digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at killertechtips.com

Top 10 Free Software for Audiophiles

killertechtips.com — Make the most out of your music files - A carefully chosen list of free Apps that do the right jobs.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bokjae, on 02/19/2008, -32/+4Good Selection of free utilities for your music management!
    • robbh66, on 02/19/2008, -2/+26The list sucks. If you want a good ripper use EAC: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ Just wish their was a mac version :/
    • HotDogBun, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4You;re kidding right?
      • Ataxia2008, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Oh, so close mate:
        You're

        C+ for the effort though
    • Stonekeeper, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Damnit. If only i could read the title!!!
    • ericdano, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7Except that MediaMonkey is not free if you want to use all of it. Lame list.
      • Bhima, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I have a friend who is big MM fan... iTunes isn't' perfect but Jesus this ***** is ugly... and he just keeps pumping it, like he owns stock in it or something.

        When is Songbird going to be sort of done, rather than in developer preview beta test limbo?
    • prophetpimp, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4An Audiophile would rather kill himself then use VLC. Although VLC is great it uses its own codec and some of them have bugs that cause a lot of distortion when the volume is pushed beyond 75%. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Play the same file on full volume in both Winamp and VLC, you will notice the distortion. But to be fair on VLC it only occurs when the volume is pushed about 75%.
      • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3i never use it for audio.
        i always use it for video.
    • saxreturns, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5Thanks, Inane Comment Man!
    • Ataxia2008, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I recommend WinAmp, but try and find an older version, sooner or later it'll end up like RealPlayer :(
  • sparf, on 02/19/2008, -4/+39mplayer / mencoder / oggenc / cdrtools / audacity
    All I need.
    • antdude, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5MediaCoder too.
      • doshindude, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3mediacoder is the best converter you can get.
        • Petrushka72, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4MediaCoder has its uses. I always use it for transcoding, but I try not to use it for encoding from an original source. It can have flaky results when producing MP3s sometimes. Plus its insistence on opening Firefox any time I want to do anything at all is endlessly irritating.
          For encoding audio from an original source I (1) rip with Exact Audio Copy, which the author really should not have missed -- "audiophiles" my ass (Audiograbber is just not as reliable, and normalisation is NEVER a good idea); (2) encode either with OmniEncoder or just lame.exe from the command line; (3) use MP3Gain to losslessly normalise an entire album. And for video, I'll use Handbrake every time.
      • antdude, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I forgot to mention SUPER too.
    • daxsymbiont, on 02/19/2008, -21/+1and an operating system that doesn't run games. or runs them *****.
      • jues, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8wow, how utterly relevant to this thread.
      • sparf, on 02/19/2008, -1/+9Nah, sorry. Not to get into a flame war, but *nix runs games just as well as any other platform. See Quake or Unreal. The problem is getting the source, or builds, to whatever you feel like playing this week.
      • WildTang3nt, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Wow, you're ignorant. Most of the above apps have Windows versions too. And Linux can play games it supports just as well or better than their Windows counterparts. Go be an idiot somewhere else, please.
        • iticu, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2I was supporting you untill you said Linux could play games as well as Windows..
          Don't kid yourself mate, it still has a long way to go in the game department.
      • Damien79, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Who gives a ***** about games? Some of us do other stuff... like work. Enjoy the games kid.
        • Ataxia2008, on 02/19/2008, -5/+2Wow, you work? So does just about 95% of the world's population. ***** off and grow up.
        • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3i think he's talking about work in your spare time on the computer. you know, like a side project. most people don't have those.
          so... ***** off and grow up.
        • Ataxia2008, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1I think you're talking *****.

          See, that was easy
    • Twoodge, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6The waveform in Audacity in that screenshot is atrocious. :S
      • mnmleon, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5lol. saw that too. yay for clipping and ***** dynamic range
    • catch-22, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4i think you forgot flac ;)
    • aaronwolfe, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I would have added Musicbrainz Picard...
    • Mithrander, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3I'm going to go ahead and say it...Audacity sucks. It's nice that it's free and all, but it barely does anything...I guess if you are just recording one track, it's fine, but otherwise...it's worthless.
      • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2there should be a professional quality audio recording suite that is also open source and free.
        gimp is as powerful as photoshop if you know how to use it. there should be more options for musicians.
    • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1winamp / VLC / audacity / mp3 tag

      and - unfortunately - i have to run zune software. cause i was just too cool to buy an iPod.
      • robbob, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Nothing cool about a Zune or an iPod. They are ubiquitous at this point.
      • giid, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1actually I kind of like the new zune software. The previous version had some crazy aggressive autotagger but I think the new one isn't aggressive enough, or maybe it doesn't even exist. My only complaint about zune is I wish I could browse by filename since that's how I have my mp3 collection sorted and all the tags aren't quite correct. I started using winamp's autotagger to correct then, but damn I have a lot of music, and some of it's rather obscure.

        Oh, and why in God's name didn't Zune extend WMP for it's library?
  • vault, on 02/19/2008, -6/+18For any mac users reading this, XLD is an excellent freeware app for converting between formats...i.e. flac to apple lossless.

    http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/23430/x-lossl ...
    • DarkDx, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Thanks.
    • Bhima, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I've been needing this, thanks
    • Zippo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+9Mac user here.
      After reading the list, I tried out Songbird. I mean, Mozilla makes some great apps, so I figured I'd give it a whirl.
      Unfortunately, it's twice the size of iTunes, takes up more RAM, has much less in the way of features, and it's much slower to load and run than iTunes.
      Sadness.

      I know iTunes on Windows is garbage, but it's really good on OS X.
      • mattmcm, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6It's made by Pioneers of the Inevitable, but it does use XULrunner, which Mozilla made.

        I actually like iTunes on Windows. It's a lot better than Windows Media Player, at any rate.
        • 80hd, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I'm moving back to xp currently, and holy crap is iTunes 7.6 a performance wreck on vista.
        • Zippo, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1No kidding... My girlfriend has a new Dell laptop with Vista - I helped her select the parts, so it's pretty decent...
          And Cover Flow is utterly unusable... it's so ***** slow. My 4-year-old PC running XP and an ATI9600 runs Cover Flow perfectly.
      • gandhii, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2It is still VERY beta... if not alpha. Although it does work well for me when playing music from my library on my Linux computer, it doesnt work well on windows and somewhere in between on macs. Unfortunately it doesnt handle streaming mp3 or ogg yet. Otherwise it would be my only audio player on linux. It is kind of a pain to use two different programs... but I've yet to find something I've really felt completely comfortable with yet. (/random loosely related rambling)
    • stalefries, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1And worst of all, Cmd+Q and Cmd+, don't work.
      /only somewhat sarcastic
  • plup, on 02/19/2008, -5/+43"Magic MP3 Tagger" (what a lame lame name) is not freeware. And the article is dumb on so many levels, it's not useful at all.
    • yoshman, on 02/19/2008, -0/+12I use mp3tag personally. It's really handy.
      http://www.mp3tag.de/en/
    • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Abander Tag Control, also not free, but the best I've used by far with the most features. If you have OCD with organizing your music - this program is for you. http://www.softartstudio.com/tagcontrol/
    • robbob, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Tag&Rename but now need something for OSX
    • jupi, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Godfather.
    • handchop, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0I wouldnt touch mp2 tagger he hasnt updated if for about a year. Try Jaikoz its not free either but it does support auto fixing Musicbrainz,Album Art and Lyrics ,and works with mp3 and mp4 , and best thing is its almost fully automatic - hardly any typing.
  • Kriff, on 02/19/2008, -3/+117Where's foobar2000?
    • Mootabolife, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Jet audio is actually pretty impressive too.
    • Magnes, on 02/19/2008, -8/+6Where is Amarok?
      Winamp mp3 decoding is very poor quality by the way.
    • quomen, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Can anybody give me their impressions of Songbird? The last time I used it it was way too buggy and stayed in alpha stage for at least a year since i've last checked. Are there more extensions / addons now and is it more stable?
      • Bhima, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I checked it out about 2 months ago and couldn't see anything all that different than the last time I looked which was during the summer. It choked on my Library and spent a lot of time doing things I didn't care about.

        I don't think that media file management is all that hard of a problem to solve and if apple weren't being complete assholes with pushing users towards the iTunes store and preventing casual pirating iTunes would be a usable program... thank the gods for Applescript, Growl, and about a dozen other 3rd party apps.
      • Maxster, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1The current 0.4 release is pretty slow and buggy but if you download a nightly build of 0.5 (in the developper center) what a difference ! Much much faster and stable, this player is starting to look real good !
      • Ataxia2008, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Songbird was a bit too buggy for me. Sorry
      • prelives, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0I'm very happy with 0.4 - the most intuitive media player I've used, plus the addons are great.
    • marik297, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6That was the first thing that came to mind after seeing the list of players.
    • leonhyral, on 02/19/2008, -1/+16Buried this story for inaccuracy after not seeing foobar immediately.
    • Mike89, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2It's been added
      >> I missed out Foobar, thanks for the heads up Ashwin!
    • spyrochaete, on 02/19/2008, -0/+7I've loved Foobar2000 ( http://www.foobar2000.org ) for years for its minimal interface and tiny memory footprint. My wife showed me the newest version of Foobar recently and I reluctantly decided to try out some of the new media manager features. I love them! Here's a screenshot:
      http://www.demodulated.com/crap/foobar0.9.5.PNG

      I started out just adding my ripped CD folder but tried adding my downloads directories as well. This cluttered up the browser a little bit, so I tried using the "Filter" search function which is really fantastic. You can type the name, artist, album, partial file directory, or other kinds of meta data in there to find the music you're looking for.

      The best audio player for Windows is now even better.
    • revjustin2, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6Foobar2000, ftw!!!! Small footprint, big player.
  • oxygen911, on 02/19/2008, -5/+94so that list sucked.......
    • kevincannon, on 02/19/2008, -0/+11True. I hate lists like this that are just Digg fodder. Someone just googles for free audio apps and makes a list out of them. I doubt the author has actually tried any of the apps or actually provided any kind of editorial quality control.

      Down with this sort of thing!
    • ooellis, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1ok go test them
    • cruzlee, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5It seriously sucked. It is not a Top 10 software for audiophiles. It is for audio files. The only sane choice for ripping cd's is EAC, which is barely mentioned. Furthermore any player that allows you to route a kernel stream to your audiophile DAC (yup, not the one on your soundcard) will do.

      Bottomline:
      1. You need bit-perfect ripping which to my knowledge is only possible with EAC
      2. You need a good DAC
      3. You need a soundcard + audioplayer that, in conjunction will not ***** with the bitstream.

      (oh, and you will need cd's that have not been raped by the label to make it sound AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE)
    • arkmtech, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Agreed whole-heartedly - These are not a "Top 10" by any means, even for just Windows. This article is nothing more than linkbaited blog diarrhea.

      Here are some better picks for Windows users...

      Media Player
      >> AIMP2 [ http://www.aimp.ru/index.php?action_skin_change=ye ... ]
      >> Foobar [ http://www.foobar2000.org/ ]

      Media Library
      >> AIMP2
      >> Foobar
      >> Amarok [ *Packaged with 'KDE on Windows ' >> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_on_Windows/In ... ]

      Audio Ripper
      >> EAC [ http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ ]

      "Other" Audio-Related Stuff
      >> LivePlasma [ http://www.liveplasma.com ]
      >> Ishkur's Guide [ http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/ ]
  • johanm, on 02/19/2008, -13/+54im gonna bury this story like a hooker in my back yard!
    • Dested, on 02/19/2008, -3/+18Would have been slightly funnier if you said the instead of a.
    • adooga, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You're gonna do it later when no-one's around?
  • br0wnstar, on 02/19/2008, -8/+79I bought really expensive headphones, thinking that I could finally hear what the difference was between a 320 kbps MP3 and a lossless rip. Still can't. Oh well, they keep my ears warm.
    • jaalin, on 02/19/2008, -12/+3time to upgrade from that onboard audio
    • topgigmedia, on 02/19/2008, -2/+23Ultimately it really depends on a number of factors, one important one being the actual quality of the mastering process. If the record is crap to begin with, it really isn't going to sound better at lossless vs. 320kbps. High compression during mastering can cause this.
      • adooga, on 02/19/2008, -9/+1No.
        • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Yes.
          • adooga, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1"High compression during mastering". You don't know what you're talking about.
          • topgigmedia, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Do correct me then please. Added compression to the overall recording during mixdown and mastering is a common technique used to make the overall recording level louder and "hotter". The downside is a loss in total fidelity and added artifacts or noise being present in the final recording... no? Again, any tangible insight you can offer only helps anyone. :)
      • revjustin2, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Double yes
      • Smuikas, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2For more on why a lot of modern recordings are crap, see:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
    • mCanada, on 02/19/2008, -15/+6Hint: no one can. Only the audiophiles with the "golden ears" can tell the difference with their "special" wooden knobs....
      • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Hint: some people can, and can prove it (double blind test). Check out Hydrogen audio
        • Bhima, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Back in the day my dad made a zillion knobs after he retired and took up wood working... to bad he died before all this computer mod stuff... he would have loved it... that and special knobs on the Hi-Fi amps...
      • revjustin2, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I love calling ***** on people with "golden ears:, too, but in this case, I'd have to say that I, who is half deaf now from never wearing earplugs, can tell the difference between the lossless formats (like FLAC) and even 320kbps. It's all about ear fatigue for me.
        • mCanada, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Ok If you say so.. You guys must have some awesome speakers / amps.... Even on oink V0 320's were pretty much accepted as a direct subsitute for flac.
    • aelias, on 02/19/2008, -1/+20I remember getting nice cans and being all excited about curling up with my laptop and breaking them in. Then I heard the hard drive chatter and it made baby jesus sad.
      • spyrochaete, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4You need an external sound card like the Extigy to factor out laptop sound attenuation.
      • jjremy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1that noise drives me crazy!
    • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -1/+25Dude, you need to wear a a gold plated pyramidal foil hat while you're listening otherwise you have no idea what good audio is
    • booshack, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Get a good source, like an iMod, and a good amp, like a Meier Corda.

      http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html
      http://www.meier-audio.homepage.t-online.de/
      • br0wnstar, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2After having spent 200 on headphones, 200 for a mod and 200 for an amp seems like a bit much....

        Are there any cheaper amps that you know of?
        • DarkDx, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Maybe a "norma" sound system in your house? That could be good, I mean, I have an old sony stereo system and it has 200watt
        • booshack, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1What headphones are they? The problem is probably your source and amp. Cheaper amps don't really give improvement worth the extra bulk. If you don't want to go for a whole amp setup, there are a few players that give good sound quality. The best is the Trekstor Vibez, but its fugly. All cowon players will beat the ***** out of an iPod in SQ, and they look great and have good interface and price.

          http://www.dapreview.net/p/content/content.php?con ...
    • HollowMarkeD, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Get decent speakers, then you hear.
    • quomen, on 02/19/2008, -0/+7Can you tell us what type of headphones you have? If you want to hook it up to a portable player than you don't need an amp unless the headphones are very high impedance. I have beyerdynamic dt880s and a minibox e+ (connected via lineout dock) and trust me, the only thing an amp does is make it louder. The volume is usually high enough for me w/ my ipod touch but the volume can be quite dim when maxed during Classical Music listening sessions. And iMod is a waste of your money because the quality difference is negligable, and only works on 5g ipods. For portable use, IEMs are probably best. When at home, the source is just as important as the encoding. Jaalin got dugg down for saying that it's time to upgrade from onboard audio, but it's true that you're going to get a huge increase in sound quality if you get a good sound card or even better, get a dedicated DAC and amp to connect to your headphones, but that's probably out of your budget. Getting a better soundcard will likely enhance your listening experience. Lastly, it depends on the type of headphones you have. Some headphones mask imperfections of the music quite nicely and doesnt need to be amped. However, most higher impedance phones will pick out the flaws of music like pink llamas in a crowd of sheep. Those need to be properly amped and with a good source. Whatever this is a giant block of text GOOD NIGHT!
      To summarize, you don't really need an amp unless you got high impedance cans. For a great cheap portable one you can go to http://www.penguinamp.com/ and get a CMOY. Dont bother with imods. Oh, and upgrade to a decent soundard if you're using onboard audio right now. There's a big difference. Sorry if this didnt help you at all and you wasted about 10 minutes of your time. :(
      • br0wnstar, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Nah, I was actually looking at the penguin cmoy amps last night! I wasn't sure if they were legit or not. I have a pair of Sennheiser HD-555's.
        • Smuikas, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Sennheiser headphones are amazing. I had a chance to listen to a pair of HD-650's a few weeks ago, and the quality blew my mind.

          Expensive, but so worth it..
          • fallsroad, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I have the 650's.

            "Amazing" just barely begins to describe them. :)

            As for the differences between 320kbps and lossless, it also depends upon the hardware. If you are feeding a pair of Sennheiser or other high quality headphones with a line out from a computer, you aren't getting the best of them. Adding a good headphone amp (see headroom.com for a ton of them) is an excellent start. Also, the feed from computers is often plagued by noise and compressed dynamic range. Electrically speaking the interior of a computer is an unfriendly place for small signal audio.

            I use an outboard Headroom DAC fed by the SPDIF output. Kills the analog output of any computer in terms of dynamics, low noise, and clean sound.
    • Ezzilo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0You need this baby
      http://www.eeonline.com.au/p/58332/sennheiser-orph ...
    • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1This guy definately can't tell the difference,
      TechPaven: "Hey, I should mention u one important mp3 convertor, dB Power Amp, for a high speed convertion. I don’t know abt newer versions, but I use the version 10… its very gud to convert d dnldd 320kbps into my favorite n handy 96kbps…"

      That must sound horrible
    • moush, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3"Expensive" headphones mean nothing.
    • diggingaround, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Grado headphones are best bang for your buck, and they are easy to drive (32 Ohm). You can start with SR60 or SR 80. They are designed to sound good. I love Grado sound.
    • Petrushka72, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Good headphones are expensive, but not all expensive headphones are good.
      Also, what do you mean by expensive? Headphones that could reproduce a discernible difference between a 320 kb/s MP3 and a lossless audio file would cost a few hundred dollars. Even with my Sennheisers I generally find 192 kb/s VBR produces only occasional, barely audible, problems.
      As an addendum, Sennheiser is good but definitely not the best *value* gear out there.
  • DonJohnTom, on 02/19/2008, -13/+6isn't funny how much the meaning of a word can change when it as pedo as a prefix
  • l0k0, on 02/19/2008, -2/+11MediaCoder is better than AudioGrabber. Also, Ardour is a great audio editor, but it's Linux and OSX only.
    • thetanbark, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8Nothing beats EAC, yet they list it last. This list is downright horrible and sounds like a script-kiddie sound-off with no real research into what the best audio apps are.
      • Xerone, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4I agree. Audiograbber is a TERRIBLE program. EAC FTW.
  • TheNewFlesh, on 02/19/2008, -6/+43*Top 10 Free Software for Audiophiles using Windows
    • thetanbark, on 02/19/2008, -2/+12*Top 10 Free Programs for Users who want to pose as Audiophiles
  • shankarganesh, on 02/19/2008, -2/+12@Kriff: i just updated the post to include foobar.
    • booshack, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6Good you now have EAC and foobar in there, now you just want to update the list so that those two are the first in their category - and have a screenshot :)

      Most important is exact audio copy. It is mandatory to include the EAC ripping log on torrent sites for releasing lossless album rips like btmusic.eu. There simply is no other ripper for audiophiles.
    • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Nice, but please reply next time.
  • dangmoss, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3I just want pretty vu meters
    • fatlip, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1is that ***** dangermouse in your avy?!

      oh crumbs!
  • heathengray, on 02/19/2008, -10/+40Failed to include Amarok, Failed at life.

    I don't care if it's only on Nix for now (win port in the works), Amarok is a whole reason to switch OSs
    • KloroFormd, on 02/19/2008, -1/+11I'm agreeing with you. I don't understand why you're being buried for this comment, Amarok is great and is free software for audiophiles. It should have at least been mentioned.
    • reginaldino, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3i don't get why you are being buried. it's not as if you are flamebaiting
    • gmhafiz, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Amarok was the initial reason why I switched OS. Thank you to Amarok developers!
    • bowe, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1What do you like so much about it, wikipedia and lyrics integration? You can get the same thing with songbird and it's cross platform.
      • heathengray, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I liked the unobtrusive players like Winamp, because Windows Media Player is such a pig, resource wise, and the way it acts like a spoilt child, always demanding attention.

        So when I moved to linux, I tried Amarok, and it all came together. It was a like a revolution of a music player for me, having only used a simple play list. The way it sorted music, the album art, the ease of the radio, the fact it would work with my Creative Zen mp3 player without any drivers, and organize the tags on mp3s (individually or by album). The integration with Konqueror was nice, and because of the virtual desktops X provides, a full screen music player is not distracting.

        Songbird looks nice, but from the website it seems to only have a dev version. I'll give it a go when it matures.
  • Jalh, on 02/19/2008, -4/+7i use winamp and i feel happy with it ! because i can manage my ipod and my music library
    • owenkun, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8I use Winamp because I'm functionally retarded. Thank you, Nullsoft, for creating a software program that allows us, the mentally challenged community, to listen to our music via a crappy decoder in a completely non-standard interface.
      • doshindude, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6if you can't understand the winamp interface, then you MUST be retarded.
      • spyrochaete, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Winamp has a great Shoutcast browser though
  • rimco, on 02/19/2008, -2/+56This has nothing to do with being an audiophile... it's just yet another list of apps we've all heard about before a million times... wheee!.....
  • HotDogBun, on 02/19/2008, -26/+41WINAMP!?!?

    Lmao, buried.
  • fusen, on 02/19/2008, -1/+54the title is inaccurate tbh, this isn't a list for audiophiles, it's simply a list for any windows user who wants to cover all aspects of audio playing/ripping/extracting etc. "Top 10 Free Software for Managing Your Music"
    • groovytrance, on 02/19/2008, -2/+13I don't know why you're being dugg down....

      He's absolutely right. He's not saying the apps aren't good, just that the title is inaccurate.
      C'mon... Songbird? It rocks, sure... but it doesn't even have a graphical equalizer... Not really up to "audiophile" standards
      • Teej, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2If your playback system/room is anything half decent you don't need any EQ anyway, unless you want to alter the original sound of the recordings.
    • owenkun, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6It seems like it's moreso "Here's a list of audio programs I found after some Googling that I threw into a list to generate pageviews."
  • spyd3rweb, on 02/19/2008, -12/+26Just say no to Winamp, the equalizer is garbage, foobar2000 is great. And for ripping, the audiophiles use Exact Audio Copy in secure mode.
    • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -4/+11say no to winamp if you are a freakish audiophile - say yes to winamp if you're a normal music listener that wants a program that is far more versatile and customizable than any other music player/library/organizer other there. especially considering it has changed so much over time - the older simpler versions may suit some people more and are still totally viable (oh, and there are equalizer plug ins and output modules that are superior to the built in ones).
      • booshack, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4Read the headline?
        • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10the headline was wrong. the article has nothing to do with audiophiles
      • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2oh, and i only use CDex for ripping, so obviously I'm no ultra audiophile - but I still know the difference between a quality ripped MP3 and some busted ass 128kbps crap that was ripped in JoeBlos Crapware.
        • Robthefrog, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0Cdex is the best. This list is null and void because it doesn't list it.
    • tb0x, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3I would consider myself an audiophile. I also consider winamp to be the best media player on the market right now for the same reasons that you have stated. Who the hell uses a digital equalizer anyways? They're all *****.
      • spyd3rweb, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1True but not all of us can afford all the equipment.
    • Zoplax, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1WinAmp's equalizer is crap, but have you tried it with Ozone or Electri-Q paragraphic EQs??! These are great and configurable as hell.
  • mikenotmike, on 02/19/2008, -6/+9Don't forget pandora.com, commercial free streaming music algorithmically chosen based on preference... I have ungodly amounts of music, but unless I'm in the car, I listen to pandora
    • Ludnix, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Thank you for sharing this! I'm trying it out now and loving it so far!
    • baranica, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5Well you forgot that not all here live in US
  • dvntrsnsltd, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6Dugg for Last.fm.
  • sooch, on 02/19/2008, -15/+9winamp still exists?
  • Hate, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2XMPlay should be included in players list as well.
  • mddawso, on 02/19/2008, -7/+190 percent of audiophiles are legally retarded.

    Google: Nordost Valhalla (Cables, slightly more expensive than monster...)

    Also, google: Silver Rock signature knob ($400 volume knob...)

    Computer hardware will lag greatly behind any decent cd player. I burn everything I listen to rather than use my P.O.S. $150 soundcard.
    • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1they aren't "retarded" - their sense of reality and what is really important is just "differently abled"
    • KloroFormd, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10Guess what your CD was mixed on... yeah... that's right.
    • themono, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8There's a big difference between Audiophile and Tin-Foil Acoustic-Shaping Hat-Wearing audio freak.
  • ericdano, on 02/19/2008, -10/+1Lame. MediaMonkey charges, and no iTunes? That is the best free piece of software out there.
    • theAlice, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8ROFL iTunes
    • adooga, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4itunes has got to be the worst piece of ***** I've ever used to play music on, and there are some pretty ***** players out there. It's like injecting your computer with HIV. Now that winamp looks after my ipod there's absolutely no reason I would ever reinstall itunes.
    • hitokiri808, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2God I hate iTunes...
    • manicmailman, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2as soon as you actually look around... you realize there are so many alternatives out there that are actually better... way better... itunes is god awful....
    • slippiefist, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0"no iTunes"

      lol
  • broodking, on 02/19/2008, -3/+19winamp is great for playing song while playing games as its so light weight compared to WMP10 and itunes
    • aelias, on 02/19/2008, -8/+2Not to get all sucky-sucky with MS, but WMP fires up more or less instantly on my laptop, can rip a CD and find songs in realtime as I type, and uses 10-15% of the memory firefox does. With one window open. How much lighter could you ask for?
      • AeonTorpor, on 02/19/2008, -0/+10I think damn near everything uses less memory than Firefox. Besides, we're talking about audio programs...
  • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1not free but awesome: Abander Tag Control - the most powerful tagging and renaming software around.
  • Sigurdhsson, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6Why is songbird there, it's more bloated than iTunes.... anything running XUL takes up at least 50MB of RAM just from displaying a window.

    And why is MusicBrainz not in there?
  • mCanada, on 02/19/2008, -0/+7Mediamonkey is without a doubt the best jukebox on the market. I have tested every single app (OSS or not) and in terms of handling large databases, handling tags, artwork, plugin support (it works with winamp plugins) MM is absolutely kick ass for managing music. It doesn't get a lot of attention because of it's closed source nature, but if you have a large database of songs, nothing will keep up.
    • Netmindstorm, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Agreed...I just started using MM 3.x and it is the best all around music player/manager I have used to date on either Windows or Linux.
  • joazito, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2MediaCoder Audio Edition - Best audio conversor, period. And free to boot.
    AIMP2 - Nice music player I like.
    MP3Gain - Normalizes mp3 without recompression.
    • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2MP3Gain doesn't normalize a single song, it makes all of your MP3s have the same perceived volume
    • autoatsakiklis, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Dugg for AIMP2
  • SinnerChrono, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3nice, i needed a editor.
    out of topic
    dose anyone know a program to let you set different volume levels for different programs? i loved the feature on vista.
  • Smegzor, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Hmm.. no section on making music.
    Reaper is great for that and although its a windows program, it runs great on linux.
    http://www.reaper.fm
  • Calimero007, on 02/19/2008, -13/+5Where's iTunes? An incredible oversight imo.
    • Calimero007, on 02/19/2008, -6/+5Interesting that I am dugg down for wondering where iTunes was on the list? It may not be open source, but practically speaking for most people it's free enough, and it is decent as an organiser and ripper, and it's probably the most elegant way to sync with your ipod. In practical terms, only hardocre open source zealots complain that it doesn't play OGG and the like. Non-techies tend not to care.
      • manicmailman, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0itunes doesnt work on my comp (launch failure - no error) as of 7.5... if you can solve my problem.. a problem that apple WONT address and the forums CANT solve, then itunes may have a chance... if you cant solve my problem... then i guess itunes cant quite be labelled 'practical'.... although im glad it works for you....
    • owenkun, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7In addition to being a memory hungry application that manages large libraries poorly, has an encoder that consistently gets trounced by free offerings, and offers no means of secure ripping, I'm not surprised you're being dugg down. Hell, I just did a few minutes ago.

      While Vorbis support would be grand, the ire of most of the hardcore crowd is drawn from the fact that iTunes is painfully mediocre at practically everything it does. Not unlike the UNIX toolchain philosophy, there's a multitude of simple, dedicated apps that far eclipse what iTunes can do as one large, bloated app.

      iTunes does a moderately good job of iPod management and podcast support. It's a pig for practically everything else, though.
      • Calimero007, on 02/19/2008, -3/+0I will take your points in order:
        - memory hungry: perhaps, but I never had an issue on my old mac (1.5Gb RAM, usually several programs open, incl. Photoshop which is really memory hungry
        Well, I have 130 gb and more than 21000 music tracks in itunes. It's true that on my 6 year old Powermac it takes a few seconds to start, but I wouldn't say it manages my library poorly. For example, I think (not sure) that it was the first program to disregard a "The" in front of a band name, very handy when sorting. A simple but neat idea.
        - Encoder quality: well yes, perhaps. Some people use LAME with it. I think however that it works well enough, definitely for usage on an Ipod.
        - mediocre at practically everything it does / multitude of small dedicated apps: well here we have to agree that we disagree on what's most important. I think that it uses an elegant all-in-one package, and in my scarce free time I prefer not to tinker with various small utilities (which might give somewhat better results). It's a matter of priorities.
        best regards,
        Calimero
        • tb0x, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1just because you have a lot of memory doesn't mean it's not memory hungry and iTunes was hardly the first program to ignore "The" in front of a band's name
      • Calimero007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0I forgot one remark:
        secure ripping: I have no idea what you refer to? Perhaps an issue with the windows version? On my mac it ripped every cd I gave it.
        • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Secure ripping is a way of ensure that the audio ripped is actually the audio that should be on the CD, nit just being able to rip every CD and hope for the best
    • hitokiri808, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1What about FLAC support? Apple lossless sucks balls. Not to mention how invasive iTunes is on a PC. Takes 3 services just to run the damn thing.
  • retawd, on 02/19/2008, -0/+11No one in comments or the article has mentioned encoders. "Audiophiles" and archivers will defiinitely want some sort of LOSSLESS codec (FLAC/APE/WV/ALAC/...FROG?/) rather than just a LOSSY 320 mp3 or 400 aac. These are just as important as making sure that you use a secure ripper (EAC or dBPoweramp).

    Lastly, just my opinion, but for m4a files EAC+Nero AAC >>>>>>>>>iTunes
    • themono, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You have to have one hell of a setup & some solid music to pick between 400 aac and FLAC.
      But I agree about Nero AAC - it's a phenomenal encoder, as is their H.264 video encoder.
    • owenkun, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1EAC with Nero's AAC encoder is far better. The problem many people run into is the fact that a lot of players are completely braindead when it comes to the Nero AAC encoder's high complexity encoding and other advanced features.
    • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3400AAC vs FLAC, I challenge anyone to tell the difference. (Studio engineers need not apply)
  • shankarganesh, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3doesn't 'audio philes' mean only the people who love to **hear music**
    correct me if i'm wrong! :P
  • jacekpoplawski, on 02/19/2008, -7/+28Audiophiles don't listen to mp3.
    • NanoStuff, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5You're not a true audiophile unless you can discern the difference between expensive speaker wire and the same expensive speaker wire being within a 6 foot radius of cheap speaker wire.

      192 kHz sample rates? ***** that, cassette bitch.
  • ReK42, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4That guy doesn't know anything. He missed the best apps in each and every category he listed, except for Audacity. See my comment for what it should have been.
  • philhoward, on 02/19/2008, -0/+10IHaving EAC as an afterthought is a bit of a joke really.
  • nyls, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2The ideas ran dry when KillerTech Tips got to part IV - Audio Editors. Audacity does what it does extremely well, but it has its limitations. Working with audio in more creative and extended ways requires software that goes beyond waveform editing.
    There is a good list of free recording software on http://www.software4free.org/recording.html
  • glenelg, on 02/19/2008, -3/+10I always thought an audiophile was somebody who spent their time listening to equipment, not music.
    • PahJongg, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I hear you.
    • adooga, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3True dat. Most of the people I've met who I would call audiophiles have these megabuck systems and like 3 CDs, all ***** music too.
    • Calimero007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Oh, I know 2 people who you could call audiophiles if you examine their system. One of them has these fantastic but expensive Quad electrostatic speakers.
      Both of them have a huuuuge music collection, and while they are first and foremost music lovers, they are audiophile in the sense that it must sound really good as well. I don't have an issue with that.
    • slayersotaku, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Absolutely wrong. I consider myself a newbie audiophile compared to my dad who got me into this mindset. He has hundreds of vinyls he spins all the time, with some serious classic gear. As for myself my CD collection is ever growing (200+) cause I just love music. However I want to pump the best quality out of them, even though CDs aren't the best medium for true music representation.
    • betobeto, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3I like the term "music lover" best. "Audiophile" simply reeks of snobbery I'm not interested in being associated with. I've been collecting music for the best part of 20 years - vinyl, CDs, you name it. I listen to pretty much anything out there although I have my choices, like everyone else. And I've been slowly building myself a respectable system, because music has always been a major enjoyment though all my life and want to experience it in the best way possible.
      Software-only solutions as depicted on the link above can only get you so far if you really, really care about sound output from your computer. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and all the software in the world isn't going to help you if you are routing it all through your cheap ass stock PC sound card. There are these things called USB DACs, for example (some even feature vacuum tube preamplifiers if you are into the analog tube sound thing) that improve your computer's sound output by leaps and bounds. Then again, it won't turn ***** MP3s into hyperreal music - getting the best possible, uncompressed source for your music is equally important.
  • MrTea, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2No equalizers?
  • flashback99, on 02/19/2008, -0/+10Welcome to the 90's!
  • adooga, on 02/19/2008, -7/+5These days it's just about all in Winamp. And anything Winamp doesn't play, VLC does.
  • owenkun, on 02/19/2008, -2/+12This list is straight-up terrible. Real 'audiophiles' (and they'd probably be loath to call themselves that anyway), wouldn't be caught dead using a program like Winamp, a program whose decoding engine has been decried for years now. Granted, with Winamp 5 its significantly better, but it still lacks adequate dithering support and the ability to use higher resampling rates.

    Classifying foobar2000 as tagging software? Shameful.

    While I know that they mention the powerful duo of EAC and foobar, they're only mentioned in passing due to their being contributions by readers. For people that want accurate, scientifically deduced information, head on over to HydrogenAudio and prepare to do some reading.
    • Calimero007, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Hydrogenaudio.org : thanks for mentioning it, I didn't knowthat forum. It may come in handy.
  • hniu, on 02/19/2008, -1/+19List has nothing to do with audiophiles.

    Failed to mention:
    - 1by1 (great 100k audio player)
    - foobar2000
    - mediaplayer classic
    - dbpoweramp

    Lame and inaccurate descriptions. Buried.
    • owenkun, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5foobar gets mentioned, but only in passing. Apparently someone called them on it and they added it after the fact.

      I'm completely in agreement with your other comments though. This article blows.
  • DwightSchruter, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6foobar is THE best music player....this article sucks
  • doshindude, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3buried for not mentioning mp3gain or mediacoder.
  • lysdexia, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1https://www.beatport.com/en-US/html/content/home/d ...

    Superb freebie collab with Native Instruments
  • souLLy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+14No Foobar and no EAC... hardly an audiophile's list.
    • sgoogle, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Both are mentioned
      • maexus, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Not in the original list, they were just edited in as missed items.
  • chuckles08, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3this was a piss poor list.. coming from an audiophile
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.