted everything to m4a. This made me hate iTunes. LOATHE ITUNES. Urgh. Why in the world a program would say "I can't play that proprietary file format because they are my enemy, so let me transfer them over to a DIFFERENT proprietary format!" doesn't make any sense. I thought I had to have iTunes though so kept it around for the iPod's sake.

    Just need to clear the FUD here. You could have easily had iTunes convert those songs to MP3 instead of AAC, and AAC is actually a more open standard that MP3 is, but it doesn't have the greatest device support. MP3 is supported on 100% of players, AAC is supported on about 50%(and rising) right now.

    100% of my music is AAC, and it plays on the iPod I own, the Zune I own, and the Sony MP3 player I own, as well as my cell phone.

    To be fair, I was pissed at WMP for throwing everything into wma format by default, same as I am pissed at iTunes for throwing everything into m4a by default.

    Anyway, what benefit does AAC have over MP3 other than being "open"? *neckbeard bursts forth* I'll take MP3 because it's been around and isn't going anywhere and has basically become the audio standard for recognition and just working. Less time transcoding = yay

    AAC has higher quality and lower file size at the same bitrate as MP3.

    AAC got a bad rap because it became well known as the format of choice for the DRM'd songs from the iTunes store. but the actual, un DRM'd AAC is a better format than MP3. Apple actually embraced a better format, but then really shone a negative light on it by saddling people's first experience with AAC with DRM. That actually nearly killed AAC all together. It's taken years for AAC to even get to roughly 50% support in MP3 players

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • ImpersonatorImpersonator Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    What's the difference between AAC, OGG and FLAC, then? So many formats...

    Impersonator on
  • SeeksSeeks Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Zune software is very memory intensive. Then again, it is connected to an online network and interfacing with a device.

    Yeah, it's a fucking hog. I hope they fix that a little with the new software coming out soon.


    Edit:

    AAC and OGG (Ogg Vorbis) are both lossy audio formats, FLAC (Free lossless audio codec) is lossless (but still compressed).

    OGG and FLAC are both open-source formats.

    OGG

    FLAC


    I wish more PMPs supported ogg. As for "practical differences," well, mp3s are still the king of audio compatibility. FLACs are good for archival purposes, because they produce 1:1 copies of your music, but are still too large to really be as portable as mp3s, aacs, oggs, etc.

    Seeks on
    userbar.jpg
    desura_Userbar.png
  • ueanuean Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Seeks wrote: »
    The Zune software is very memory intensive. Then again, it is connected to an online network and interfacing with a device.

    Yeah, it's a fucking hog. I hope they fix that a little with the new software coming out soon.


    Edit:

    AAC and OGG (Ogg Vorbis) are both lossy audio formats, FLAC (Free lossless audio codec) is lossless (but still compressed).

    OGG and FLAC are both open-source formats.

    OGG

    FLAC


    I wish more PMPs supported ogg. As for "practical differences," well, mp3s are still the king of audio compatibility. FLACs are good for archival purposes, because they produce 1:1 copies of your music, but are still too large to really be as portable as mp3s, aacs, oggs, etc.

    I think that the fact that most people listen to their digital music through computer speakers and not an expensive hi-fi set or great pair of headphones makes it fine to just store them in 192kbps MP3s.

    I do wish I had some original copies of SOME stuff, but not much. its not worth the drive space... especially given my entire collection is over 80gigs. If that was all in FLAC I cant imagine how huge it'd be. Still, MP3s cut out the midrange I find and make things overly bassy which has decimated some of my prog stuff

    uean on
    Guys? Hay guys?
    PSN - sumowot
  • SeeksSeeks Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yeah, I only flac my "important" stuff. The rest gets mp3'd.

    Seeks on
    userbar.jpg
    desura_Userbar.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    24bit/96khz flac, ripped from vinyl, is the only acceptable format

    Azio on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Azio wrote: »
    24bit/96khz flac, ripped from vinyl, is the only acceptable format

    There's an app for that

    FyreWulff on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    lol that looks terrible, I must try it :D

    Azio on
  • ueanuean Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Azio wrote: »
    24bit/96khz flac, ripped from vinyl, is the only acceptable format

    u dissin my dad yo?

    uean on
    Guys? Hay guys?
    PSN - sumowot
  • FremFrem Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    You guys have read this, right? People like the sound of compression.

    Frem on
  • KatoKato Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So I am not a very good audiophile of any sort and I really don't understand all the tags and stuff that is used these days...so I am going to ask for a little help. I use foobar for it's out of the install simplicity. I do have a few minor issues, but oh well. It suits me. But my question is not about foobar or winamp (which I too dropped when version 3 came out).

    I have roughly 1300 songs. Not a huge collection by any means..but many are self made mp3s and stuff. What is a good program that can go in and do all these newfangled tags and things without asking me questions or wanting me to intervene or confuse me? Anything? I want it to be automated...

    No iTunes though if someone is going to suggest that...I refuse to install that bloatware ever again and I don't use iTunes or do I have an mp3. My phone works as one though...

    Kato on
    Signature??
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Frem wrote: »
    You guys have read this, right? People like the sound of compression.
    What the hell are these people talking about. Quotes like "iPods are not even as good quality as cassette tape" are just asinine. iPods playing what? At what bitrate? From what source? Recorded at what volume? Is that with the shitty apple earbuds or with proper headphones?

    The problem isn't the fact that the music on computers is digital. The problem is that it's all mastered onto CDs at way too high a volume, and ripped at low bitrates. It's entirely possible to hear very high quality music on a computer. If you take a vinyl record in decent condition, and record it using decent equipment at a high sampling rate, you can hear that record again and again without ever wearing it out.

    As for people preferring the sound of compressed music, "today's iPod generation" is just a nicer way of saying "retarded children who don't know shit about shit".

    Azio on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Kato wrote: »
    So I am not a very good audiophile of any sort and I really don't understand all the tags and stuff that is used these days...so I am going to ask for a little help. I use foobar for it's out of the install simplicity. I do have a few minor issues, but oh well. It suits me. But my question is not about foobar or winamp (which I too dropped when version 3 came out).

    I have roughly 1300 songs. Not a huge collection by any means..but many are self made mp3s and stuff. What is a good program that can go in and do all these newfangled tags and things without asking me questions or wanting me to intervene or confuse me? Anything? I want it to be automated...

    No iTunes though if someone is going to suggest that...I refuse to install that bloatware ever again and I don't use iTunes or do I have an mp3. My phone works as one though...
    Well, if you installed the freedb tagger with foobar (it's not checked by default so you may have to reinstall the foob) you can just select a bunch of files and go right-click>tagging>get tags from freedb.

    Azio on
  • FremFrem Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Azio wrote: »
    Frem wrote: »
    You guys have read this, right? People like the sound of compression.
    What the hell are these people talking about. iPods don't preclude you from hearing music that sounds like a vinyl. If you take a vinyl record in decent condition, and record it using decent equipment at a high sampling rate, you can hear that record again and again without wearing it out. Quotes like "iPods are not even as good quality as cassette tape" are just asinine. iPods playing what? At what bitrate? From what source? Recorded at what volume?

    The problem isn't the fact that the music on iPods is digital. The problem is that it's all mastered onto CDs at way too high a volume, and then ripped at pathetic bitrates by idiots who don't know what they're doing. It's entirely possible to hear audiophile-quality music on an iPod.

    As for people preferring the sound of compressed music, "today's iPod generation" is just a nicer way of saying "retarded children who don't know shit about shit".

    Ouch. Yeah, that article said a lot of stupid stuff I didn't remember; I just skimmed it before posting and missed most of the stupid. I just took out of it that a lot of vinyl doesn't actually sound very good, but people prefer it because they're used to the cracks and pops.

    Frem on
  • KatoKato Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Interesting...so can you do that with multiple songs at once? On a side note...I tried it with just a single mp3 and it asked me to choose what to update it with. And guess what...it didn't have any correct information in the available list either. hhmmmm

    Kato on
    Signature??
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Cut it some slack. It's not God. No matter how good an auto-tagging tool is, there are always going to be cases where you have to manually select info to tag with, especially with shit like remixes, videogame soundtracks, J-rock, indie, etc. You may want to try Picard Tagger, but it's a lot more complicated and it will still fail on some tracks.

    Azio on
  • ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm curious if audiophiles would prefer a needle or laser system for playing vinyl.. Laser is supposed to be the best reader now, but I wonder if it loses "something" that the needle provided to the music.

    ArcSyn on
    4dm3dwuxq302.png
  • IdolisideIdoliside Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ArcSyn wrote: »
    I'm curious if audiophiles would prefer a needle or laser system for playing vinyl.. Laser is supposed to be the best reader now, but I wonder if it loses "something" that the needle provided to the music.

    More than likely tbh. The effect of physical surfaces and intermittant signals probably creates the ambient noise in the first place.

    Idoliside on
    Proud member of Noah's Wangship Steam Group
    iusb_760x100.8161697.jpgBunting, Owls and Cushions! Feecloud Designs
  • KatoKato Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Azio wrote: »
    Cut it some slack. It's not God. No matter how good an auto-tagging tool is, there are always going to be cases where you have to manually select info to tag with, especially with shit like remixes, videogame soundtracks, J-rock, indie, etc. You may want to try Picard Tagger, but it's a lot more complicated and it will still fail on some tracks.

    Heh..very true. The irony is that it was an Avril Lavigne song. Which is something that should be there you would think. Then I tried a song by Dope and it was nothing. Ah well...tags or whatever isn't that important I guess. It's just the player that matters.

    Kato on
    Signature??
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    uean wrote: »
    I've been using Winamp for yeeeeeeeeears, but thankfully never dealt with 3. Just stayed with 2 forever. Then eventually I had a need to catalogue all my CD's since they were getting quite bulky and there were these new fangled mp3 players out there. Everyone seemed to be getting these iPod things and raved about iTunes. I don't know how people can use iTunes on a PC. What a bloated piece of garbage with like, three or four extra processes and services that are always there even if you aren't running the program. iTuneshelper? "hello"? Gah.

    Now, back in the day I had put my CD's onto the computer but used WMP to do it. This meant I had a ton of wma files, and installing iTunes pretty much duplicated my entire music collection as it coverted everything to m4a. This made me hate iTunes. LOATHE ITUNES. Urgh. Why in the world a program would say "I can't play that proprietary file format because they are my enemy, so let me transfer them over to a DIFFERENT proprietary format!" doesn't make any sense. I thought I had to have iTunes though so kept it around for the iPod's sake.

    The discovered Winamp 5.54. Loved it so much I paid for the Pro version so I could rip all my CD's to the drive at 48x. Very nice.

    However, I have noticed that it bogs down with more songs. The search isn't very fast either, and the autotagging was a bit annoying. So I grabbed Mediamonkey to organize my music database which has been an incredible experience. Much faster with my music collection (18,000+, 80gig+) and handles tagging much nicer than Winamp, but is clunkier to actually play songs with.

    I'd say Winamp is the best out there for the windowshade mode and visualizations as desktop background alone though.

    Well, as far as 40GB and 8133 songs Winamp is pretty much instantaneous.

    Stormwatcher on
    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Huh, somehow my winamp library is replaced by the CD burning window. No idea how I can get it back the way it was

    *e: oh wait, figured it out. I hid the map tree so i couldnt find the button any more.

    Aldo on
  • Rigor MortisRigor Mortis Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Azio wrote: »
    Frem wrote: »
    You guys have read this, right? People like the sound of compression.
    What the hell are these people talking about. Quotes like "iPods are not even as good quality as cassette tape" are just asinine. iPods playing what? At what bitrate? From what source? Recorded at what volume? Is that with the shitty apple earbuds or with proper headphones?

    The problem isn't the fact that the music on computers is digital. The problem is that it's all mastered onto CDs at way too high a volume, and ripped at low bitrates. It's entirely possible to hear very high quality music on a computer. If you take a vinyl record in decent condition, and record it using decent equipment at a high sampling rate, you can hear that record again and again without ever wearing it out.

    As for people preferring the sound of compressed music, "today's iPod generation" is just a nicer way of saying "retarded children who don't know shit about shit".
    The most likely scenario is that the cassette tape quote refers to 64kbps bitrate since IIRC that's the quality used to calculate the "# of songs" capacity in marketing blurbs. And probably with the standard earbuds.

    Rigor Mortis on
Sign In or Register to comment.