WinAmp 5.0

[jeremymacmull]

I just downloaded the free version of winamp 5.0 the 4 mb one

just a quick question why did they skip a version anyone know ? also is it worth it so far the cpu usage compared to 2.91 seem to be way up like 30% on my p3 850 compared to 2% on 2.91

anyone used it and have any comments as to whether it is worth the upgrade

ALSO it has AAC encoding any comments on that ie what the quality compares to (neros aac encoder etc ) and whether aac is trying to be the new mp3
JEREMY

[KpeX]

The version number convention was derived from the fact that Nullsoft attempted to combine the best assets of the popular Winamp 2.x and the failed winamp 3 (3+2=5).

I recall hearing that the AAC encoder was based off a Dolby implementation, regarding quality I haven't heard any results but I doubt it has any serious advantages over Nero/Psytel/QT. The encoder is LC only AFAIK.

CPU usage on my machine is almost identical to Winamp 2, are you sure no settings were changed or additional features in use?

Personally, I definitely recommend upgrading from Winamp 2.x. WA 5 features a full media library with statistics and ratings, support for 2.x and 3.x plugins and skins, and a very aesthetically pleasing new modern skin, all without getting bloated. I see no reason to use it for tagging/ripping/video playback, but as far as audio playback goes I highly recommend it.

About AAC vs. MP3 - AAC is part of the MPEG-4 format and is a more advanced format than MP3. AAC encoders, many of which are still in early stages of development, can be much more efficient than MP3 encoders, with the LC profile for high bitrates and HE (SBR) for low bitrates. Combine that with likely industry support and AAC is bound to be here for a while.

[jeremymacmull]

after using winamp 5.0 now for a few hours i think i know where the cpu usage thing comes into it

if i have the classic skin on AND NOT the modern one it uses the same amount of processor as before (2%) while if i use the new modern one it uses a shed load more ie 30% odd so i think ill stick to the classic skin !!

as far as improvements in usability i have not actually managed to get the internet radio to work in the new version while it was working fine in the old version but ill fiddle for a bit longer to see

im behind a router as we share a 600k line in my house (student) so any settings that need changing pls let me know including router settings etc (although the old version 2.91 did not need any settings changed to work)

JEREMY

EDIT it works now very strange and i did not touch a thing maybe it was my ISP NTL in the uk which messed up

JEREMY

[dimitrius]

ehm, what's up with the $14.95 for pro version :rolleyes:

I just stoped going to winamp site a few months ago - everything was free and now you gota pay for some silly mp3 encoder?

Do they still charge for using that old codec? :eek:

[mf]

On XP I used winamp5 with modern skin, but for some reason font rendering is borked in win2k3 causing winamp5 to crash whenever I select a modern skin. So I'm back to winamp2 for now, as 5 using classic skins has no real advantages over 2. Plus, my irssi now playing script doesn't seem to work with 5 :D.

[Tuning]

Originally posted by dimitrius
ehm, what's up with the $14.95 for pro version :rolleyes:

I just stoped going to winamp site a few months ago - everything was free and now you gota pay for some silly mp3 encoder?

Do they still charge for using that old codec? :eek:
Funny thing is that they allow free usage of AAC encoder.But for mp3, you have to be pro. The pro vesion has only this "spectacular" ability which can easily be done with BeSweet/Bsn.(IMHO, quality is high with besweet.)

[jeremymacmull]

Im sticking with 5.0 as if i use the classic skin (s) then it uses the same amount of processor so no diff there from 2.91 but in 5.0 the library system has been sorted out in 2.91 it used to crash often on me and in 5.0 there are new visualisations which are cool

JEREMY

[Latexxx]

Winamp has nothing to offer except its appearence. Foobar2000 is better while it has the features I need and it doesn't eat all the resources of my P3-500. The best feature of Foobar2000 is its ability to resample the audio to 48 kHz for my crappy SbLive.

[jeremymacmull]

I dont know about that to be fair

ive been very happy with winamp for many years as it only uses 2% of my p3 850 and plays like every format known to man.

plus it was one of the first players to natively support ogg so i was quite happy with it.

i hope winamp learn their lessons of the failed winamp 3 and dont repeat them in 5.x cos 2.9x was close to perfect simple and efficient while 3.0 was unusable and slow plus used loads of processor doing nothing

JEREMY