Qcd vs winamp...

[philipptr]

So its been some time since i left qcd...
For all the ones who dont know me im a skinner who turned to qcd cause of the freerorm-ability and the speed...
So that were my reasons to turn to qcd and some weeks ago that wore the reasons why i turned back to winamp...

Today i wanna make a test for me personaly(winamp 5beta2 against qcd 4.1)... and i thought maybe you wanna know about my results...

1.audio
2.skins
3.speed and other features

1.audio

This is one of the biggest arguments for qcd. I dont care that much about it because if i really wanna enjoy music i shut down the pc and listen to it on

cd...
But anyways im going to test it because i really wann know know if im able to hear a difference (i know that i havent got the best ears ;) )
Im gonna test with some tracks i listen to everyday and how im listening to them everyday( i only deactivate eq and dsp)

The first track and yaa! i heard a difference! a rap-track with only rap and piano( curse - und was ist jetzt)... the spech is finer in qcd while the piano

sounds a little bit flater in qcd... the difference isnt very big,
So get over to the next track...

My overall favourite track (seeed - release). Pressing play in qcd "S tripple E D - SEEED" :D the sound is very very clear (even the last hats in the

background are 100% clear) So i start listening it in winamp... and again i try to focus on the hats in the background, but this time they arent all 100%

clear... later when the singing comes i think to able to hear another difference...its a bit flater than in winamp...

I was listening to some other songs but i didnt realize any other major differences...

9 points for qcd
and ... mmmmhh ... 7 for winamp

2.skins

as im a skinner myself i think this will be easier to decide...

The base skin - NO! i may be the onlyone but i really dont like the base skin of qcd... i think something more simple would be much better as base skin...

(like the winamp base skin)... but hey there is a changing option so lets download some skins...

QCD

Beta Maxx2
GVB
JASG e.c.k.o.

(i took the skins pretty randomly)

Beta Maxx2

wow thats a great skin! clean interface, soft fades and nice colours...
Especially the eq showes whats possible in qcd custom visualistions and interface changing...
Yep this is definatly one of the best skins for qcd
Its even hard to leave the cool blue and go to the next skin
This skin has style!
3 points

GVB

Its a bit hard to find the right (hidden) buttons and somhow i cant see the track time...
the glass buttons are very cool...
the rest of the design is cool but not spectacular, but i think that is what the author wanted...
2 points

Jags e.c.k.o

1. I have to say that this is the first skin from Jorge A. Saldaña
This skin is overall pretty cool
I especially like the card-idea for the volume thing :D
but for usin it all the time its too big and if you look at skins like mmd the design could be even a bit better...
1 point (for a first skin this is awesome)

Qcd 6 points
winamp 9 points ( look at skins like energamp or mmd to understand it)

3.speed and other features
Qcd is damn fast for freeform skins even if it cant beat the look and feel of the ol winamp2 skins.
Its still faster then winamp 5 wint a winamp 3 skin( but i must say that winamp 3 skins are much more complex)

Winamp 2skins are faster but not as complex as qcd skins and winamp 3 skins are more complex but slower than qcd skins...

qcd 7
winamp 8 (because you can choose everytime)...





OVERALL

Qcd 22
Winamp 24

So for me personal winamp is a bit better because i really care about the look and feel...
Please dont kill me for my opinion...
I will still use winamp as default player and dont think that i will skin qcd in near future...

[#The fREaK!]

There are some things that you didnt compare that I think are important:

Stability: Winamp crashes alot more than QCD when using multiple DSPs. The stability was the thing that made me look for another player than Winamp in the first place, then I have been sticking with QCD. Winamp is not so instable when not using DSPs, but QCD is far superior. However, Adapt-X makes both crash.

QCD: 8
Winamp: 5

Plugins:

Input: Both players have the MAD and Shibatch MP3 decoders, and decoders for alot of formats.
However Winamp supports more formats.

DSP: The same. Except that QCD have an inbuildt stacker that is much less buggy than the ones in form of DSP plugins, (I havent encountered a single bug yet) and therefore have better DSP support.

Output: There are more plugins for winamp, but most of them are encoders. QCD and Winamp basically has the same stuff for ouput to soundcard. So... Quite equal.

Encoder: Winamp uses output plugins for encoding. QCD special encoder plugins, and a superior encoding system. You wont have to switch output plugins all the time...

Visual: Winamp has more, and nicer visuals. However, QCDs visualations requires much less CPU power.
QCD can however use Sonique visualations through an adaptor plugin.

General: Winamp has alot more General plugins, and can do more stuff.

So... QCD 6+9+7+7+8+4\6= ~7
and Winamp 8+7+7+5+6+5\6= ~6

Results:

QCD 22+15= 37
Winamp 24+6= 30

[chicubs]

Freak, it was a test for HIM personally. It was the main three categories for HIM.

[philipptr]

i was using dee1.2 (2.0 is even worse) a long time ago but i stoped using dsps cause i like the original sound better.... i dont want "ultra suround" and such... i just want clearsound no 3kilometre-hall echos...
btw i had no problems with dee1.2 ...

visuals:
i only use avs as plug-in which doesnt cost many ressources..

so the things you said arent that important for me...

everyone has to do the decisioin of his/her fav player on his/her own

[drewkeller]

i don't see why anyone shouldn't be able to post their own scoring system and review here. it's not likely to convince someone who's already decided, but it's interesting to read the results and see what people think is most important.

[Orange]

I agree that anyone should be able to post their opinions in here. It doesn't change my mind at all because the KEY subject of media players to me is 'usability and functionality'. Just 2 things off the top of my head that puts QCD in the lead are: 1) Quicktrack. This thing is the bomb. If your Tags are all correct and you have it set up properly Quicktrack just can't be beat. It's probably my single favorite thing about QCD. 2) The ability to list Album names in your playlists. It seems like a pretty common sense move to me. Why Winamp doesn't allow this I'll never know.

Those are just the first two that popped in my head. I could go on and on, but that's not what this is about.

To me it's all about listening to --and navigating through-- tons of music.

[Young Twig]

The only reason Winamp has better skins is because it has a bigger user base. Also, you didn't pick the Winamp skins randomly, did you? Try looking at some of the cool skins like 989... ;)

About GVB: The idea behind the hidden buttons is the original skin. The SysMEtrix skin was very nice and clean. GVB was originally a sysmetrix extrension, so, I hid the buttons to keep it clean. Also, I don't know which version you saw... the [ beta ] version didn't have a track time. The new version obviously does.

[Matt]

so let me see if I got this straight.....

QCD sounds better.. and does freeform skins faster... but has sucky skins (not my opinion) .. so you're going to use winamp?

seems like the solution to this problem is to make good looking skins for qcd. The result: better sounding music, fast freeform skins that also happen to look dead sexy.

hmmm...

my recommendations: flex your skin talent and make a skin for qcd that would make you use it. Lets bring that skins rating you gave QCD go up 3 notches.. (6+3 = 9 ... result: qcd = 25 winamp = 24)

unfortunately those 3 notches are out of paul and I's control.. its up to people like you (speaking to all) to submit great skin art.

my thoughts: I think QCD has a great variety of skins made by great skinners! The base skin may not appeal to all, but its primary function is to display all of what QCD has to offer.

[chicubs]

Winamp's skinning engine is superior in features compared to winamp 5 and offers more freedom to skinners, thats why I think he likes it. edges look nasty.

[MrZebra]

I looked at the docs for WinAmp's Skinning (The Freeform ones in WA3) and boy is this thing complicated. It's all XML Based! QCD is a lot simpler, just 2 bitmaps, one for the actual image, and one with color-coded regions for each button.

A few INI files and that's it.

I don't know what WinAmp's skinning offers more that's actually useful...

As for the default skin (QCD), I'm fine with it. I just wish the alpha plug-in would affect the external vis window and that would work on WinME so that I wouldn't have to settle for the Runt Mode at work. Speaking of which, an in-between mode that's say twice the height to contain the Artist/Album and Track Title on 2 lines and the timer and Bitrate next to it would be perfect for me.

Other than that, I have no point to use WinAmp anymore.

[Matt]

Winamp's skinning engine is superior in features compared to winamp 5 and offers more freedom to skinners, thats why I think he likes it. edges look nasty.

do you mean QCD not Winamp 5? I'm confused.

He can like whatever player he wants to like, I'm cool with that. My point is that QCD skin quality is up to the skinners not paul and I.... therefore if skinners/users want to see better skins for QCD, its up to them to create one.

Paul and I love to see people create wicked skins for QCD and we are constantly working on ways to make the skinning system better. But we are both not willing to sacrifice QCD memory use and speed for "fancy" features that are only used by a small percentage of users.

[ace2701]

Way to go Matt!

I only wish I could program and skin like the younger guys and gals here. :) I mean it's not so much the ability to construct a skin, but it's the origional idea of what the result will be that really counts. Imagination is the reason so many QCD skins are as beautiful as they are.

[Hanzo]

QCD is so much better in many aspects that this scoring has no point in my opinion. But hey, everyone is welcome to post their opinions so here comes mine.

QCD skinning is far superior and allows as many features as the skinner wants to allow.
QCD's sound quality (for my untrained ears) is much better.
QCD is a one man's effort (Mr. Paul) while Winamp has a bunch of people that put together cannot match QCD.
QCD's features are less buggy, the program is more efficient and has no spyware or any other "companion" as for that matter.

[philipptr]

"but has sucky skins (not my opinion) ..?" - matt

not thats not what i said :(
i dont think that the skins suck...
i took 3 skins which were pretty high in the list of polularity i think...
the highest rating i gave were 3 points... i gave 9 points for winamp because i know more than 10 skins for it which i would give 3 points...

[philipptr]

Try looking at some of the cool skins like 989...
Thanks :D but i dont think that i have to tell you that it wouldnt be fair, do i?

[chicubs]

do you mean QCD not Winamp 5? I'm confused.

He can like whatever player he wants to like, I'm cool with that. My point is that QCD skin quality is up to the skinners not paul and I.... therefore if skinners/users want to see better skins for QCD, its up to them to create one.

Paul and I love to see people create wicked skins for QCD and we are constantly working on ways to make the skinning system better. But we are both not willing to sacrifice QCD memory use and speed for "fancy" features that are only used by a small percentage of users.

yah I ment qcd, sorry. This is not directed at matt, but you guys have to realize that winamp 5's skinning engine is superior, of course, not easier but obviously something with so many more features, its going to be more complicated. Its not just alpha blending/anti alised, ml alllows numerous animations, 100s of easy to make color schemes that dont require making a whole new skin like da qcd.

Also, new features that winamp has wil not bog down memory these days because computers are so freakin cheap that everyone should be able to run winamp 5 with no noticeable slow downs. QCD shoudnt stay down with the the people have outdated crappy computers..

Despite this, I think Paul and Matt have done a great job with the skinning engine and player. Nothing matches the ease of skinning qcd and the minimal resource use,, but I think its time for some major changes to go along with the new technology available.

[Young Twig]

100s of easy to make color schemes that dont require making a whole new skin like da qcd.

How is this? I mean, I realize it is there, but I never looked into skinning winamp3.

[chicubs]

its hard to explain, but its really just a matter of changing settings.

[Young Twig]

its hard to explain, but its really just a matter of changing settings.
Yeah... sounds cool as you explain it... :rolleyes:

:D :D :D

[chicubs]

I do read the winamp's skinning forum so I do actually no basically how it works, its just Im too lazy to explain it.

[Young Twig]

I do read the winamp's skinning forum so I do actually no basically how it works, its just Im too lazy to explain it.
It's okay. :)

[Roj]

Only one thing matters to me - the sound.

In that department, Winamp5 still blows chunks compared to QCD.

End of line.