2. pc-audio
  3. 1228287975

Foobar 2000 or MediaMonkey v.3?

My PC runs Windows XP 2000 w/ Service Pack 3. My music library, so far, contains tracks dowloaded from Amazon.com. My audio player is WMP.

Audio out is via Behringer U-Control (dedicated USB cable, 16/48 DAC); RCA's from Behringer to Parasound pre (analog inputs only, no internal DAC) to NAD amp. I will soon upgrade from the Behringer to an Edirol UA-1 EX (24/96). I'd love to get something like a used Bel Canto DAC, but do not have the bucks.

I'm wondering if Foobar 2000 or Media Monkey will afford better sound than the WMP. I don't care about all the bells and whistles - just the sound. If yes, which is better - Foobar or Media Monkey? Where does J River fit in?

If I download one of these, should I also get ASIO and/or Kernel Streaming?

Thank you. Mike19
mmarvin19

Showing 2 responses by nnyc

nnyc
28 posts
 
Er, that was supposed to be MediaMonkey vs. MediaCenter 13 vs. Foobar. My order of preference for sound is:

1. Foobar
2. Mediacenter
3. MediaMonkey

My order of preference for UI is:

1. MediaMonkey
2. MediaCenter
3. Foobar
nnyc
28 posts
 
I recently compared MediaMonkey MediaCenter 13 vs. Foobar 0.9.6 both with ASIO output and found MediaMonkey less clear, with a more muddled sound, particularly in the mid range, and considerably less dynamic range. MediaMonkey is also fat in the low end to the point of being inaccurate. I compare all these to my regular stereo setup (meridian, mccormack, martin logan) for accuracy.

Foobar has always been my app to beat as far as sound quality, though it is considerably less user friendly. columns_ui helps. I'd love to hear of any real competitors...
More to discover