Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux) (Read 7537 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux)

I am huge fan of foobar and its extensibility. I have always wanted to have an firmware version of foobar, like Rockbox (by the way Rockbox is in the same plane as foobar), to be used in the portable audio players. But Recently, I started working in Linux for my work and wanted to try having a foobar like music player. Obviously, there was none, so I tried with various players available to Linux. After deliberation, I started using Audacious for its clear sound. I also found a windows version of it. I compared the sound between the two and I found Audacious has clean rich sound compared to foobar.

Could anyone tell me if I am missing any plug-ins in foobar, making it sound tame with Audacious.
And what do you think about Audacious compared to foobar?

Audacious can be download from here

[TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux)

Reply #1 –
No.

Read #8 of the Terms of Service, to which you agreed upon registering; and read the last item in foobar2000’s official FAQ.

Now, is there any reason that I shouldn’t move this to the Recycle Bin?

For example, do you have any EQs or other sound-altering plugins activated in Audacious? Sources must be compared on a level playing field. Still, that alone isn’t enough if your comparisons are not controlled to eliminate subjective bias, as required by TOS #8. Barring DSPs and/or shortcomings in one of the sources, there is no reason for an audible difference actually to exist here.

[TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux)

Reply #3 –
Quote from: db1989 on
No.

Read #8 of the Terms of Service, to which you agreed upon registering; and read the last item in foobar2000’s official FAQ.

Now, is there any reason that I shouldn’t move this to the Recycle Bin?

For example, do you have any EQs or other sound-altering plugins activated in Audacious? Sources must be compared on a level playing field. Still, that alone isn’t enough if your comparisons are not controlled to eliminate subjective bias, as required by TOS #8. Barring DSPs and/or shortcomings in one of the sources, there is no reason for an audible difference actually to exist here.


I just asked a very general question. I am not arguing with anyone that what I say is only right. At least for myself, I am not trying to violate item #8. I am a very reasonable & considerate person. So, if you want to bash against me without knowing what I am trying to ask & in what tone, I will not care. I just wanted to know how people perceive sound between these 2 apps. For your own reasoning, i disabled all the plug-ins and DSPs in both the apps. The only feature I have on both is track replay-gain.

Being a techie, I love foobar and its features. Mostly I listen to Classical. I always get intrigued with identifying Counterpoint and instruments with lines not so audible in orchestral music. With 24-bit depth recordings popping up, the music with quality sound feels almost live.

[TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux)

Reply #4 –
Quote from: vijaye7 on
With 24-bit depth recordings popping up, the music with quality sound feels almost live.
24 bit audio is (audibly) indistinguishable from (properly dithered) 16 bit audio. What you're hearing is either placebo or different masters of the same material.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

[TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux)

Reply #5 –
Quote from: vijaye7 on
I just asked a very general question. I am not arguing with anyone that what I say is only right. At least for myself, I am not trying to violate item #8.
Statements about relative sound quality are subject to the stipulations of TOS #8 regardless of how nicely and/or vaguely you attempt to dress them up.

Quote
I am a very reasonable & considerate person.
I didn’t say otherwise, but this is completely irrelevant.

Quote
I just wanted to know how people perceive sound between these 2 apps.
In case it was not clear enough from the rules, Hydrogenaudio is only concerned with perceptions that can be verified as genuinely having been heard by the claimant and preferably can be replicated by others.

Quote
For your own reasoning, i disabled all the plug-ins and DSPs in both the apps. The only feature I have on both is track replay-gain.
Well, here we go. foobar2000 now defaults to using the more modern EBU R128 algorithm to apply non-destructive loudness equivalence between tracks, whereas I imagine Audacious still uses ‘normal’ ReplayGain. These might be producing different adjustments in gain. And it is a well-known fact that many listeners will perceive louder material as being better even when it is exactly the same except for its volume.

So, if you are not simply being fooled by expectation bias/the placebo effect – which is still highly likely until you take steps to preclude that possibility – there might be an explanation for it that is not rooted in technical superiority, “clean rich sound”, or anything else.

Quote
I always get intrigued with identifying Counterpoint and instruments with lines not so audible in orchestral music. With 24-bit depth recordings popping up, the music with quality sound feels almost live.
This, too, is invalid according to TOS #8.

You can believe whatever you want, even if you must avoid proving or disproving it to yourself, but there’s no point in posting it here without evidence to back it up.

[TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux)

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
Quote from: vijaye7 on
With 24-bit depth recordings popping up, the music with quality sound feels almost live.
24 bit audio is (audibly) indistinguishable from (properly dithered) 16 bit audio. What you're hearing is either placebo or different masters of the same material.

whether it's virtually indistiguishable or not depends entirely on the quality of the physical media you're listening through....

Even on my current home system there is a very clear difference. But the bottom of the line is the quality of your audio hardware interface and the native resolutions and bit depth it has... playing at a higher sample rate or bit depth doesn't always produce sweet results if the hardware doesn't support it natively and the conversion is left to software and the computer's configuration - often then messed up by the OS's handling of the audio...

Having said all this, I think the ability to set up clear audio on Audacious (particularly in Linux) is very good if not excellent, and I have also had great results with Foobar2000 in the Windows environment, especially when using Steinberg ASIO drivers running directly to my hardware; even the windows native "exclusive mode" and wasapi drivers didn't sound as good (and being less configurable). If you don't hear the difference (between 16-bit and 24-bit) it could be just the limitations of the hardware, the listening room  and maybe the hearing that leads to that, but I perceive that those differences can be more than just subtle.
Oh, and DITHERING is a process that introduces harmonic noise into the signal to replace compressive losses to the original material.... that is like putting more sugar in your coffee when it's gone too bitter

[TOS #8] Foobar vs. Audacious (Linux)

Reply #7 –
Thanks for confirming that I should have just binned this thread back at post #4.

As well as feeling free to violate TOS #8 yet again, now you wise-crack about the nature of dither while describing it in a way that blatantly contradicts reality. Seriously reconsider your approach to posting here if you wish to retain the ability to do so.