Winamp and MAD or Foobar2k?

[senoryason]

Which has less loss? Which is better?

 

[zachary80]

I use foobar. Why don't you try them yourself?

 

[NightRaven]

I'm not sure how much of an absolute difference there is in sound quality but I use foobar now and I'll never go back to Winamp. It's better in every way.

 

[senoryason]

I have used both...
I just started with foobar, and realize how amazing it is. It can be customized in any way shape of form....but I was just wondering if the foobar music output is better then MAD...?

 

[leukotriene]

I believe Foobar does all calculations at 32 bit (INT), while MAD does 24 bit only IIRC.
Certain people have reported that the noise shaping used in foobar (you do have to turn it on) is noticably superior under extreme conditions to that used by the MAD decoder. Also, the dithering method is reputedly better than MAD.
I have not noticed much of a difference, though MAD does seem slightly noisy to me, which some people may prefer.

 

[xonik]

Still, the Foobar developers made it clear that their program does not sound any better than Winamp. Furthermore, I have yet to hear of a proper ABX comparison that put either player on top.

I've tried both programs, but I like Winamp better for its wide range of plugins, including an LCD/VFD output plugin which I always use. I like the Winamp interface better, too.

 

[leukotriene]

Still, the Foobar developers made it clear that their program does not sound any better than Winamp.

He's talking the decoder specifically, which makes sense since Peter P. wrote both decoders.

Winamp does not natively use noise shaping or dithering at all, which complicates any statement about sound quality considerably.

 

[xonik]

Maybe it complicates the technicality of the statement, but everything comes secondary to a good ABX test, in my opinion. I am a technical guy but I know that a fair listening test is more important when all is said and done. To that end, I've looked, and I have yet to find an ABX comparison giving the advantage to Foobar or Winamp, or any other digital audio player, for that matter.

 

[leukotriene]

Here's an example under extreme volume conditions.

 

[xonik]

That's an interesting comparison, but after reading further discussion in the thread, the results seem inconclusive, especially when the samples are upsampled to 24-bit resolution. And, as you noted, the samples were played at extreme volume.

 

[leukotriene]

And, as you noted, the samples were played at extreme volume.

Yeah, I think it'd be quite difficult to tell at all without high volume.

edit: In fact, it appears as if the LAME developer Gabriel has managed to ABX MAD from fraunhofer with about 91% confidence (which is enough to say it's significant, though 95% as mentioned is the preferred level) also at HA.

Interestingly enough if you read down to some of "Menno's" comments, it appears as if the winamp decoder is doing dithering after all. I stand corrected, though it is of course not doing ATH noise shaping.

 

[senoryason]

What a nice set of repsonses. Yeah I spent a bunch of time on HA trying to figure this out and I thought I would ask some [H]ard members what they thought. Personally I find foobar to sound amazing. Winamp with the MAD decoder sounds good too, but I think I like foobar better, esspecially with foo_tunes. One thing is for sure, they both blow iTunes out of the water.