Neowin.net

that's the ticket

i will stick with winamp too

Foobar2000 and Media Player Classic. Nothing beats it.

meh winamp for everything audio , media player classic for video

Its just a generic comment to fool the stupid into thinking this is of unparalleled quality.

actually, the default mp3 decoder for qcd is better than the default one in winamp. BTW, I use winamp.

Nice try...from the Quinnware forums...

"I think_that the default QCD decoder sounds a bit tinny." -psaunder

"It ain't perceived - you're perceptive where many are not. Use MAD." -Roj

"I find MAD to sound superior to the default decoder in QCD in a way similar to what he described. According to that, I would say that MAD sounds superior." -#The fREaK!

"There's an interesting thread on Hydrogenaudio where an experienced french tester got interesting blind test results about sound quality of different decoders. QCD default decoder wasn't included though." - DareDevil

This is from QCD users on their own forum...and here is one more guy from the QCD forums on the subject from the guys at HA.

"They base their results on ABC/HR and ABX blind testings. On the contrary, Hydrogenaudio tries non-religiously approach these issues as you can see if you read what it's about. I see much more religion here. There's lots of experienced and smart people commenting in that thread. One of the guys is the replaygain developer David Robinson, PhD in signal and sound processing, who has also made the most comprehensive objective decoder testings so far, and so on.

To be honest I'm not surprised about these results; most people at Head-fi.org audiophile community also prefer Foobar's quality, so these blind listening test findings support that view."

And finally from an authority on the Hydrogen Audio forums...

"Many people who use the Quintessential Player say they choose it over other players because of its sound quality, and it would be good to find out just how much of their claims are not substantiated (well, actually, there is one guy in the Quintessential forums who is vehemently anti-ABX) and can be attributed to placebo.

I think this question can also be answered in the light of Guruboolez's recent test of dithering in certain decoders. I believe (IIRC) he mentioned that the MAD dithering produced the most 'pleasant-sounding' decodes, although Foobar2000's dithering is technically the most accurate."


Next time, do some research and read about other peoples ABX test results before misinforming other people on this comment board!

I don't see why people have their panties in a bunch about the audio quality of compressed music players. Compressed music is going to sound like crap on every player and system. It'll just sound less like crap the better the encoding/decoding is. The biggest influence on the quality of music is what encoding technique is used. Personally I find .mp4 (.aac) to sound superior to any other format (even .ogg). Most of the time I can't even tell it's compressed. Now Super Audio CD on the other hand is a completely different story (What will the next compression technique be?).

Indeed!

I second that...

Agreed.

why are you here troll? I see no bridges

^They make their own now-a-days.

I can be whereever I want, you halfwit, its called expressing opinions

You can also see how wrong you are up there in your earlier post. Stop misinforming people here...

Conclusion from HA forums...its decoder is "decent compared to winamp"

Last edited by 16904 on 14 Mar 2004 - 09:38

This is a post about QCD, not foobar. Again, I say, the DEFAULT decoder for QCD as compared to the DEFAULT decoder for winamp (mind you, I use winamp) sounds better to many people. It doesn't matter what tests tell me, it matters what I hear. We all hear and see and experience things differently. Many people, including myself, find the QCD DEFAULT decoder better than Winamp's.

just a question....where can i find these plugins/skins/etc? ive tried searching, and i get a bunch of pages in foreign languages with only links to the program itself

the site itself has plugins and skins can be found directly in the skin browser in the program. It connects to the online database and lets you see all the skins that have been submitted to the official DB.

The interface looks just like Winamp? Maybe it vaguely looks like the default Modern skin, but QCD predates Modern by a couple of years so by your logic Nullsoft should have made it run like QCD.

I really don't see a similarity in the first place though

What? It looks nothing like winamp at all. What are you smoking man?

why not 2.95?