OrangeSoul Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 In terms of sound quality.... check it out urself and opinions here http://www.iki.fi/hy/apollo/Apollo37ze.exe (645 kb) compare in terms of sound quality output Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 GrandMaster Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 holy **** why did I never hear of this????? this OWNS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 CoolCatBad Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Great sound, terrific EQ and echo effect. Can play louder than Winamp without distortion, on my machine at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 OrangeSoul Posted March 28, 2004 Author Share Posted March 28, 2004 now all one has to do is to convince its developer to keep on updating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Xer34 Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 cant download it now.. but will when i get home to see if your opinions hold up.. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 null_ Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Whoa :o this is awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 GrandMaster Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 get rid of all the .bmps in the app folder and it wont look stupid :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 memNOC Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 meh. CPU usage is insane (50%+) and i get stuttering in Windows all around.. other than that, it's got potential, but the sound quality isn't worth the CPU usage on my box (P700, 240mb PC-133, C-Media 8738.. quite old, granted, but i should be able to get smooth mp3 playback).. (N) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 GrandMaster Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 meh. CPU usage is insane (50%+) and i get stuttering in Windows all around.. other than that, it's got potential, but the sound quality isn't worth the CPU usage on my box (P700, 240mb PC-133, C-Media 8738.. quite old, granted, but i should be able to get smooth mp3 playback)..(N) i think you are wrong, this takes less system than foobar: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 HeavyTwenty Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 (edited) Is there a volume control? Or must I go through the equalizer? Edit: Nevermind, I found it. You have to enable volume control through the main Options. Also, my mem usage is about 6.4k and my cpu usage is 0%. Edited March 28, 2004 by HeavyTwenty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 threetonesun Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Wow, this does sound strangely good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 memNOC Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 i think you are wrong, this takes less system than foobar: hmm i don't know what it is then, but when playing Apollo shoots my explorer.exe CPU up to 40%.. and yes, the apollo.exe remains at 4-5% CPU.. :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 xp1ode Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 on me it takes 10-15 cpu and 18mb ram, one thing i notice thos is winamp sounds louder than this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 neoufo51 Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Apollo is REALLY outdated. It was scrapped back in 1999. A worthy competitor to Winamp. Its 2004, Foobar has made great strides with its modified mp3lib decoder. It is superior to both Winamp and Apollo's decoders. Plus, Foobar has TONS more features. Hell, it even has mouse gestures for those Optimoz lovers out there. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?sho...17239&hl=apollo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 User_Deleted Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 not bad not bad at all but think ill stick woth foobar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 dethree Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 okae, downloaded it and i don't see what the fuss is, please tell me how it sounds better than any other player. although i only used winamp playing through audigy2 to the stereo amp. i hear no diff :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Shannon Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 (edited) I love it's simplicity but it doesn't support Ogg Vorbis, there is no Audioscrobbler plugin for it and it uses more resources than Winamp. :cry: However, it's HTML playlist is so much cooler than Winamp's... Edited March 28, 2004 by Shannon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 OrangeSoul Posted March 28, 2004 Author Share Posted March 28, 2004 Apollo is REALLY outdated. It was scrapped back in 1999. A worthy competitor to Winamp. Its 2004, Foobar has made great strides with its modified mp3lib decoder. It is superior to both Winamp and Apollo's decoders. Plus, Foobar has TONS more features. Hell, it even has mouse gestures for those Optimoz lovers out there. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?sho...17239&hl=apollo this version of apollo was updated 1 week ago ;) and the developer has been updating it 2wice every month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 OrangeSoul Posted March 28, 2004 Author Share Posted March 28, 2004 I love it's simplicity but it doesn't support Ogg Vorbis and there is no Audioscrobbler plugin for it. :cry: However, it's HTML playlist is so much cooler than Winamp's... it does support ogg, on its website is a link to add on`s which has ogg and the other one as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 shrike Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I downloaded this ages ago, but with me being me, I couldn't bother to change completly. I'll change now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Shannon Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 it does support ogg, on its website is a link to add on`s which has ogg and the other one as well Hmmm. I'd still rather not have to download a plug-in to play a popular format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ridgeburner Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Thanks, but I'll stick with Winamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ivand Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 nah, i'll stick with iTunes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 shrike Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 also... I'm sticking with Winamp.. again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 morkuma Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 (edited) explain to me how this uses less memory?!?!? both running the same 9400+ song playlists (a must for me) both playing same song just a small difference in cpu and mem usage not to mention, with the playlists open, it took foobar about 1 second to load, and apollo over 10 minutes. i think i will stick with foobar, which also sounded better. see screenshot Edited March 28, 2004 by spookshow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 HeavyTwenty Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Off topic, but what's special about Foobar2000? Any reason to switch from Winamp? One possible reason I suspect, Winamp 5 with modern skin uses like 5-7k memory while Foobar uses 2.3k? Edit: Btw, I couldn't find the friggin volume control in Foobar after 5 mins of search. And I ain't blonde either, so something is serious wrong :p Eh... just found it in the Playback in Options menu... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
OrangeSoul
In terms of sound quality....
check it out urself and opinions here
http://www.iki.fi/hy/apollo/Apollo37ze.exe (645 kb)
compare in terms of sound quality output
Link to comment
Share on other sites
60 answers to this question
Recommended Posts