What do you use to play MP3s?

tunaman

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
Messages
2,150
Winamp 5 blows, I try and play a song and it crashes every time. And for some reason Windows Media Player won't allow me to create playlists, it says that "the specified module cannot be found." So what else is out there that is bug free? Even when Winamp 3 came out I still used 2 because I found 3 to be incredibly buggy, a tradition that continues with Winamp 5 despite everybodysaying winamp is the shit. No it IS shit.
 

DiZASTiX

Gawd
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
658
winamp 5 for windows
xmms for linux

though I am looking to try an alternative for winamp5...
 

Nazo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 2, 2002
Messages
3,615
I'm using Winamp 5. Never once had it crash on me. I have the IN_MAD plugin (I know there's claims that there's an even better one, but, I'm too lazy to find it, besides, this is already pretty darned good.)

Foobar2000 is probably the next runner up. That thing has all the capability of Winamp, even if it is a horrible interface for an audio player IMO.

For linux, I just decode with the MAD decoder. I'd use another console application if that ever failed (which it hasn't even failed on a bootable rescue CD I commonly use.) I know, I'm a freak. Give me a good console application and I'll usually choose it. Winamp is one of the rare exceptions.

Anyway, failing Winamp 5 and if you don't like Foobar2000, then I guess the older Winamp 2.9x would suffice. It's almost as good as Winamp 5 in most ways and still boatloads better than that god-awful winamp 3.

EDIT: BTW, that mad decoder has a windows port. So if one actually wanted to use it in a console, they could. This is seperate from the IN_MAD plugin btw. You have to get it from their website and compile yourself last I checked. For some reason, it can't output in 24-bit or 32-bit audio in Windows last I checked though. It crashed every time. All I can figure is that it is related to the crappy way windows handles running sound through a console.
 

FiZ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
1,934
I have used almost everything and foobar2000 has everything beat IMO. It has everything you need and nothing you don't.
 

CrimandEvil

Dick with a heart of gold
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
19,670
I use mostly iTunes (mostly now that it's modded for OGG) but I also have foobar sitting around.
 

M11

Does Not Follow Instructions.
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,336
Winamp 5 serves me well. It does everything I need it to, doesn't waste CPU, and has great visualizations.
 

neomage2021

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
226
I have always used winamp for mp3's and it serves me well. I will probably continue to use it for a long time.
 

M11

Does Not Follow Instructions.
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,336
CrimandEvil said:
Yeah but he wants something other then Winamp5
True, but my point is that winamp 5 is not chronically buggy, but that this is a machine-specific issue. From my experience, winamp can be ruined by homebrew codec packs from the bowels of the internet.
 

M11

Does Not Follow Instructions.
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,336
xphantg0d said:
I use the stereo in my room. just burn it and play it.
while more resistant to bugs, that is not effective for larger MP3 collections, or any situation where you might want to shuffle a playlist rapidly, or find music quickly. not to mention it is a waste of media.
 

theDot

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,408
Winamp 5, after I got a few bugs worked out...
I'm just used to it, having used Winamp 2.95 for years... have to love all the skins and plug ins. Currently I'm stuck on a sking resembling HAL 9000's eye. All the controls are unlabled around the outer ring of the eye, just a very clean, slick looking skin that I can just pop up and leave sitting there without bothering me.

Check it out.
 

lorcani

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
2,375
Winamp 5.0, but I used 2.97 or whatever for a very long time prior.

I haven't had any issues at all.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
605
Definitely using WinAmp 2.80. I love the skins for this version and I refuse to upgrade to WinAmp 3, that version is downright horrid. I might try something else in the future though, just to expand my horizons.

Someone please elaborate on why Foobar 2000 or QCD is better than WinAmp? I'm definitely no audiophile, so I'm not sure as to the distinct differences in decoding and what not. Subtle differences mean nothing to me.

Dark Assassin
 

Mav451

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
4,729
Why are u even talking about Winamp3? The upgrade would be to Winamp5 anyway, which is something of a mix between the two, but still much, much better than bloated 3.

I personally used to be a Winamp5 junkie, but I switched to iTunes. The library is just much better and easier to use than Winamp5 b/c it lets you sort by GENRE. And instead of relying on playlists, I can just use multiple highlight to select a specific genre and then select SPECIFIC albums from that genre to play--or better yet, specific artists to play. Just set it to random, and it will act like a playlist in Winamp5 (i absolutely HATE scrolling through those 2,000+ playlists. I have nearly 3,400 mp3s, and with iTunes organization structure, I can find what i need much faster.
 

EnderW

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
11,054
Winamp 2.95 was great, Winamp 3 blew. I'm using Winamp 5 now and haven't had any problems with mp3s at all, but it does suck at video.
 

lorcani

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
2,375
Mav451 said:
I personally used to be a Winamp5 junkie, but I switched to iTunes. The library is just much better and easier to use than Winamp5 b/c it lets you sort by GENRE. And instead of relying on playlists, I can just use multiple highlight to select a specific genre and then select SPECIFIC albums from that genre to play--or better yet, specific artists to play. Just set it to random, and it will act like a playlist in Winamp5 (i absolutely HATE scrolling through those 2,000+ playlists. I have nearly 3,400 mp3s, and with iTunes organization structure, I can find what i need much faster.
The reason why you love iTunes and I hate it, is because we have differing opinions on how to listen to music. Right now, I'm writing (or, rather, was writing :p) a long report while listening to my 341-song playlist, which I trimmed down from about a thousand songs over a period of a few days. I have full albums I've ripped, as well as a few singles. I just load the playlist (1337.m3u, makes it hover above all the mp3s. :D), and hit random. It's all alphabetized, but I barely ever want to listen to a particular song. It's just 20:28:04 of the music I have in the background. The organizational structure doesn't matter to me, as I just let my playlist run, and add new songs as I find them.

Also, the last time I ran iTunes, it took longer to load than WinAMP 5 does. WinAMP is a smaller client as well (talking about the general appearance on-screen).
 

CrimandEvil

Dick with a heart of gold
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
19,670
lorcani said:
WinAMP is a smaller client as well (talking about the general appearance on-screen).
Actually they are about the same size (if I have iTunes on screen it's either in "mini" mode or sometimes I'll have to switch to the full mode) then I minimize to the system tray. Always it's a moot point.

--Edit--
Heres what I mean:
iTunes in full mode
iTunes in mini mode
Shot of my Desktop
(notice iTunes in the System Tray)

Also:
Another Desktop shot(Transparent)
Another mini shot(Transparent)
 
Top