Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

2003-04-24 08:27:50

Because there is some confusion in this field, I decided to compare how fb2k sounds vs how Winamp sounds. I ABXed this (as I know this is The Only Way, The True Path ). My ABX result is 16/16 (I thought it will be much more difficult, but actually it wasn't )

Conclusion: For me the way the fb2k sounds is much better, but this is only my opinion, as ABX showed only that both of them sounds 'different'.

As we all know the best thing about the ABX test is that everybody can do this for himself, so I will explain the way I did it. So:
1) I took my not_so_high_quality Noname microphone and started recording.
2) I said 'foobar' (actually I wanted to say 'foobar2000', but ABX test requires sample files to be at least similar lenght).
3) Saved the file as foobar.wav.
4) As in 2) but I said 'Winamp' this time.
5) As in 3) but as winamp.wav.
6) ABXed foobar.wav vs winamp.wav.

The result is soo obvious!!! IMHO 'foobar' sounds MUCH better than 'Winamp'

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #1 – 2003-04-24 08:30:41

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #2 – 2003-04-24 12:57:45

yq,
hi,

Can you give us your samples plz ?

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #3 – 2003-04-24 13:36:28

Emotions affect perception.

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #4 – 2003-04-24 20:33:25

Check that one is not using DirectX whilst the other WaveOut, there are differences between the two (especially volume).

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #5 – 2003-04-24 20:50:02

I think you people missed the joke in the original post...

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #6 – 2003-04-24 22:36:57

That the name is cooler?! Yeah, I think so, too 

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #7 – 2003-04-24 22:53:41

HaHa     

I didn't give this the time first time i read it, though it was another stupid thread making another ridiculous point, after taking the time though, it is pretty funny!  Should have realised in the first place, it being in the Off-Topic section!!

Kristian

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #8 – 2003-04-24 23:31:35

Great post!

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #9 – 2003-04-25 04:25:21

Quote

/me laughs @ that. rofl.

but I tried to  ABX the whole thing by myself. result: just 15/16. I think, I will have to have a good sleep now (as I'm drunk for this moment). tomorrow, I will have  a new try.

(but don't be too harsh with me, I personally associate winamp with PP for 2 years, or so...)

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #10 – 2003-04-25 13:09:26

Nick Jr III: Unfortuntelly no, I don't have any hosting space at the moment

15/16 is still a good result - statistically significant

Can someone ABX 'Windows Media Player 9' vs 'Everything else'?

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #11 – 2003-04-25 13:34:00

I had to say "Windows Media Player 9" quite quickly, and "Everything else" quite slowly.


I was worried that your results might have been acheived by coincidence, so I set myself the task of ABXing 100 times. I managed 97/100, which should be enough to convince anyone.

Having proven that there was an audible difference, I loaded the samples into ff123's ABC/HR. I had to record an "original" for this too - I had to say that r e a l l y slowly. I found the "original" to be quite smooth and relaxing, "everything else" to be similarly chilled out, but "Windows Media Player 9" to have a rather harsh and garbled sound. I gave "everything else" 4.5, and "Window Media Player 9" 2.1; these results are only approximate, but I think I have enough experience to say that they're accurate to within +/-0.2 on the ITU-R BS-1118 scale.

Cheers,
David.

EDIT: I used Sennheiser HD580 headphones, an M-audio audiophile 2496 sound card, a darkened room, and switched off the fridge and the fish tank pump to get the house really quiet.

Foobar sounds better than Winamp.

Reply #12 – 2003-04-25 14:37:28

Well, did you all match levels when recording the signals? That could spoil the whole test!!