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: looking for a foobar2000 alternative (Read 17013 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Hi
i'm looking for an alternative of foobar, light with a lot of feature

outside winamp , for windows are there some good alternative?


thanks
kinds regards

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #1 –
MediaMonkey maybe

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #2 –
Light and extendable with plug-ins: http://www.un4seen.com/xmplay.html
WavPack 5.8.1 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.84 -V 100

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #3 –
Another vote for XMPlay, here.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #4 –
Why would anyone move away from foobar???
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #5 –
Quote from: odyssey on
Why would anyone move away from foobar???


Unless you are a PC person and love writing scripts, the content management on foobar leaves a lot to be desired.

SOundwise, I totally agree with you, and that is why I use Mp3toys to manage content, and its external player support to use Foobar to do the actual playing.
It is the best of both worlds for me.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Dawnrazor-age on
Quote from: odyssey on

Why would anyone move away from foobar???


Unless you are a PC person and love writing scripts, the content management on foobar leaves a lot to be desired.

SOundwise, I totally agree with you, and that is why I use Mp3toys to manage content, and its external player support to use Foobar to do the actual playing.
It is the best of both worlds for me.


Whatever the advantages/disadvantages of Foobar, it is not better "soundwise" than anything else. 

Take a look at the very last entry on the foobar FAQ: http://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ.html

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #8 –
foobar2000: if you want your hand held, go get a girlfriend.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Danimal on
Whatever the advantages/disadvantages of Foobar, it is not better "soundwise" than anything else. 

Take a look at the very last entry on the foobar FAQ: http://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ.html


Sure, but Foobar does support plugins that do make things sound better on my system, like ASIO.

SInce most other players don't support these plugins, in practice i am getting better sound with Foobar, even though WITHOUT such plugins, the FAQ is spot on.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #10 –
How does ASIO make playback sound better?

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #12 –
Quote from: singaiya on
How does ASIO make playback sound better?


ASIO is supposed to bypass the Kmixer providing a shorter path to the sound card.

All I know, is that it sounds better when compared to DS, which sounds flat and 2 dimensional.

In deference to the TOS, I would try to ABX this or test it somehow if someone can provide an easy to implement process.  I was thinking of recording the same song with DS and with ASIO and then comparing the output, But I'd have to buy a mic pre amp for that.  And that may not even be a proper test.

Also, on my system I need ASIO to implement bi-amping or triamping, which to my ears, sounds better than using a single amp and passive crossovers.

So either with or without active crossovers, i get a better sound with ASIO.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #13 –
"Lifeless" sound may be due to volume differences between outputs, which would need to be compensated for in any test. I wouldn't expect ASIO to improve sound but to make it arrive sooner and/or in a more reliable fashion. Is ASIO even effective compared to alternatives when not dealing with multiple inputs/outputs and/or realtime audio? I, personally, wouldn't notice even extreme mixer latency unless I needed music to synchronize to video or input.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #16 –
Quote from: francesco on
Hi
i'm looking for an alternative of foobar, light with a lot of feature

outside winamp , for windows are there some good alternative?


thanks
kinds regards

I'm not allowed to vote for WinAmp  . Otherwise, I would have done that  .

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Whelkman on
"Lifeless" sound may be due to volume differences between outputs, which would need to be compensated for in any test. I wouldn't expect ASIO to improve sound but to make it arrive sooner and/or in a more reliable fashion. Is ASIO even effective compared to alternatives when not dealing with multiple inputs/outputs and/or realtime audio? I, personally, wouldn't notice even extreme mixer latency unless I needed music to synchronize to video or input.


For about a year, I was using ACXO as a player, which has built in ASIO.  It left a lot to be desired since it didn't do playlists or fast forward/ rewind.  Everyone was pushing Foobar, but as much as I tried it, it just din't sound as good as ACXO.  SO I went back to ACXO.  About a year later, I realized that I had never had Foobar running with ASIO (just putting the dll file in the components folder didn't activate it).  When I did get it going, the player sounded as good as ACXO.

What is strange is that I really wanted to use foobar over ACXO for all its features and content support.  But my ears kept telling me that it sounded lifeless compared to ACXO even though I THOUGHT Foobar was using ASIO.

Not exactly scientific, but why would i want to use an output that didn't sound as good?

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #18 –
Billy is good.
Definitely light and fast. Not feature packed though.

XMPlayer is good too, I would use it, however Foobar2000's masstagger what I organise my music with.

ZOMG KMixer stuff. Cant we stick to the topic?

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #19 –
some guys totally miss the point about foobar....

i believe they never had to convert masses of files from a format to another, or masstag them, or replaygain them... foobar default is ugly yeah, but in terms of power, it is yet to be overthrown...

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Bourne on
some guys totally miss the point about foobar....

i believe they never had to convert masses of files from a format to another, or masstag them, or replaygain them... foobar default is ugly yeah, but in terms of power, it is yet to be overthrown...
Exactly. But what people are you talking about? Seeing potential in players other than fb2k is not blasphemy.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Dawnrazor-age on
Not exactly scientific, but why would i want to use an output that didn't sound as good?

Just curious as to why it might sound better, that's all.

Quote from: Bourne on
some guys totally miss the point about foobar....

i believe they never had to convert masses of files from a format to another, or masstag them, or replaygain them... foobar default is ugly yeah, but in terms of power, it is yet to be overthrown...

I suppose I'm in the minority, but I have few problems with foobar's default interface. I don't look at it much, but it provides me with the information I need in a clean and readable manner, a rarity with media applications. Its bulk processing and conversion features are essential to me. Foobar also has the best playlist behavior I've seen for data types with "subsongs".

I am a fan of compact audio players, one of the reasons I stuck with Winamp/XMMS for so many years. Speaking of which, I still use Winamp for certain operations, mostly for formats not (well) supported by foobar. I also use XMPlay for my module needs.

looking for a foobar2000 alternative

Reply #24 –
You guys are missing the point. The beauty of foobar2000 is that when you're listening to music, you're not looking at a player. When you're doing stuff with your music, you want a straightforward, user-friendly interface that operates in ways that are familiar.

It's not ugly. It's clean, usable, familiar (to anyone with basic Win32 experience). It's meant for getting stuff done, not looking pretty (though some people have configured it to be quite attractive as well).