• 0

itunes vs winamp


Question

from the title, you can probably tell that I have an ipod. I recently learned that winamp has a plugin available to interface with ipods, which i dled and found to work quite nicely. has anyone ever had a serious problem with this plugin? does winamp do the job as well as or better than itunes?

i have also heard that the itunes mp3 encoder is very poor, and that i can get the lame mp3 encoder for winamp (how exactly do i get the lame encoding to work? i want to rip my cd collection as lame mp3s @ 192kbps). how superior is lame? can ipods handle lame?

in general, how stable is winamp? for me itunes can be quite unstable, and if i close it i have to close it again in the task manager then wait five minutes to be able to open it again.

i don't often use the itunes music store, so i won't miss it.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/315444-itunes-vs-winamp/
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

yeah, i've only 512 mb of ram and when i'm listening to music i'm normally multitasking.

i'm trying not to use aac anymore, i did some comparisons and didn't like it next to mp3s at same bitrate.

is it worth using vbr instead of 192 cbr?

edit: oh yeah, and my brother bought a winamp pro license a few months ago and recently decided that he didn't like it, so i'll use his. if lame is that much better, i definitely want to use it.

  • 0

Ripping to MP3 is at this point useless unless your portable player does not support AAC. AAC IS superior to MP3, period. MP3Pro is a joke. I wouldn't worry too much about iTune's MP3 encoder because AAC is a superior format. However, if you have a player that can't support AAC (but since the thread starter has an iPod, this point is null for you), then that sucks, and you probably should not use iTunes to rip your music if you're going for the best audio quality (for MP3).

Anyway, to answer your questions about Winamp, as far as interfacing directly with your iPod nothing will work as well as iTunes, but using the plugins for Winamp will work just fine. Winamp is very stable at this stage (the previous version was not), but I have to say I have never run into any stability issues with iTunes for some time now. The original release was buggy, but it's totally stable now. Granted if you look at my computer specs I have a pretty speedy setup, but having less RAM and such should not make iTunes crash all the time...

  • 0
Ripping to MP3 is at this point useless unless your portable player does not support AAC.  AAC IS superior to MP3, period.  MP3Pro is a joke.  I wouldn't worry too much about iTune's MP3 encoder because AAC is a superior format.  However, if you have a player that can't support AAC (but since the thread starter has an iPod, this point is null for you), then that sucks, and you probably should not use iTunes to rip your music if you're going for the best audio quality (for MP3).

585859284[/snapback]

no it is not, MP3 LAME supports VBR encoding for constant quality, AAC does not (which may real soon but for now, it does not)

Sure aac is better than mp3 at constant bitrate, but if you want quality, mp3 lame preset is still the way to go

  • 0
Ripping to MP3 is at this point useless unless your portable player does not support AAC.  AAC IS superior to MP3, period.  MP3Pro is a joke.  I wouldn't worry too much about iTune's MP3 encoder because AAC is a superior format.  However, if you have a player that can't support AAC (but since the thread starter has an iPod, this point is null for you), then that sucks, and you probably should not use iTunes to rip your music if you're going for the best audio quality (for MP3).

Anyway, to answer your questions about Winamp, as far as interfacing directly with your iPod nothing will work as well as iTunes, but using the plugins for Winamp will work just fine.  Winamp is very stable at this stage (the previous version was not), but I have to say I have never run into any stability issues with iTunes for some time now.  The original release was buggy, but it's totally stable now.  Granted if you look at my computer specs I have a pretty speedy setup, but having less RAM and such should not make iTunes crash all the time...

585859284[/snapback]

AAC is not better than MP3 in all cases. In fact, most experts agree that AAC is an inferior compression format. At low bit rates, WMA is king. At higher bitrates, both WMA and MP3 prevail over AAC and Ogg.

To the original poster, if you're encoding to 192kbps MP3 and happy with it I see no reason to change. 192kbps MP3 from a CD is quite acceptable even to most of us audiophile-types for most uses, especially for a portable device.

  • 0
no it is not, MP3 LAME supports VBR encoding for constant quality, AAC does not (which may real soon but for now, it does not)

Sure aac is better than mp3 at constant bitrate, but if you want quality, mp3 lame preset is still the way to go

585859291[/snapback]

Ever heard of Nero?

  • 0
cdex uses lame and its free and it does vbr :p

585859478[/snapback]

i tried cdex today and found it to be the least intuitive program i've ever used. i dunno. sometimes alledgedly easy programs don't make sense to me (after two years only now can i make a graph in excel. and i've been taught about ten times by multiple people)

  • 0

Well codecs aside (I just listen to my music in whatever format I "get" it in), this is what I think of both players:

iTunes:

+ Music library, playlists, auto playlists, song ratings, etc.

+ Easy to find and manage songs

+ It's pretty

+ Native iPod support

- Interface is too spread-out and overly simplified

- No skinning

- Can't sort by both artist and song name (:pinch:)

- Takes up way too many system resources for a music player

- Almost everything lags

- Does not handle problematic MP3 files well (ex. incomplete or partially corrupt files will lock it up or crash it)

- Has a few minor bugs

Winamp:

+ Takes few system resources

+ Very fast and responsive

+ Good intarface (compact, functional)

+ Great skinning and plugin support

- Somewhat ugly by default

- No library/playlists (at least in the version I still swear by)

- No native iPod support

  • 0

iTunes is bloated for the purpose that it serves. I hate the fact that it runs services in the background and eats up memory for that purpose. Winamp has a similar agent, but it can be disabled during the install. For me, Winamp has always been my media player of choice and I tried to go with Windows Media Player to cut back on installed programs but it didn't last too long.

For mp3 encoding and ripping, I use CDEx and LAME with HQ VBR. I don't understand how someone would have issues with the interface of CDEx, since to me it is pretty black and white in terms of navigation and setup. Perhaps it does have a lot of different configurable options but I would rather have too many options as opposed to too little.

Winamp does have a pretty nice library built into it, and the other features are so win. Visualization, skinning, plugin support, etc... It is a very versatile and customizable app for playing music. I can't really think of much that it cannot do when it comes to different formats of music files, even for the ones that require a 3rd party plugin for playback support.

  • 0

iTunes:

pro:

looks sweet

works sweet

sorting your mp3

smart playllists

normal playlists

easy to use

easy to adjust things

u can find things to adjust:)

cons:

a bit bigger then winamp

Winamp

pro:

looks clean

skinnable

cons:

every freaking time i select a mp3 i lose my mp3 list grrrrrr

no sorting

not a good apple skin

its a hell to change settings

small buttons and stuff

lots more:P

i choose itunes couse it looks good and its a clean layout

and i love my ipod:P

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      459
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!