Does WinAmp sound better than iTunes playing the same MP3s?

December 14, 2004 1:35 AM

Is it my imagination or does WinAmp sound better than iTunes, everything else being equal (talking MP3s of course)? [mi]

I tend to use WinAmp to sort of preview tracks before importing them into the iTunes library. I use iTunes because I like the UI, various features (smart playlists, browser, etc.). But it seems as though, when I play the same track, untouched, un-EQ-ed, whatever, in iTunes it sounds a bit duller or flatter. That same file sounds brighter, fuller, "better" in WinAmp. Is there some truth to this? I'd hate to give up on iTunes (after all this work), but a better sound is important of course. Are there any alternatives out there that can compete with iTunes' useability?

posted by Witty to Computers & Internet (22 answers total)

I think they use different MP3 decoders, which could cause a difference in sound. I use a 3rd party mp3 decoder with my Winamp, because I'm a big jerk when it comes to my audio.

Not that this answers your question about iTunes, which I wish I could. I honestly can't understand how anyone likes that interface.
posted by Jairus at 2:06 AM on December 14, 2004

I actually thought it was the reverse when I switched from Winamp 3 on my PC to iTunes on my Mac. Not a big deal, though I certainly noticed the difference.
posted by adrianhon at 3:14 AM on December 14, 2004

I got Volume Logic because I noticed the same thing when using headphones and my iMotion speakers, maybe it will help you out.
posted by tetsuo at 3:35 AM on December 14, 2004

My experience has also been the opposite: I prefer the sound of iTunes over WinAmp (And I'll have to keep shoving the comparison in my face until an SPC plugin for iTunes is developed).

Is it just psychological? Here's a developer's take on a similar phenomenon that happened with the Mac music players SoundJam and Audion:

Jeff Robbin then asked us a funny question that had obviously been percolating for a while: "Does Audion do any kind of special filtering?" You see, since the beginning of time, press reviews in magazines, websites, etc., had consistently said that Audion simply sounds "better" than SoundJam, without question. It wasn't until that declaration showed up in a very respectable, high-end British Hi-Fi magazine that people started to take it even more seriously. Audion was always noted for being "richer" or "sweeter", and we were tremendously proud of our incredible results in this regard.

The only problem was: we didn't do anything. We have no idea why people heard Audion as sounding better. We certainly didn't add any special filtering or "sound better" code. Our MP3 decoding process was about as ordinary as you could get. On paper, logically, there should have been absolutely no reason why Audion would sound any better or worse than SoundJam.

We put Jeff's mind at final, restful ease by blowing the big secret that, no, we also had no idea where that was coming from, but we definitely weren't about to argue. Who knows, maybe we did write some "sound better" code in a drunken haze — we're afraid to check!

posted by catachresoid at 5:03 AM on December 14, 2004

I actually thought it was the reverse when I switched from Winamp 3 on my PC to iTunes on my Mac

A minor point, but don't be too quick to blame the software on this one. Hardware would play a role in this scenario too.
posted by GeekAnimator at 5:17 AM on December 14, 2004

To me ... and maybe to me alone ... the latest incarnation of WinAmp doesn't sound better while the a song is playing, but rather when it stops. By default, there is an analog-sounding split-second fade triggered by stop, pause or going to the next track. This gives the illusion of fuller sound, because it feels like my dad's old school hi-fi or the first rack system I had in high school.
posted by grabbingsand at 5:19 AM on December 14, 2004

For what it's worth, you can do smart playlists in Winamp 5 by opening the media browser and right-clicking Local Media in the column on the left.
posted by mookieproof at 5:32 AM on December 14, 2004

For anyone looking to improve the WinAmp sound, try the enhancer plugin.
posted by rjt at 6:31 AM on December 14, 2004

what about the equalizer in winamp?
posted by freudianslipper at 7:18 AM on December 14, 2004

On further thought, I'd think this has mostly to do with how you have the equalizer set (like freudianslipper suggests), and stuff like that. I personally think winamp's equalizer sounds much better than itunes, but since I don't typically use the equalizer anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Different mp3 decoders shouldn't really matter. Different encoders will certainly vary in quality, but any decoder functioning properly should output the same wave file. (I have no data to back this up. It's just how I understand stuff like this to work). Similarly, a jpg saved in Photoshop and in Fireworks are gonna look different, but a jpeg opened in Photoshop or Fireworks is gonna look the same.

Looking at winamp's output plugins, I'm seeing a wave output [out_wave.dll], and a DirectSound output [out_ds.dll] Its possible that one of these takes advantage of DSP effects on your soundcard and one doesn't, but now I'm just guessing. I just tried switching between them and noticed a subtle volume difference.
posted by GeekAnimator at 8:17 AM on December 14, 2004

Hmm... reading over my last post, I think I contradict myself, first pointing out there there shouldn't be any difference in decoders, then noticing a difference between two of winamp's decoders. But I should stress that I think it that's because of how they act differently with the windows operating system, and notably, your sound card drivers. Anyone with more audio experience, please feel free to correct me, as I'm genuinely curious.
posted by GeekAnimator at 8:25 AM on December 14, 2004

I'm no expert by a long shot, but I do think MPEG, both audio and video decoders are supposed to give exactly the same output given an input. The variance is all in the encoders…
posted by fvw at 8:44 AM on December 14, 2004

Inspired by this thread, I tested (without any EQ tweaks, special plugins, etc.) Winamp, WMP, Foobar2000, iTunes, and Quintessential Player which was the hands down winner to my ears.
posted by Asef Jil at 8:46 AM on December 14, 2004

It could just be that the volume is slightly higher on the system with Winamp. People almost always perceive louder sound as being "better", even if the sound is otherwise exactly the same. Even if you can't conciously tell which one is louder!

To do proper comparisons of audio between two sources, you have to carefully match their volume levels. Almost nobody actually ever does this, of course, so you should take anyone's subjective impressions of "this one sounds better" with several grains of salt.
posted by xil at 11:31 AM on December 14, 2004

The decoder does matter.

But I am skeptical of people that say you can improve the sound from Winamp for example with a plugin. I guess "improvement" is subjective, but professional recordings tend to mastered at fancy expensive mastering houses where they spend plenty of time tailoring the sound of each track. If you can improve all music with some $20 shareware plugin, there must be something wrong your speakers or something.
posted by recursive at 2:57 PM on December 14, 2004

I think they use different MP3 decoders, which could cause a difference in sound. I use a 3rd party mp3 decoder with my Winamp, because I'm a big jerk when it comes to my audio.

Jairus, could you tell us a little more about that particular decoder and why you chose it. I'd like to understand why you use it without having to download/unzip the actual component.
posted by kreinsch at 3:03 PM on December 14, 2004

kreinsch, that decoder supports reading of APEv2 tags, is capabile of gapless playback, has different compiles for processor optimization, has ReplayGain support, supports Int 24bit/Int 32bit/Float 32bit/Float 64bit output, etc etc etc... There are a number of features and quality-control measures in it that make it a better decoder.
posted by Jairus at 3:22 PM on December 14, 2004

...and recursive, studios do indeed spend a lot of money to make their albums sound good, but $20 shareware plugins can help a lot of people make their music sound 'better'. One of the main features of these plugins is a 'loudness' setting, which boosts frequencies that you don't hear when your speakers are quiet. So, when you're listening to an album at low volume, these plugins will make it sound like you're listening at a loud volume, only quieter. :)

Many of them also have compensation for poor speaker setup, or low-bitrate mp3 artifacts, etc., etc... I personally don't use plugins like these, but that's because I setup my listening space myself, and I know what my room sounds like. If I were listening to music at work, using crappy ten-dollar-speakers, I'd download DFX or Ozone in a heartbeat.
posted by Jairus at 3:26 PM on December 14, 2004

If you have sound check enabled in iTunes, that can help a lot if you listen to music that is made to be loud (hard rock, etc).

Look for a "replay gain" plug for winamp, or use something else that supports it. (foobar2000, etc)

If you want a better mp3 player, you could check out the MAD plugin for winamp. It's supposed to sound better, but I couldn't tell. At least you'll get a placebo effect. :)

It's really all about speakers/headphones though. Get yourself some decent ones and that will help out much more than any plugin or whatever.

PS: Foobar2000 rocks. Written by a former winamp developer (I think). Plain list boxes combined with an amazing amount of actually useful plugins makes for quite a player. Too bad I don't run windows anymore.
posted by easyasy3k at 4:19 PM on December 14, 2004

Jairus, is "loudness" the same thing as "compression", as used in a mixing context?
posted by squidlarkin at 7:10 PM on December 14, 2004

squidlarkin, no. The "loudness" setting on a receiver will boost certain frequencies -- usually bass, and high treble. Because human hearing isn't linear, when you turn down the volume, these frequencies appear to lose volume faster than other frequencies. Loudness compensates for that - it's basically an EQ.

Compression reduces the gain of a sound when the sound crosses a certain threshold. So you can use a compressor to say "if a sound is louder than THIS, then reduce it by 50%". Compressors are also used for the DJ talk-over effect. "If sound A is louder than THIS, then reduce sound B by 1.5 times the level of sound A."
posted by Jairus at 12:06 AM on December 15, 2004

that decoder supports reading of APEv2 tags, is capabile of gapless playback, has different compiles for processor optimization, has ReplayGain support, supports Int 24bit/Int 32bit/Float 32bit/Float 64bit output, etc etc etc... There are a number of features and quality-control measures in it that make it a better decoder.

Thanks. I already have plugins for some of those things, but it sounds interesting.
posted by kreinsch at 7:48 AM on December 15, 2004