- 21st February 2014, 01:10 #1
Is VLC Better Than Windows Media Player?
Are my old ears deceiving me or does VLC media player actually sound better than Windows Media Player?I
- 21st February 2014, 13:12 #2
I'm pretty sure it is your brain wanting your ears to hear better sound. If this were analog, you might be right. But being digital and going through the same hardware, it is just wishful thinking.
There are certainly big differences in features, format support capability, and ease of use. But the bottom line is if both players support the same file format, the end results running through the same sound card and speakers is the same.
- 23rd February 2014, 13:50 #3
Well, you're right and I feel stupid. Nevertheless, I think VLC has more options to fine-tune the sound so that it does somehow seem to sound better. Thanks.
- 24th February 2014, 13:15 #4Well, you're right and I feel stupid. Nevertheless, I think VLC has more options to fine-tune the sound so that it does somehow seem to sound better.
"Seems" to sound better is the key there.
To be sure, audio reproduction hardware has been my first love as an electronics technician since many years ago, and "faithful reproduction" of the "original" recording is always the primary goal.
There are all sorts of equalization, filtration and noise-reduction techniques to "reshape" the sound so it "seems" to sound better to you! But that does NOT mean or suggest the end-result is the accurate reproduction of the original sound as it was recorded, or intended to be heard.
I would argue the better system does not "seem" to do anything, except, perhaps, amplify the sound levels. It simply accurately reproduces the audio waveform. That's "high fidelity".
Manipulating the sound from the original to make it "seem" better to "you" is like photoshopping a photo to make the pretty girl look skinnier, more "shapely", rounder eyes, or blemish free. The resulting image is no longer a "faithful reproduction of the original".
The main advantage to VLC that I can see is it supports many more codecs and file formats. But the reality is, most users just don't need vast support for such a variety of formats to listen to their music or videos. Plus a quick search with Bing Google shows that VLC, while flexible and offers more "options" to "manipulate" the sound, is also plagued with bugs, and has a steeper learning curve.
- 24th February 2014, 13:28 #5
Boy, now I REALLY feel stupid! Well, yes, if I open the "advanced" tab it's pretty intimidating so I stick to the simple stuff. I wasn't aware of the bugs, however. Can it make a computer slower to boot or other problems? I'm having those kinds of issues. I had always been told VLC was tops. Windows Media Player on 8.1 doesn't support video, so I also thought I should use VLC for that as well. Any advice? Thanks for your patience.
- 26th February 2014, 11:31 #6
VLC is my media player of choice, as I find it to be more versatile.
- 26th February 2014, 14:44 #7
I have no intention of making anyone feel "stupid". Stupidity does not reflect a lack of knowledge, but how you use it.
Can it make a computer slower to boot or other problems?
Here's an interesting read: What Does It Take To Turn The PC Into A Hi-Fi Audio Platform?. Note the comment about a $2 digital to analog converter sounding as good during "blind" listening tests as $2000 converter.
Windows Media Player on 8.1 doesn't support video