Which player do you use, MM, winamp or other?

abrazor · Post by **abrazor** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:14 am

At the moment I use MM to play my music, but in the beginning I used winamp. What do you use? Why? What do you think are the benefits of using winamp or using MM as the player?

I tried to use Jet audio, as it can also broadcast music and has many other features too, but I couldn't get it to work as MM looks for winamp. Anyone have similar experiences?

trixmoto · Post by **trixmoto** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:25 am

I used to use Winamp, until my library got too big and Winamp couldn't handle it. Now I use MM. I prefer to to use the built in player because I think it makes it easier if you have all your music handled by a single program - less room for bugs to occur when programs handle things differently. MM is the only such player I have found that can do everything I want, and still the developers are finding more for it to do!

Steegy · Post by **Steegy** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:20 pm

Hello

I used to use winamp as player for MM. Now, I use the internal player because it can handle tag changes of the currently playing file, and there are some other benifits such as better "now playing" list synchronisation,...

For all songs not in the library (I mean, songs just to test and so) I use Winamp 2.95 (because of it's so "light").

Cheers
Steegy

Post by **Peke** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:30 pm

As from two+ years ago MM only.

jojolifa · Post by **jojolifa** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:43 pm

the problem is MM isn't supporting it properly...which is disappoiting...

pah68 · Post by **pah68** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:50 pm

I used to use winamp as the MM player, but prefer the simplicity of using the builtin player now.

Al_G · Post by **Al_G** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:21 am

pah68 wrote:I used to use winamp as the MM player, but prefer the simplicity of using the builtin player now.

Ditto,

The built-in player also is really light on system resources, usually <2%. No matter what CPU demands my other programs require, the music is never interrupted. This wasn't the case with the previous two programs I used.

abrazor · Post by **abrazor** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:42 am

Thanks everybody, it echoes why I chose to stop using winamp as the player and just use the inbuilt player - simpler! It would be good if it could be separated from the main window and used as a mini player, but whatever ... i am satisfied.

judas · Post by **judas** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:11 am

I also use the builtin player...could be improved (as everything), but as it is now I'm really Ok with it.

trinalin · Post by **trinalin** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:37 pm

I use QCD. I fell in love with that program back when it was only a CD player and was thrilled to discover many years later that it was a great MP3 player. Alas, it sucks for encoding.

jc836 · Post by **jc836** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:56 pm

I am in the process of switching to Media Monkey. WHY-because it is both free and reasonably priced for the upgrade. Not only that, it can be modified to run various plug-ins from other sources. It is a worthy and easy to understand archiving program as well. There is only one other archiving program that I have used and it is not as feature-rich (Audio Librarian).
Where am I coming from? MusicMatch, now owned by Yahoo and essentially unsupported. I will not install the curent edition of WinAmp as it is owned by AOL.These 2 captive programs are trying very hard to take over ones listening and that is not what I want. I rarely use the feature set in WMP 10 as it does not do everything I need. There are other programs out there that I use from time to time for professional needs-but they are not as flexible for general use as MM is.

To the author(s)-keep this going. It works just fine!

abrazor · Post by **abrazor** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:29 pm

Trinalin,

I checked out the Quintessential player. It has some great features for manipulating the playlist, however I found that when used in conjuction with Mediamonkey it is pretty slow because of the memory demands. For this one reason alone, using MM's built-in player makes sense. I just wish there were more skins available for the WHOLE interface, not just the player. How can we get all those people who are pumping out skins weekly for winamp to realise that the lama died and was possessed by an evil spirit called "The AOL ghost", so that they'll come across to the paradise of MM???

psyXonova · Post by **psyXonova** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:03 am

I use MM player. Its like using winamp 2.xx with a lot more features (main being library management).
Winamp 5.xx? biah....

Music Match?? scary.....

Itunes??? Lol

There is only a couple of things that i dont like with MM player:
1) Not being able to show as a standalone window, with winamp like features (always on top, varying size, collapse to title bar etc)
2) Its equalizer.... well i dont like it, it compresses sound in an aggressive way (but there are a lot of DSP plugins out there that do the job right for me)

As for skinning, i would also like a fully skinable MM, but who knows, maybe this will implemented after all...

trixmoto · Post by **trixmoto** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:42 am

What do you mean, " a fully skinable MM" - what can't you skin?

Yeah, you can collapse the to it's titlebar, but when you minimise MM it disappears which is a bit annoying.

psyXonova · Post by **psyXonova** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:00 am

You are right, i meant a fully skinable MM using winamp's classic skins...

Which player do you use, MM, winamp or other?

Which player do you use, MM, winamp or other?

I use jetaudio - probably the best player

Player