Reviews of Winamp 5 Lite

1. 
   FatBastard

   Reviewing 5.63 Build 3235 (Jul 3, 2012)

   I love winamp. I've been using it for more than a decade now.
2. 
   roj

   Reviewing 5.63 Build 3234 (Jun 21, 2012)

   Old, outdated, way past its "Best Before " date.
   
   If you really don't care about what your music sounds like (which is the vast majority of users - I get that) then this is for you.
   
   If you do care, there's Foobar2000, XMPlay and AIMP - all are well designed and coded, more full-featured regarding audio quality and MUCH lighter.
   
   Also they don't feature crapware.
   
   @Music4Ever:
   
   Now i understand your nym, given your setup. On Linux give DeadbeeF a try. I did Audacious and it was OK until I tried DeadbeeF. IMNSHO, that's Foobar on Linux.
   
   TWO stars for mediocrity at its finest.
3. 
   Music4Ever

   Reviewing 5.63 Build 3234 (Jun 21, 2012)

   There is a fairly large difference between players based on sound quality alone: I use an good separate outboard DAC with a decent amplifier & speakers with reasonable quality interconnects & AIMP beats Winamp into the weeds no contest.
   
   I use .flac encoded music some of the time now & AIMP plays that great ~ If you are using a built in sound chip & or cheap sound card & or plastic speakers you probably wont notice the difference but also wont know what's on the audio you play either ~
   
   AIMP does not have any associated junk-Ware supplied with it as does Winamp so you don't need to go to the effort of slimming it down. The are other audio players that are better than Winamp on sound quality perhaps most of them actually ~
   
   You can do far, far better than this ~
   
   In Linux Audacious does a pretty good job ~
   
   (true media program neophytes ~ Someone who is willing to pay a small amount to at least have some idea what the original recording sounded like, not really an obsession is it?)
   
   EDIT: @ roj - I'll give DeadbeeF a try tomorrow in Linux, thanks for the tip :-)
   
   EDIT 2 @ roj - Major increase in detail etc. with DeadbeeF, I was always a little dissatisfied with music on Linux, that's now sorted - Thanks :-)
4. 
   war593122

   Reviewing 5.601 (Dec 7, 2010)

   Note lite enough.
5. 
   psycros

   Reviewing 5.59 Build 3033 Beta (Nov 14, 2010)

   Winamp has been and continues to be the finest audio player for Windows. With the addition of a codec pack such as K-lite it also becomes a very good video player (though Media Player Classic is at least as good and lighter). Its innumerable skins and plugins along with broad support for mobile devices keep Winamp current and capable. Freshly installed it handles more audio formats than anything I know of and enough video types to handle most people's needs. Smart tags, Replaygain support and other advanced features are in good supply and for most folks Winamp is all the media manager you could want.
   
   Winamp is a pretty solid app, although in recent years its become more freeze-prone than it really should be and there are a few annoying bugs that have been present since 5.x first hit the scene. The revolving door of bloatware AOL keeps trying to foist upon users is also annoying but Winamp still manages to be one of smallest installs among full-featured media players. Fortunately the junkware is optional, but for those who long for pure speed and simplicity the classic 2.91 version still works just fine (and there's always the "lite" version of the latest release, too). If Winamp has an Achilles heel its probably overall user-friendliness. It doesn't hold your hand quite as much as other programs, esp. with certain advanced features, but only people who are true media program neophytes should have any real problems. If you can figure out WMP, you can probably handle Winamp.
   
   Winamp is simply the standard by which others are judged. Nothing else combines this many features with such broad media support. I'm not a true mediaphile so I can't really speak to Winamp's sound and video reproduction, but its more than sufficient for anyone I know. I can't tell the difference between a CD and an AAC ripped from it. The bottom line is that I could not replace Winamp, and anything that could probably wouldn't be available for free. I believe the registered version unlocks some higher level ripping and encoding options but there ARE very good (and friendlier) programs for that kind of thing. Ironically I'm a registered Winamp user since 1997, but am still waiting on my registration code. A strike against customer service, perhaps.

Discuss Winamp 5 Lite

No comments yet