Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why go for Foobar2000? (Read 19625 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why go for Foobar2000?

As many of you I've been thru Winamp, Sonique, and now I've been using for the last 2 years QCD, which plays all of my mp3s, aac, flacs, etc and makes me really happy.
But then again everyone talks about foobar2000 and how it's so great and can even solve the gap problem on mp3s. Do you think I should move? What is it so great about foobar?
cheers!

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #1 –
Gapless playback, ReplayGain, APEv2 tag support, mass-tagger with freedb support, music database with search, customizable playlist display, great DSPs, support for command line encoders including tag transfer...

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #2 –
I use foobar2000 to playback everything related to audio (except MIDI which is very crappy in Foobar2000)

I even use foobaar2000 to recode from mic or stereo mix

the reason I use foobar2000 is like what sebastian had mentioned
and the most important thing is
Its SIMPLE, not bloated GUI

EDIT:
oh, forgot to mention this, its free of charge 

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #3 –
*deleted*
I had decided that I would delete this post when someone, for whatever reason, mentioned "fanboy/zealot" for the first time.
That happend pretty quick...

I don't want to be a part of a QCD vs foobar vs anything else war.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #4 –
Quote
and makes me really happy.

If this is the case and ur not missing anything then there is no point in switching. if it works for u then just use it 

qcd tagging is pretty good
almost all input plugins support replaygain playback
skins are excellent
supports mp3pro out of the box
gracenote cddb
ripping and encoding features (including foobar like cli encoding)
can use all winamp dsp (i find foobars dsp pretty crappy)
can use sonique's vis plugins
it is not bloated gui (u can use foobar skins if u like foobar's minimilistic interface)
it is as free as can be (free beer ie )
gapless playback using crossfade o/p plugin ***(though it doesnt support lame tags, but manages pretty well without it)
search plugin (winamp j key, though slightly slower)
quick track

i could go on and on...

if ur comfy with qcd, there is absolutely no reason to switch

maybe we should ask foobar fanboys to give qcd a try   


edit
***wrongly mentioned as direct sound earlier

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #5 –
Quote
almost all input plugins support replaygain playback

yes, almost. foobar can use replaygain on anything it can decode. far superior from my point of view.

Quote
skins are excellent

i don't think so. the default skin is overload while i've yet to find a useable 3rd party one.

Quote
supports mp3pro out of the box

foobar supports a lot more formats out of the box. mp3pro is a virtually dead, completely closed format. where do you see the sense in mp3pro?

Quote
ripping and encoding features (including foobar like cli encoding)

foobar diskriter is much more flexible, supports dsp on conversion...

Quote
can use all winamp dsp (i find foobars dsp pretty crappy)

there is a winamp dsp plugin for foobar, too.

Quote
it is not bloated gui (u can use foobar skins if u like foobar's minimilistic interface)

emulating the native foobar interface through skins can't be compared to a real native implentation.
Quote
search plugin (winamp j key, though slightly slower)


there is cntr + f in foobar which works very similar. you can also add a hotkey on "j" for it.

edit: bottom line: foobar is not for everyone. if you are happy with qcd, winamp or whatever there is nothing wrong with that, but technically foobar is superior.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #6 –
Quote
there is a winamp dsp plugin for foobar, too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252463"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


NOT RECOMMENDED

In general it is recommended to avoid any type of winamp to foobar plugin wrappers. They are bound to create stability issues and the like.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #7 –
Quote
yes, almost. foobar can use replaygain on anything it can decode

will be available soon...  however it supports replaygain most of the widely used codecs mp3, vorbis, flac, mpc, ape... so chances are that it will work out for uv 

Quote
supports dsp on conversion...

qcd does that 


Quote
i don't think so. the default skin is overload while i've yet to find a useable 3rd party one.

you dont think so. but I do. hell u can even use mmd3 winamp skin in qcd. now if u say that u dont like mmd3 skin... 


Quote
there is a winamp dsp plugin for foobar

someone already answered

Quote
emulating the native foobar interface through skins can't be compared to a real native implentation

the point is, if u would like, for some reason to have foobar-ish look, it is there. foobar skinning, imho, comes nowhere near to what qcd-winamp can give u

Quote
where do you see the sense in mp3pro?

internet radio! plus u somehow always find one of these lying around.

dont get me wrong. foobar is a great player. qcd is pretty good too. ppl have worked hard on these softwares and moreover give it away for free. both players cater to a different category of users. as u rightly said...
Quote
foobar is not for everyone.


upnorth,
i am sorry i kinda turned this thread into what it is. if u were offended by fanboy word i appologize. ppl were mentioning things that foobar does but qcd did all those too

no more posting in this thread from my side...

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Quote
where do you see the sense in mp3pro?

internet radio!


MP3Pro is right now pretty much completely superseded by HE-AAC for internet radio, which of course foobar *does* play.

And you can play MP3Pro with foo_nero, too.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #9 –
Quote
upnorth,
i am sorry i kinda turned this thread into what it is. if u were offended by fanboy word i appologize. ppl were mentioning things that foobar does but qcd did all those too

no more posting in this thread from my side...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wasn't offended by it, but to me such claims signals a potentially useless discussion, as it's a word I believe is often abused just to discredit.

I personally love foobar2000, but I don't expect everyone else to feel the same way. The fact that there are so many different players around, just means that everyone has a better change of finding a player that suits them.

IMHO, one possible problem with foobar, is that it does too much for it's own good, in the sense that it's mentioned in alot of different contexts. Hence it might look like it's alot of foobar fanboys/zealots around.

In fact, I think the foobar2000 community itself (developer, moderators, forum members), does a good job at correcting unsupported claims, or claims that just doesn't matter for real life usage. Keeping in the spirit of Hydrogenaudio (where it is hosted).

Edit:
@ezequiel-argentin: Maybe this thread can be useful to you:
[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=20322]Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000, or why don't you like it[/url]
Of course it's biased as it's in the foobar2000 forum, but at least you get quite a few opinions.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #10 –
I'll check out that link, thanks.
What I meant by this thread was to get to know people's opinions and usage of foobar. So far i got good answers; I'm very interested in gapless mp3 and replygain (which I'm not sure what it is yet though); but it's true QCD has always worked great on me (though I haven't figured out yet how to play gapless, etc.)
cheers!

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #11 –
for more info on replaygain, check out http://replaygain.org/

hth
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #12 –
Here's why I use foobar2000: Everything it does is done *right*. There are no crappy hacks. There are no extraneous features that can't be disabled or ignored. And when people do things *wrong*, the community moves to right that wrong. Be it revising the SDK, stopping the circulation of crashy/hacked plugins, or so on, the community is focused on making foobar2000 the most architecturally sound player on the market. I can't emphasize how much that means to me.

It's also nearly limitlessly extensible. This power was what drew me to Winamp originally. However, they've squandered their technological edge. All the other players seem to bend over backwards to support the broken Winamp2-style plugins. foobar2000 has taken audio players in a better, purer direction.

Yes, it can be tricky to learn how to use to its maximum. However, I've converted several of my rezmates, my ex-girlfriend, and my family. They all find it loads easier to use than Windows Media Player or Winamp (or for that matter, any of the non-Win32 GUIed players; in other words, most of them), both of which confused them. This leads me to believe that the people who are confused by it are the ones who think they're more adept at computers and audio playback than they are.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #13 –
Why not go for Foobar?
There is no version for Mac OS X.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #14 –
Awesome.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #15 –
I tried foobar, didn't like it, and quit it.  I tried again and loved it.  Take some time to learn the features.  I'll never go back.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #16 –
Quote
Why not go for Foobar?
There is no version for Mac OS X.


How true, and how unfortunate. If there was, I'd drop iTunes in a second!

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #17 –
I use foobar because It Just Works ™. I prefer a minimalistic UI so I don't hog desktop space. 99% of the time I don't even use it, I use global hotkeys to issue commands to the player.

I like its small memory/disk space footprint, great for putting on a small USB keychain drive with some heavily compressed tunes for portable listening on different computers.

I like the DSP system. Winamp sucks because you have to get a separate plugin just to run one DSP into another. Real smart design there. The selection of Foobar DSPs is far more useful than what I see for Winamp, stuff like clipping prevention with the advanced limiter, the continuator for intelligent crossfading, a convolution filter for some real flexible sound customization, etc.

Ability to stream anything streamable off the web. Yay. The fact that not only did someone make an HTTP reader that could save streams, but they could replace Foobar's HTTP reader at all is a real testament to Foobar's component system.

Stuff like that,

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #18 –
Quote

I tried foobar, didn't like it, and quit it. I tried again and loved it.
Take some time to learn the features. I'll never go back.
Quote


, the first time I use foobar2000, which i think is the first ever
foobar2000 made by Peter.....(only supported by win2k/xp)
Wow, this is what i think at that time, what is he doing?,
its the worst player I've ever seen, not creative n ugly

I tried it again when a REAL foobar2000 is realease
to the public, i still hate foobar2000 and i quit!

I tried again when 0.7.? is released, I still don't like
it

Until v0.8.0 released, weird, I suddenly
use nothing else but foobar2000

whether QCD, winamp, sonique, foobar2000, WMP....
In my opinion, they are all equally good
IF their decoder plugins produce accurate output for
(lossy codecs), smooth playback

all the rest such as EQ, replay gain, skins etc etc.... they
are just add-on, they might be useful for some ppl,
but for some ppl its useless.

Its up to you to decide which is the best for you

ezequiel, u can try foobar2000 yourself and see whether u like it or not, since its free , you don't have to think twice before trying it, try it now!

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #19 –
Quote
qcd tagging is pretty good
almost all input plugins support replaygain playback

I see mention of Vorbis RG, and there's a few input plugins.  But I see nothing about MP3 RG (as FB2K writes to APE tags) either on the QCD website or in the software.  Can someone point me to what I'm not seeing?

Quote
gracenote cddb

Which is great... but why does the Gradenote component want to go online every time I launch QCD?  Am I missing something in config to turn that off?  I've seen other apps that want to go online without any way to turn that off outside of a firewall...  kind of a pet peeve of mine.  Maybe that's not the case here?

Quote
gapless playback using direct sound o/p plugin

Does that mean it doesn't support gapless playback for the older Win98 OSs that, if what I think I read is correct, Win98 does not support DirectSound.  Yes/No?
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #20 –
Quote
Does that mean it doesn't support gapless playback for the older Win98 OSs that, if what I think I read is correct, Win98 does not support DirectSound.  Yes/No?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Win98 does support DirectSound, however QCD doesn't support proper gapless MP3 playback by default.
But Case created a [a href="http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/files/qcd_mad.exe]MAD-based MP3 PlugIn for QCD[/url], which does.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #21 –
Quote
Win98 does support DirectSound, however QCD doesn't support proper gapless MP3 playback by default.

Okay... I checked the specs on my little Toshiba Libretto, and yes... it does specify DirectSound support.  Don't remember why I was thinking otherwise.

Quote
But Case created a MAD-based MP3 PlugIn for QCD, which does.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252793"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for that...  I'll test it out.

How 'bout the ReplayGain thing dev0?  I haven't found anthing other than FB2K and Winamp with the in_mpg123 plugin that playback RG written to APE tags.  Maybe in_mpg123 works in QCD.
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #22 –
short version:

advantages:
masstagging-abilities, replaygain, masstranscoding-abilities, customizability, can handle _VERY_ large playlists, supports some formats more completely than other players

disadvantages:
almost no vis-plugins, less eye-candy, option-overkill in the preferences when many plugins are installed, possibly has more features than someone who wants a simple player needs(yes, unneeeded features are a disadvantage), comes sub-optimal out-of-the-box and needs some further tweaking to unleash its full potential - knowledge which newcomers dont have.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #23 –
Quote
But Case created a MAD-based MP3 PlugIn for QCD, which does.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252793"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Am I seeing things, or is that actually APE tag based ReplayGain I see in the config options for the QCD MAD plugin?!  It provides both gapless and RG playback from values set in the files?

If so, this is what I've been after for playing back MP3s on my little Toshiba Libretto with its underpowered 120MHz CPU and 32MB RAM.  It's a tad slow to repsond on the Lib, but it's performing reasonably, and is doing the 3 basic things I'm after in an MP3 player that will perform all 3 without the audio breaking up: EQ, RG from values set in files, and gapless playback.  So far I haven't gotten either FB2K or Winamp to do that.
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #24 –
Quote
>gapless MP3 playback by default.<
But Case created a MAD-based MP3 PlugIn for QCD, which does.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252793"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is the gapless feature in the QCD MAD plugin just assumed by default?  I see no mention of it in the plugin's configuration options.  And I'm getting small audio dropouts between files.  There seems to be no way to read ahead and cache a bit more data.
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man