Poll: iTunes or MediaPlayer?

[Colin]

?<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

[Colin]

mmm, didn't provide option for choices, but hell, at least I voted!!

[toddvj]

What the heck, I voted, too.

I think iTunes has better sound quality. Don't ask me why. The few times that I listen to music on the computer, though, I usually use WMP because it's easier, and doesn't take forever to load. iTunes takes about 30-40 seconds to open, WMP is almost instant.

edit: Oops, I guess I misunderstood the question. You are asking which does a better job with ripping, I was talking about playback on my existing files. I didn't use either to rip my library. I used EAC/LAME.

[tc3sean]

Niether, Foobar2000 special edition with resampler on will kill both, and runs alot cleaner, cleaner interface.

[Jay481985]

I am very old school, I like winamp. 2.93 or 5.whatever the newest. They use minimal memory 8 megs if that, it doesn't take the whole screen, also you can change the codecs which drastically changes the quality (better)

[CAS]

I am very old school, I like winamp. 2.93 or 5.whatever the newest. They use minimal memory 8 megs if that, it doesn't take the whole screen, also you can change the codecs which drastically changes the quality (better)

I used winamp in the 90's and loved it. I think now I'm partial to itunes since it's really easy to change the metadata and the signal (virtual, that is) seems to sound like more of a line level to the card. Don't ask me to explain that, it's purely qualitative.

[Jay481985]

To me iTunes is very "V" eed to me. High and lows are boosted. iTunes is defintely not flat at all

[Gospel]

To me, there is little difference in sound quality between iTunes and WMP. But, I think iTunes is *very much* easier to use than WMP. I started using iTunes six months before I bought an 60GB iPod Photo. I tried MusicMatch but I found it too complicated witha all of its docking panels. I don't care for Creative's MediaSource. And I only use RealOne for to play Real media content. I do use WMP for video because Quicktime doesn't seem to use Video overlay which my video card Matrox Parhelia) uses to maximize video on my secondary monitor.

Enjoy life!

Steven

[el jopez]

Indeed, Winamp for life. No player has captured the ease and excitement of use as well as Winamp has. Grant it the Nullsoft/AOL crew created garbage with vr. 3, however 5 is as close to perfect as most people need. Great player, great look and feel and a gigantic library of plugins for just about anything you could ever want; what more do ya need?

[Colin]

I sure like the ease of use of iTunes, but the compression has me begging for more volume and/or dynamics. I am loading an 80GB drive with WMP now so I can bring it to work.[:@]

[el jopez]

ewww music and compression... its like making water and vinegar mix. It dont work.

I will admit that itunes has a GREAT user interface for playing and storing your media in one easy hand layout where as WMP is like a labrynth of clicks and drop down menus to daze and confuse the faint of heart.

[ranjith]

Winamp rules, there are TONS of codecs to improve/worsen the sound, depending on what you do with them. Lots of cool skins, very neat player no extra whistles and bells that are not needed. I like it.

[Guest " "]

Itunes can be rigged up to use the media player directory and itunes can use mp3 format...so you could run both depending on your device...in my case...I have an ipod and a portable wince media player.

size is a matter of setting the bit rate during the ripping process to get you cd's into your PC...the higher the bit rate bigger the file), the closer to original the sound would be (192 sound better than 64)

most media player devices allow the option to transfer from your PC to your media device at a lower bit rate ( a cd that was ripped at 192 can into your PC, can be transefred from your PC to the media device at 64 for example).