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: What are the real benefits of Foobar? (Read 17124 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Could someone describe the real benefits of Foobar over other players, say Winamp for instance? Are these benefits really discernable?

Also, what are the differences between regular and global hotkeys? One would think that global hotkeys would work with foobar is minimised. Nope.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #1 –
Quote
Could someone describe the real benefits of Foobar over other players, say Winamp for instance? Are these benefits really discernable?

The quality benefits are all theoretical for me, since I can't prove that I hear any benefit towards using the player (perhaps Total Recorder and an ABX program could validate the benefits). What I like is the simple, high-quality decoding with built-in SSRC, preamp, crossfeed, and other DSP's, which means it's much harder to screw up your sound.

For a while I thought that foobar2000's output was "cleaner" than Winamp's, so I checked to make sure all EQ's, DSP's, etc. were off in both players, and Winamp still sounded muddy in comparison, with distorted mid-highs. I turned off Winamp's DirectSound output fadein/fadeout, and the muddiness disappeared, so I'm pretty sure I was misinterpreting "quiet fade-in" as "reduced highs". Still, I want to try using TR and ABX to verify that foobar2000 sounds the same (or that my Winamp setup isn't messing up the sound).

Quote
Also, what are the differences between regular and global hotkeys? One would think that global hotkeys would work with foobar is minimised. Nope.

That's a bug, methinks... v0.26b's global hotkeys aren't very global for me, either.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #2 –
Just wondering what programming langauges was used to program foobar??

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #3 –
Well C++ (MSVC++ 6) I think.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #4 –
if global keys don't work, it's a windows thing, it sometimes takes a while to figure working combinations. all other programs using windows hotkeys have the same problems for me.
foobar2000 was coded in C++ (some sublibraries are C), compiled with MSVC6/SP5.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #5 –
Benefits:
* it makes sense - it's logical
* it's made to be as we want it to be, technically superior.
* No profit in interest - just a player that works excellent
* It has all the best features implemented as well as they ever can be.
* it's small, it's fast and not bloated

and... it's... eeeevil
it's t3h play3R of 5atin!!!!
ph34r!
*mwoahahahahahahahahaaaaa 

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #6 –
First of all, fb2k is the only playback prog available now that (to my knowledge) natively supports and was planned for 24-bit decoding, and multiple sample rates.  This helps if you have sound hardware that can support these features.  Also, because it is so bare-bones, it occupies very very little space in RAM, and uses very few CPU clock cycles, often staying well below 1% CPU consumption during regular use on more modern procs.  I think that it is also the only prog out now that may possibly be designed and developed for the *power* users (read: audiophile computer geeks like you and me) in the world, which should be nice for most people on these forums  Go zZzZzZz!

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #7 –
BUT compared to winamp with the MAD decoder(24bit decoding) & ASIO output(direct hardware interface), assuming I dun use the dsp crossfeed as I don't believe in it, where else is it technically better?

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #8 –
(1) fb2k uses modified mpglib with 32bit floatingpoint output + hard limiter & dithering; handling of clipping is IMO superior to MAD.
(2) ASIO is mostly for placebo kiddies who "hear" all sorts of "differences" between various software.
(3) being "technically better" => see: transparent zip/rar reading, possibility of having multiple playlist entries in single file (used for cue and chained ogg streams), support for APEv2 tags with MP3, working centralized titleformatting, etc.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #9 –
Thanks for the reply. I'm kinda confused here. I use mp3gain on my mp3s as do many people here, after the treatment it doesn't reach clipping levels so if this is so, is there any difference the modified version of mpglib & MAD audio playback quality?

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #10 –
if your mp3s are mp3gained, there should be no significant difference between fb2k and MAD.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #11 –
I had a look at using MAD a while back, but found it was prone to crashes and it didn't like skipping, are these now sorted?

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #12 –
i've never used MAD, but as far as i can tell, mpglib is as stable as hell too (ever got "MPGLIB IST DEATH" error with fb2k ?), i've partially sorted that out in one of recent updates, but it still doesn't take much to crash it, bad data safety is horrible.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #13 –
Thanks for the reply. I'm more into the audio quality playback here, even at the expense of high CPU. (Closet Audiophile)
I'm keeping a firm eye on fooBar2000 though, the moment there's a shard of evidence fb2k gives better audio quality playback, I'm jumping ship. But for now, it's winamp lite 2.81/MAD/ASIO.

BTW, I'm the kaiwei Rob credited in the MAD readme txt. I was the one who suggested he made it into a winamp plugin back when it was still just an mp3 decoder on the *nix. Just looking for better audio playback on my computer! Competition is always good & you have done great work so far! Thanks peter!

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #14 –
Quote
(ever got "MPGLIB IST DEATH" error with fb2k ?)

Why'm I the only poor git to get it?
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Quote
(ever got "MPGLIB IST DEATH" error with fb2k ?)

Why'm I the only poor git to get it?

I got it too - bad MP3 file (Winamp plays it, but with glitches).

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #16 –
i'm sure it's still very easy to hexedit mp3 to make it crash mpglib; at least it shouldn't blow anymore with files that aren't obviously broken.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #17 –
No offense, but I hardly understand one thing: why making one more audioplayer if there are thousands of them?
Do you really think, that quality improvements are so huge, that it would make people move from much better looking/handy/powerful (anyone could add even more features) Winamp (your favorite player here) to it? If you want to get higher quality you could try to improve Winamp's input and output plugins. Besides, there are numerous good opensource MP3 players (like CoolPlayer)... Isn't improving one of them to the point you want better (and easier?), than trying to make somewhat like a new player.
Sure, winamp 2 is not the best program ever (no "normal" support for unicode and so on), but IMHO it's much better, than the rest.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #18 –
Quote
If you want to get higher quality you could try to improve Winamp's input and output plugins.

ehum...
let me fill you in.. ZZZzzzZ used to make those

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #19 –
Quote
No offense, but I hardly understand one thing: why making one more audioplayer if there are thousands of them?
Do you really think, that quality improvements are so huge, that it would make people move from much better looking/handy/powerful (anyone could add even more features) Winamp (your favorite player here) to it? If you want to get higher quality you could try to improve Winamp's input and output plugins. Besides, there are numerous good opensource MP3 players (like CoolPlayer)... Isn't improving one of them to the point you want better (and easier?), than trying to make somewhat like a new player.
Sure, winamp 2 is not the best program ever (no "normal" support for unicode and so on), but IMHO it's much better, than the rest.

perhaps you should spend 3 years of your life on hacking winamp's plugin system, then you would understand certain things better.
i really can't stand using a player being made by someone else anymore. i am making fb2k in order to use it, i don't give rat's ass what other people think about it. it's more about getting rid of idiotic limitations set by the way both winamps work, not about "audio quality". those "improvements" that are most important to me are not always noticeable for an average user.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #20 –
i heard somewhere that zzzzzz used to make Winamp3, is that true?? then why did he left??

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #22 –
2 zZzZzZz: Well, I see you know what you're doing, so I could only wish you luck in this project. Hope one day it will become functional enough to use it instead of Winamp.
Well, skin support is an important thing for me (a part of my hobby), but even if you create a simple player, which could be completely functional and use global hotkey for all of it's functions (playing, work with files, playlist, settings and so on... and be able to use Win for hotkeys), show and hide (by a couple of keystrokes) a tiny window with song title, I'll become one of it's proud users. (you could name it "feature request").
Generally all I need to be happy is a small player, that is located in systray and controlled by hotkeys.
From my side I could try to make graphics (icons), if needed.

Good luck!

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #23 –
Quote
i don't give rat's ass what other people think

I love what it takes to get a forum here!!!  Especially compared to being a mod for example...
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

What are the real benefits of Foobar?

Reply #24 –
Quote
2 zZzZzZz: Well, I see you know what you're doing, so I could only wish you luck in this project. Hope one day it will become functional enough to use it instead of Winamp.
Well, skin support is an important thing for me (a part of my hobby), but even if you create a simple player, which could be completely functional and use global hotkey for all of it's functions (playing, work with files, playlist, settings and so on... and be able to use Win for hotkeys), show and hide (by a couple of keystrokes) a tiny window with song title, I'll become one of it's proud users. (you could name it "feature request").
Generally all I need to be happy is a small player, that is located in systray and controlled by hotkeys.
From my side I could try to make graphics (icons), if needed.

Good luck!

well, skins were once fun for me, it was about winamp3 beta3, i could spend hours on playing with color controls. unfortunately, they took my favourite toy away in later versions, tough luck. after all, everything i expect from a music player is to play music. i kept my Winamp minimized most of the time, and used to navigate its playlist using cursor keys and enter key; apparently i copied my Winamp habits to foobar2000.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.