next »

[Auren]

So, the question is in the subject of the topic. Are there any difference?
For example, does XMPlay sound better than widely used Winamp? If yes, why?

I am interested to hear a developer's sentiment about this question.

[youji]

XMPlay is pretty "vanilla" when it comes to audio playback. Unless you extend it with plug-ins and DSP effects, you simply have basic playback and nothing more. You can't really classify this as neither good nor bad, because it's going to boil down to:

1.) Your needs
2.) The extendability available to the player
3.) Your hardware

XMPlay is obviously designed for people who consider audio playback a background task. Thus, it is minimal and "vanilla." You can extend it somewhat with cross-compatible WinAmp plug-ins, but in terms of extendability, WinAmp wins hands-down. WinAmp has a much larger support community, and thus a much larger database of extensions available to it. XMPlay is only compatible with a percentage of these.

The software itself generally does very little to determine audio quality, if anything at all -- the choice of encoding, the method of recording, etc. determine audio quality. How it sounds more or less depends on the hardware, (every bit of it -- especially choice of speakers) and not the software. The software is only a medium for playback, and thus can only try to mold the sound to the user's preference.

So... it doesn't really matter. I like XMPlay because it gets the job done, and it doesn't demand resources for features I'll never use. But if I wanted a player with better extendability, I would use WinAmp instead.

[saga]

it really depends on *what* you are listening to. XMPlay is still the very best audio player for modules which i mainly listen to... The one and only choice for me it makes a BIG difference if you listen to modules with XMPlay or WinAmp.

[Zarggg]

XMPlay does not sound "better" or "worse". For certain module types, it will be more accurate, but nothing further.

[piovrauz]

Mmm, I feel that "accurate" is the key here (at least for mods), I use xmplay cause I want to hear the music as intended by composer, and I don't use DSP or such, maybe only a lil eq on work speakers. (cheap stuff )

I felt like winamp mod reproduction wasn't that great (very different from trackers), and it was 1st reason, with the starting bloating of wa, for wich I switched to xmplay. And even lossy mp3/ogg/mpc are "more (crystal) clear", if it's understandable what I mean.

In thruth, I feel like Xmplay is about fact, not appearance, that may or not be its weak point (btw, I like it like it how is now). And for pc music listening that's a great app, really.

[n.b.: about quality... we are speaking about a pc based music system, with usually lossy audio files, which will hardly have better quality of a true hi-fi, even if they label it with 32bit/96KHz/HDEF 140dB SNR and so on; true quality is achieved through stuff that cost a lot more of the average mid-end box]

[amit]

You are only talking about Winamp as a reference standard but I am not sure this is enough. I think foobar2000 is much better option these days (created by a former winamp developer).

Although foobar2000 has mighty organizing capabilities and great audio quality I think the edge goes to xmplay as far as solely the quality of reproducing sound .

Efficiency talking though foobar is winning  by a small margin . Although it takes more ram , its core and default components has lower cpu utilization than xmplay (0-2% for xmplay against 0% to foobar).

For me foobar is doing a lot of the organizing/converting chores but xmplay is playing the music.

[Fraggie]

XMPlay does not sound "better" or "worse". For certain module types, it will be more accurate, but nothing further.

Apart from interpretting pattern data, there's also a lot of resampling, interpolating, filtering, volume ramping, etc. going on. Here XMPlay adds sound quality to accuracy.

I remember how much I liked XMPlay's sound over ModPlug's. That was many years ago. Sadly, nowadays there's no module player to compare to...

[saga]

Apart from interpretting pattern data, there's also a lot of resampling, interpolating, filtering, volume ramping, etc. going on. Here XMPlay adds sound quality to accuracy.

try, this is what i was talking about.

[deus-ex]

Sadly, nowadays there's no module player to compare to...

Not+true.

[raina]

Tried that combo recently just to hear DUMB and it was a major disappointment.

[Fraggie]

Sadly, nowadays there's no module player to compare to...

Not+true.

Thanks. I found some opinions that DUMB is the most accurate thing on the planet. I will definetely verify that!

[Auren]

After a week of using Winamp I switched back to XMPlay for some reasons:

1. XMPlay is much lighter than Winamp.
2. XMPlay doesn't sound better using standard options. But it has an excellent equalizer (coupled with "Amplification reduction" it sounds like nothing else).
3. Handy, usable, stable.

[saga]

heh, welcome back!

[amit]

This poll is a little  useless as most users here are biased.
Guess what would be the results if such a poll had been taken about winamp in winamp's forum or about foobar in foobar's forum ?

[raina]

But the "biased" users here aren't exactly trumpeting about XMPlay's superior sound quality. I'm sure there would be equally critical posts on other players' forums as well. A more appropriate poll would be about the reasons why people choose XMPlay over others but come to think of it, something like that was already done before.

[piovrauz]

@Auren: exactly what I think.

[Dilip]

its really sound best like other top players, and beauty of it is...... it is very low in size and its useage of cpu is very less........... and no need to install.