music players on the pc

Discussion in 'Audio' started by eric0668, Dec 16, 2007.

  1. eric0668

    eric0668 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    when I started using other players other than Real, WM, etc someone recommended Jet. I loved it for two years only to find that what they recommended was Jet for Video and not audio. they said it was common opinion I should use WinAmp. Well, honestly, IMO Winamp looks ancient and the sound is no better and the buttons are smaller.

    Is it truly objective, or is one player the best.. LIke when I updated my Nero and saw it too had a player, I liked it. Is that a good music player on the pc, or is ther NO difference at all in the sound quality, given I don't have a paid for upgraded version with a better sound pack
     
  2. undine

    undine Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    There will not be much difference in the audio quality of the different players. The different features that are offered in the players are what makes most people like a certain player. If you don't care about a certain feature , then you might not care for that player. Try all the free players and use the one that meets your needs.
     
  3. jboyle

    jboyle Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    ill secound that post lol :)
     
  4. eric0668

    eric0668 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hey thanks to both of you. while I am here. Is there one in particular that you both like?

    Why then do most people not like the biggies, Real, Wmp. Because Microsoft, etc take a lot of info is what I hear. So when on Jet, they don't do that. Would that be a reason ?
     
  5. undine

    undine Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I prefer Foobar 2000 for some things and Winamp for some.I think the free players are as good or better than the players you might buy.
     
  6. eric0668

    eric0668 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    May I ask? Now if we r talking just music, why would you want two different players. What would they offer so differently

    Now you don't mean free ones, do you. Because the ones you mentioned are FREE, but so are the ones like RealPlayer and WMP. In fact the ones that you pay for or get upgrades are Foobar or JetAudio right? so u have me confused there. U meant backwards right?
     
  7. undine

    undine Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I prefer Foobar for playing mp3's. I prefer Winamp for listening to streams off the internet. Just my preference. Both these are free.
     
  8. redZoneOS

    redZoneOS Regular member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    they are ALL "free" as far as I know to an extent. Every one of them has upgrade options for their so called "pro" versions. I believe the only differences are support for higher burning/ripping speeds, and various other features that they may only semi-support on their free editions.

    As far as which one you like, I agree with the other posts, you have to try them out and see which works best for you. I've tried to get used to Winamp cuz all my roommate uses and loves it, but I can't stand it at all. I use WMP for the vast majority if not all of my audio playback.
     

Share This Page