AudioNervosa

Systemic Development => Bipolar System Disorders => Topic started by: steve on May 13, 2025, 09:21:08 AM

Title: Different Audio Players
Post by: steve on May 13, 2025, 09:21:08 AM
I found these 4 digital audio players and wondered if anyone has experience
with their audio quality? Audio quality is most important to me.

AIMP

Spotify

VLC

Foobar 2000

Thanks

steve
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PM
Steve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: HAL on May 13, 2025, 03:57:51 PM
Foobar2000 with the correct settings is very good.  I use it on my PC's for music playback from files.
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: steve on May 20, 2025, 11:24:46 AM
Thanks Gents. Any other comments welcome.

steve
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent.   

cheers
steve
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: P.I. on May 21, 2025, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent.   

cheers
steve
I'm using VLC on a Mac mini that has aged out of Audirvana support.  Audirvana is superior to VLC, but not by a lot.    Getting the settings correct - eliminating spatialization, setting proper toggles isgoes a long way to make it a very good player.

Macs are hard to please with software...  Apple cancel drivers and other supporting data.
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: HAL on May 21, 2025, 04:29:37 PM
Foobar2000 is also available for MACOS

https://www.foobar2000.org/mac

Just turn off applied gain and set a large memory buffer.
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Hal, I clicked "none" for gain, slid "memory length" for higher, device to my dac, and no fading.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: Nick B on May 22, 2025, 07:46:45 AM
Quote from: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve


Hi Steve,

As VLC is free, this turned out great for you. Not sure what  Audirvana costs. I took a look on the Apple apps store for comments about VLC, and it wasn't rated well at all. So apparently the issue is Simply having the right settings in place. When I used it years ago with windows, audio quality wasn't important for me.

Nick
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: P.I. on May 22, 2025, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Hal, I clicked "none" for gain, slid "memory length" for higher, device to my dac, and no fading.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve
With improper settings VLC is awful in SQ.  Get them right and it is quite good considering it is free.

Audirvana is quirky, but the SQ is very, very good.

I haven't tried the current iteration of Amara.

HQ Player is just a PITA for me.

The most important aspect to achieve excellent playback is to turn off every possible instance running in the background.  All of the millions of unnecessary toggles in processors generate RFI and EMI that screws mightily with audio quality.
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: steve on May 23, 2025, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 22, 2025, 07:46:45 AM
Quote from: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve


Hi Steve,

As VLC is free, this turned out great for you. Not sure what  Audirvana costs. I took a look on the Apple apps store for comments about VLC, and it wasn't rated well at all. So apparently the issue is Simply having the right settings in place. When I used it years ago with windows, audio quality wasn't important for me.

Nick

I found about half a dozen settings improved the sound quality of VLC immensely.
I also downloaded foobar2000 and found they were quite close sounding after Hal's
suggested settings. Thanks Hal.

I could live with either. And both were clearly superior to Media Player and Windows
Media Player.

I found that Audirvana is ~ $5.50/mo and $6.99/mo.

I am thinking strongly of testing AIMP, will have all three players on board at once.

cheers

steve
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: Nick B on May 24, 2025, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: steve on May 23, 2025, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 22, 2025, 07:46:45 AM
Quote from: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve


Hi Steve,

As VLC is free, this turned out great for you. Not sure what  Audirvana costs. I took a look on the Apple apps store for comments about VLC, and it wasn't rated well at all. So apparently the issue is Simply having the right settings in place. When I used it years ago with windows, audio quality wasn't important for me.

Nick

I found about half a dozen settings improved the sound quality of VLC immensely.
I also downloaded foobar2000 and found they were quite close sounding after Hal's
suggested settings. Thanks Hal.

I could live with either. And both were clearly superior to Media Player and Windows
Media Player.

I found that Audirvana is ~ $5.50/mo and $6.99/mo.

I am thinking strongly of testing AIMP, will have all three players on board at once.

cheers

steve

Thanks for the update, Steve. I have not heard of AIMP, so if you get around to testing it, please let us know your thoughts.

Nick
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: steve on May 24, 2025, 08:08:57 PM
Quote from: Nick B on May 24, 2025, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: steve on May 23, 2025, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 22, 2025, 07:46:45 AM
Quote from: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve


Hi Steve,

As VLC is free, this turned out great for you. Not sure what  Audirvana costs. I took a look on the Apple apps store for comments about VLC, and it wasn't rated well at all. So apparently the issue is Simply having the right settings in place. When I used it years ago with windows, audio quality wasn't important for me.

Nick

I found about half a dozen settings improved the sound quality of VLC immensely.
I also downloaded foobar2000 and found they were quite close sounding after Hal's
suggested settings. Thanks Hal.

I could live with either. And both were clearly superior to Media Player and Windows
Media Player.

I found that Audirvana is ~ $5.50/mo and $6.99/mo.

I am thinking strongly of testing AIMP, will have all three players on board at once.

cheers

steve

Thanks for the update, Steve. I have not heard of AIMP, so if you get around to testing it, please let us know your thoughts.

Nick

Your welcome Nick. AIMP is Russian, VLC, and Foobar2000 were close, but I think
VLC mids/upper mids were a little strident for me. Foobar2000 seemed more relaxed.

I am going to go back and check my Supra usb cable with these.

cheers

steve
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: BobM on May 27, 2025, 05:09:18 AM
Here's my beef with audio players. You have a bunch of songs saved to your phone/computer/whatever. I generally have them grouped by type ... rock ... jazz ... etc. I generally play them on random shuffle, so the player decides what comes next. There is a setting that allows me to play "most played songs", but I want a setting that lets me play "least played songs", because I'm damn tired of hearing the same stuff pop up when it's supposed to be random shuffling. There's stuff saved that I never hear on the shuffle.
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: Nick B on May 27, 2025, 07:32:26 AM
Quote from: BobM on May 27, 2025, 05:09:18 AMHere's my beef with audio players. You have a bunch of songs saved to your phone/computer/whatever. I generally have them grouped by type ... rock ... jazz ... etc. I generally play them on random shuffle, so the player decides what comes next. There is a setting that allows me to play "most played songs", but I want a setting that lets me play "least played songs", because I'm damn tired of hearing the same stuff pop up when it's supposed to be random shuffling. There's stuff saved that I never hear on the shuffle.

Streaming is great, but has it's limitations. Roon can do much more than JPLAY, but JPLAY sounds better and so I am sticking with it now. Playing CDs individually was so limiting before that I gave up on it years ago.
Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: steve on May 27, 2025, 08:11:15 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 24, 2025, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: steve on May 23, 2025, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 22, 2025, 07:46:45 AM
Quote from: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve


Hi Steve,

As VLC is free, this turned out great for you. Not sure what  Audirvana costs. I took a look on the Apple apps store for comments about VLC, and it wasn't rated well at all. So apparently the issue is Simply having the right settings in place. When I used it years ago with windows, audio quality wasn't important for me.

Nick

I found about half a dozen settings improved the sound quality of VLC immensely.
I also downloaded foobar2000 and found they were quite close sounding after Hal's
suggested settings. Thanks Hal.

I could live with either. And both were clearly superior to Media Player and Windows
Media Player.

I found that Audirvana is ~ $5.50/mo and $6.99/mo.

I am thinking strongly of testing AIMP, will have all three players on board at once.

cheers

steve

Thanks for the update, Steve. I have not heard of AIMP, so if you get around to testing it, please let us know your thoughts.

Nick

Hi Nick,

Yes, I was able to test AIMP and it sounded quite close to foobar2000, so I stuck with foobar.
VLC has a little more mids on up than foobar/AIMP, is slightly cleaner, bass slightly tighter
on my system, so it is individual taste which to choose.

Cheers
steve

Title: Re: Different Audio Players
Post by: Nick B on May 27, 2025, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: steve on May 27, 2025, 08:11:15 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 24, 2025, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: steve on May 23, 2025, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 22, 2025, 07:46:45 AM
Quote from: steve on May 22, 2025, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 21, 2025, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: steve on May 21, 2025, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: Nick B on May 13, 2025, 03:05:51 PMSteve,

I used VLC years ago when I was running Windows. My recollection is it was not near audiophile quality. Have heard good things about Foobar, but haven't used it.

Hopefully someone else here has much more information.

Nick

I just found out that there are some important Settings that need to be changed with VLC for optimum audio.
I was wondering if you made the adjustments as I clearly thought VLC was also inferior until
I made the Settings changes.

After making the changes, I find VLC is clearly superior to media player, windows media player, and even
foobar 2000. If I set foobar from 2x to 8x oversampling, it became closer to VLC but VLC sounded cleaner, more
natural, live sounding while foobar had a smidgen more bass, but also less live sound.
Your results may vary though, system dependent. 

cheers
steve


Steve,

I haven't used VLC in quite a while. Just no need for me nowadays. Glad you found the best settings. It's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that it can sound that good 👍

Hi Nick,

I also started a string at another website after reading an article mentioning several
media players and a couple of posters mentioned VLC was excellent. So I tried it.

Thanks Dave. I will check out Audirvana.

cheers

steve


Hi Steve,

As VLC is free, this turned out great for you. Not sure what  Audirvana costs. I took a look on the Apple apps store for comments about VLC, and it wasn't rated well at all. So apparently the issue is Simply having the right settings in place. When I used it years ago with windows, audio quality wasn't important for me.

Nick

I found about half a dozen settings improved the sound quality of VLC immensely.
I also downloaded foobar2000 and found they were quite close sounding after Hal's
suggested settings. Thanks Hal.

I could live with either. And both were clearly superior to Media Player and Windows
Media Player.

I found that Audirvana is ~ $5.50/mo and $6.99/mo.

I am thinking strongly of testing AIMP, will have all three players on board at once.

cheers

steve

Thanks for the update, Steve. I have not heard of AIMP, so if you get around to testing it, please let us know your thoughts.

Nick

Hi Nick,

Yes, I was able to test AIMP and it sounded quite close to foobar2000, so I stuck with foobar.
VLC has a little more mids on up than foobar/AIMP, is slightly cleaner, bass slightly tighter
on my system, so it is individual taste which to choose.

Cheers
steve



Hi Steve,

Thanks for the update. I looked up a little bit of information about AIMP and found that it's also available for Android. Also checked the Apple apps store and it's not available there, although VLC is.

Nick