Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder? (Read 4428 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

For me at least, there seem to be a couple of WinAmp settings that affect playback quality.  I always just assumed that WinAmp decoded MP3s perfectly at the default settings and plug-ins used and that there was no reason to alter any settings or replace the standard input or output plug-ins.  But now I'm not so sure that is the case.

The first setting I wonder about is the configuration of "wavOUT output v2.0.1"  (the standard wav out plug-in that always comes in to play no matter what format you are playing, right?)  Anyway, on my system I have two choices for 'device' under this plug-in's settings:

1. 'Santa Cruz ™' since I have a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz sound card.

2. Microsoft Sound Mapper

Now this setting doesn't seem to take effect until I restart WinAmp, but once I do the sound is noticeably different!  I can't say certainly that one is better than the other but there is a definite different between the two choices.


The other plug-in I wonder about, (this time under input plug-ins) is the Nullsoft MPEG Audio Decoder (v 2.81 for me)  I guess this is the standard input plug-in that WinAmp uses to play all MP3 files... I only wonder about this plug-in and its settings because some MP3 players sound different from others.  For instance, it seems to me that Foobar sounds slightly different than Winamp.


Basically the bottom line I'm curious about is, are there MP3 players that decode MP3's better than WinAmp?  And If one is going to use WinAmp are there better input or output plug-ins than the standard ones supplied with the player?

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #1 –
An mp3 decoder test has shown the MP3 decoder with Winamp 2.81 to decode almost all mp3's with great accuraccy: better than most decoders. Whether that means it sounds better or not is a matter of preference.  (See: http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/ for the test).

As for the output plugin settings, the results of these are largely dependant on your sound card and driver setup. My instict tells me that setting the device to the Santa Cruz specifically should result in better quality if there is a difference (probably because the word 'Microsoft' make be flinch), but the fact that there is a difference at all is most odd. Try playing around with the foobar 2000 outputs. See which wave device sounds most similar to kernel streaming: this may be the best one to use in winamp.

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #2 –
The Microsoft Wave Mapper device is just an alias for the default device selected in the multimedia settings in the control panel. It's useful for systems with more than one sound card. If your system only has one sound card, then there shouldn't be any difference between "Microsoft Wave Mapper" and "Santa Cruz."

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #3 –
So MAD is no longer the best mp3 decoder for winamp?

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #4 –
there is very little difference between MAD and the Nullsoft decoder.  afaik no one has ever abx'ed the difference.  MAD is glitchier for streaming audio, and doesn't support id3v2 tags, if any of that makes it 'worse'.

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #5 –
Just to add to the info above, if those differences mean anything to you, by all means, stick with the 2.81 decoder. Otherwise, MAD isn't much of a difference.

However, you will hear a difference in the new Foobar2000 player created by Peter, the creator of many of the Winamp input and output plugins. I definitely think it sounds better than both MAD and the 2.81 decoder, thanks to not only the Foobar decoder but its various optimizations, 32 bit soundcard pipelining and kernel streaming output.

Give it a shot, but don't expect a Winamp clone with skins, visualizations, etc. Wait a while for it to mature to get some more advanced elements. However, its upcoming version 0.5 has a ton of features that address sonic perfection and cataloging rather than visual treats.

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #6 –
I believe that the only difference in Win9x systems, with all DSP's disabled, between the output of Nullsoft decoder, MAD and Foobar should be the use of dither or not. In Win 2K and XP there's a possibility that the ks output has some slight sonic advantages over directsound in some cards, but in my limited experience I've not been able to find a case where this could be verified.

No decoder that doesn't use dither can sound better than Nullsoft decoder. And I think that no decoder that uses dither can sound better than MAD. If Foobar2000 (that uses dither) sounds different to you could be due to having the hard limiter enabled, some DSP enabled, something wrong with Foobar (not likely I'd say), or just your imagination.

And since the use or not of dither is really hard to notice, there should be almost no differences between all the 3.

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #7 –
a very helpful setting in nullsoft mpeg in, you want to disable fast l3 eq
http://hmbmk.com/images/WinampFastL3EQ.gif

makes a world of difference...  you'll also notice that winamp's eq overrides some kind of "mp3 eq" it has.    try it, set the eq flat, and switch it on and off...    changes.  now do the same thing with a wav, doesnt change.    =)  for best output, dont use the winamp eq either, use supereq if you need to...   

hope that helps

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Just to add to the info above, if those differences mean anything to you, by all means, stick with the 2.81 decoder. Otherwise, MAD isn't much of a difference.

to add to that again ...

You should also be aware that the MAD plug-in has an ability to attenuate it's output when clipping is detected. This can make an audible difference.
I think that feature is quite handy when playing not properly mp3gained files. My preference is to set it less sensitive than the default, so it will attenuate in smaller steps, less jumps.

2 cents added 
--
Ge Someone
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']edit: smiley[/span]
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
 

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #9 –
thanks for the voice of reason KikeG.  imo the placebo effect of foobar is pretty strong  as well as kernel streaming (can't hear any difference whatsoever on win2k between ks and ds).

However, I take back some of by earlier skepticism of foobar based on the new 50 beta version.  album list is awesome, as is the mass tagger.  diskwriter is also helpful.

Does everyone use the standard NullSoft decoder?

Reply #10 –
A few differences I've noticed between MAD and Nullsoft MP3 decoder (besides the inaudible-to-me dithering and auto-clipping attenuation):

1. MAD seems to allow if() statements in its tag display panel, and Nullsoft doesn't. But I can't get MAD's if()'s to work, so I guess this is a moot point.

2. MAD takes a long time to show the average bitrate of large MP3's in the file properties panel, while Nullsoft will show you immediately.

3. Nullsoft will load and display ID3v2 tags, so you can easily move them to ID3v1 and delete the v2's quickly 

For me, choosing between MAD and Nullsoft is purely a feature-based decision, since they both sound equally good to my ears.