BlueDev's PC media player smackdown - Part II
the verdict is in!
Tuesday, January 18, 2005 by BlueDev | Discussion: iTunes
Also, since audio quality will be a large factor in every player's evaluation it is worth noting that testing was made using professional Bose headphones.
Today I will probably be a little more succinct with the entries as I am attempting to cover more ground. So bear with me. These entries are what I refer to as the dark horses: players that are perhaps not as well known as the ones I mentioned previously, but they deserve a good look as well. So here they are, in a bit of a random order, but also based on how well I know the program (ones I don't know as well come first).
CoolPlayer: A free, open source little audio player that has a fair number of fans. I had checked out CoolPlayer a while back and thought it was a pretty solid audio player, but very stripped down (At the request of dabe I decided to take a look at it again). CoolPlayer has a lot of capabilities for such a small file. Freeform skinning, plenty of file types supported (especially with plugins since it is open source), it starts up nice and fast, and is simple to use. The graphic equalizer is nice as well.
Pros:
- Freeform skinning
- Small file that runs very quickly and uses little system resources
- Good audio codec support
- Open source (this always earns bonus points with me)
- No media library management
- All playlists must be created by the user (as opposed to WMP, iTunes and Winamp that can generate dynamic playlists from your library based on artist/genre/album etc.)
- Sound quality is while not terrible, is not terrific either. Lacking in clarity in the higher frequencies and depth in the lower frequencies
Pros:
- Efficient resource use by only loading the components you need as opposed to everything
- Wide range of supported codecs (if it is audio dbPowerAmp probably can play it)
- Freeform skins
- Installation locked my system from responding to volume control hotkeys. Maybe this isn't a big deal to others, but I hate having to open the volume control on my taskbar when I have nice little keys on the front of my laptop that do it for me. It also would not respond to Fn F5 or F6. This was not limited to when the program was running. I had to uninstall it to restore function
- Sound quality is muddy and weak, even with excessive equalizer tweaking
- The media library does not group well according to album, making media library management cumbersome
Pros:
- Many high quality skins available
- Good plugin support to extend the capabilities of the player
- Poor audio quality was QCD's biggest downfall. It would have stayed on my system if it didn't sound so muted an gummy.
- Media library management was lacking. You can add many files, but the playlist just isn't set up to handle a long playlist and keep it nicely organized.
Pros:
- Good skinning capacity (from the shots I have seen, haven't had a chance to use them myself)
- Good media library management
- Good sound quality, but still lacking in the clarity of the high frequencies
- High resource use. Using the default skin I am hitting nearly 40 megs of RAM while not minimized
- Sound still lacks some clarity
- They do cripple the player a bit, wanting you to purchase the pro version (this isn't the only player to do so, and isn't major, but worth mentioning)
Pros:
- Clean, efficient layout and library management makes these both easy to work with
- Open source
- Poor sound quality, even with equalizer tweaking
- Resource management issues. Musik Cube only used around 11 megs of RAM when not minimized, but was using an outrageous 60-80% CPU at all times. Bad sign
Pros:
- Sound quality is what Apollo is all about (even though I was non-plussed)
- Looks very ugly, ignoring even Window Blinds
- Very poor handling of large playlists
- No media library management
Pros:
- Very good looking player. Lots of eye candy here
- Jet Cast is fun (but I was never sure about the legality of it and so never really broadcast)
- Difficult media library management
- Poor sound quality, sounding shallow and muddy no matter how I tweaked it
Pros:
- Excellent sound quality
- Low resource use
- No skinning whatsoever (though at least this will us Window Blinds skins)
- No media library management
Pros:
- Amazing audio quality. Second to none in all the players I tested
- Very resource lite
- Can handle media library management nicely once the database is set up
- Extremely customizable
- Plain and boring to look at (at least until you tweak it, then it can look pretty nice - see examples)
- Because it is so customizable it can be a little daunting to jump right in and start using
The Final Verdict: So after all this I feel that I must elect a winner. I am afraid I cannot say without hesitation which one is the best though. I am going to have to direct myself at two different groups. First, if all you want is an all purpose audio player that works well, manages your music with minimal effort and sounds good I have to give the nod to Windows Media Player. However, if you aren't afraid to get your hands dirty a bit, play around with things, sacrifice a bit of eye candy, and have the best sounding player out there then I recommend foobar2000 without hesitation. Taking into consideration my personal preferences I would call foobar2000 the overall winner. It is simply an outstanding player, with the best sound quality and customizable to my hearts content.
If you stuck through and actually read this entire thing, just let me take this last line to say thank you.
Reply #3 Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:37 PM
Reply #4 Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:14 PM
QCD has a lot going for it, and I have actually tried it about 4 or 5 times. But I am such an audiophile that I just had to go back to foobar2000. Glad you enjoyed it Scarebear and thanks for the suggestion of QCD. I wouldn't have thought to include it otherwise.
Reply #5 Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:50 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:16 PM
I've never used a media player that wasn't skinnable. But I'm a skin junkie like that |
I hear you there. That was my biggest holdout on using foobar2000 myself. I had it installed for a while before really using it because I missed having my media player skinned. Now that I have tweaked the interface to look a little better (as in the screenshots) I like it more, but still miss a good skin on my media player now and then.
Reply #7 Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:19 AM
Reply #8 Wednesday, January 19, 2005 4:21 AM
I'm currently using WMP. Due to the skinning, but mainly due to it can mix my DRM and non DRM libraries together without a hitch unlike any of the other players.
Reply #9 Wednesday, January 19, 2005 1:49 PM
my pick by far..so much that i wont even give any other players a chance. |
Obviously that is your choice, but I was really impressed with some of the other media players out there. And knowing that Winamp is dead, well, we won't see any new innovation there.
For audio quality, give iTunes a go. Has excellent decoders, just needs some tweaking EQ wise. |
It is good, but it doesn't even come close to the audio quality of Apollo 37z, VU Player, and especially foobar2000. Not even close. And the outrageous resource use (comparatively speaking), coupled with the loss in audio quality (and the fact that I don't have an iPod) means there really is no reason for me to use it.
Just a note, as mentioned, this was part II. Part I reviewed Winamp, WMP, iTunes, and Musicmatch Jukebox.
Reply #10 Wednesday, January 19, 2005 1:50 PM
Reply #11 Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:51 PM
Reply #12 Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:02 PM
Reply #13 Wednesday, February 2, 2005 2:40 AM
Reply #14 Wednesday, February 2, 2005 9:15 AM
Hey! just so you know, Winamp is not dead |
By dead I mean further innovation and actual development. In that arena, yes, Winamp is pretty much dead, to the lament of millions of us music fans everywhere.
It is a good program, but the future will be ruled by programs that continue to evolve and improve to meet the needs of a demanding digital music market. Sadly, I don't think Winamp will continue to be a powerful player in the future of digital music. So I will continue to seek innovation in other realms. And that is where I see a number of these other audio players making a difference.
Reply #15 Wednesday, February 2, 2005 11:30 PM
With probably the majority of music played on computers being mp3s it's a pretty ham-fisted audio format to worry too much about 'audiophile' qualities in a player.
Gargling will always sound like gargling, no matter the quality of the player, or the speakers....
Reply #16 Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:18 PM
Thanks again, Javier
Reply #17 Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:04 PM
thanks
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:53 PM