Which Music Player are you using?
- Thread starter Ice Rich
- Start date
If you firmly belive that then your just being bias.james.miller said:lol. the ipod wins over the masses because its form over function "oooh that looks pretty". irivers are, for the most part, plug and play devices (no itunes or other software is needed) and search by folder. it doesnt really get easier than that
Using an iRiver to get music on your PC and player:
Rip music with ripping app. Import/add to music program to play on computer. Plugin in iRiver. Find music on HDD, copy/paste to iRiver in relevent file structure.
Using an iPod/iTunes to get music on your PC and player:
Rip music in iTunes. Plug in iPod to update music.
Hmm, whats easyier?
And then in regards to GUI on each device. I havnt met a single person would couldnt work out how an iPod works within 30 seconds of using it.
Where as on the other hand, i find lots of people spend a good 5mins+ trying to work out iRivers.
iPods wouldnt be as successful if its own GUI & iTunes wernt so seemless/easy to use.
Im not saying they are perfect, as i know people who dont like that much of the control gets taken out of your hands, but for the most part, iTunes, and as a result iPods, they're ease of use for accessing music on either is one of the best around.
BoomAM said:
That's because most people are morons. If you know about hardware, then a "little bit of fiddling" isn't a problem.
I have a iriver H140 with Rockbox firmware.
And you're forgetting seperate apps like EAC will do a better job of ripping music.
squiffy said:
which 95% of the population aren't happy doing, Your using firmware and probably 3 or 4 diffrent apps.
You also have to remember when Itunes was released no other mp3 player came with an integrated media player and easy of transfer.
I dont like I tunes, as like you I know how to do those things. But you have to remember the vast amount of people either can't or dont wnat to be fiddling around.
media handling, where's the search options, the smart play lists, other playlists, it might do these, but not in an easy and intuitive way.G-MAN2004 said:
WMP is great for video media most of *** time, but it really is rubbish for large collections of music
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
Ehh cant you see the search bar in the top left? you can even type something halfway and itll find it.
Smart playlist?
You can create your own custom playlist on classification, date added, etc, custom playlists not just for the same song all the time ( right click playlists, make automatic playlist, there you can select 3 conditions like how often played, classification, bitrate, or whatever )
I'm using wmp on a 40 gb music collection, and I couldn't desire anything else from it, i find the songs I'm looking for in less than a few seconds.
Well except the time it takes to start it
, any examples in what winamp is better?I like foobar (looks wise and simplcity) however WMP11 becuase..
it helps me organise my music (i seem to be the only person on earth that WMP11 likes.. dosent mess up my music arranges it perfectly.. with a little help) also updates all my id3tags or whatever they are called.
its fantastic for lots of music (i have around 5k tracks) and its just easy to browse my music.
looks fairly neat (i leave it in the libary window 24/7)
my only niggle is (im on a 1.6ghz p4) is its a bit heavy.. not bloated as such just a tad slow and heavy..
if i could get those first 2 bits of functionality in foobar then i would probably switch.. anyone know if that is possible?
but yeah wmp11 for me
it helps me organise my music (i seem to be the only person on earth that WMP11 likes.. dosent mess up my music arranges it perfectly.. with a little help) also updates all my id3tags or whatever they are called.
its fantastic for lots of music (i have around 5k tracks) and its just easy to browse my music.
looks fairly neat (i leave it in the libary window 24/7)
my only niggle is (im on a 1.6ghz p4) is its a bit heavy.. not bloated as such just a tad slow and heavy..
if i could get those first 2 bits of functionality in foobar then i would probably switch.. anyone know if that is possible?
but yeah wmp11 for me
allllec said:I like foobar (looks wise and simplcity) however WMP11 becuase..
it helps me organise my music (i seem to be the only person on earth that WMP11 likes.. dosent mess up my music arranges it perfectly.. with a little help) also updates all my id3tags or whatever they are called.
its fantastic for lots of music (i have around 5k tracks) and its just easy to browse my music.
looks fairly neat (i leave it in the libary window 24/7)
my only niggle is (im on a 1.6ghz p4) is its a bit heavy.. not bloated as such just a tad slow and heavy..
if i could get those first 2 bits of functionality in foobar then i would probably switch.. anyone know if that is possible?
but yeah wmp11 for me
Totally agree
, on vista though with cacheing and a dc cpu its very fast, loads faster as anything else, loading time is intstant regardless if you have a massive media library.Intelligence has nothing to do with it.squiffy said:
I owned an iRiver, and while i liked it, i couldnt go back because the quickness and mindlessness of just plugging the iPod in to get it to update is brillient for me.
We dont all want to waste time doing things that can be done far quicker and easyier.
If you think its about intelligence, then theres something wrong with your way of thinking.
This discussion isnt about ripping quality really is it? The main one is about what music player app, and this sub one, whats easyier.
snowdog said:Well except the time it takes to start it
Themes -even stock black one is great but there are some great themes out there
Plugins - asio, integrated stream ripping, h/w acceleration, dsp's, sound to light support
Format support
hotkeys + media control over Ethernet
Library, playlist and ipod management works great.
wmp11 is great for dvd's and other video but for music winamp is great
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,327
Using Songbird for all my music at the moment.
What HW accelleration does it do?lay-z-boy said:
Because im willing to bet none at all. Only 2-3 sound chips can do HW accelleration of any type, and even then, its not really designed for music, more for movie or game type effects.
Baring in mind that playing an MP3 in almost any app consumes such an insignificant amount of CPU time now, the acceleration, if there is any, wont really make the blindest bit of difference.
Apart from the asio 2 support which is a great improvement over the kmixer there are a few other plugins that attempt to move as much processing work as possible to the spu. dsp's, etc.
I have a lossless audio collection so some of these plugins are a godsend.
I have a lossless audio collection so some of these plugins are a godsend.
Thats not hardware acceleration. Thats abstraction.lay-z-boy said:
It just bypasses the OS sound layer and goes strait to hardware (in simple terms).
And with Vista having its own sound layer thats supposidly more optimised for ASIO functions, the argument is moot for users of Vista anyway.
AcidHell2 said:
So you prefer to scroll for ages between the thousands of artists/songs/albums instead of just typing half the name in less than a sec and having found what you are searchign for?
Hell in itunes you actally have to read, in wmp you only have to look the album art, wich is way easier imo.
Wmp also very nicely minimizes to taskbar
.for example with ablums:
lay-z-boy said:
Are you serious? winamps skins look awfull, way too small, its looks are imo way worse as stock wmp11 in vista.
I don't use plugins, I dont need all that stuff.
Formats are fixable with one simple codec pack, wmp will play everything after installing klite ( wich btw is running on ffdshow).
Hotkeys? All i need is support for my g11 media buttons, wich winamp doesnt support without a plugin, wmp works with it from start.
Library is imo unbeatable from wmp's.
I think it's the other way around, I've used wmp for music mostly, while for dvd's I used vlc, wmp is also my main vid player though.
Last edited: