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: Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000 (Read 178819 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #350 –
Extremely customizable.
Good community.
Light and fast.
Open Source.

I wish there was something like Foobar but then as Operating System. (I dont mean Linux)

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #353 –
Thats hardly the definition of open source.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #354 –
Quote from: barry123 on
well maybe open source is not the right defining, but I mean you can change almost everything by yourself.


I cannot understand why this rumour doesn't end that you can change everything by yourself. It was a big improvement in Foobar 0.9. that many options in the preferences were removed. Take a look in a clean install of foobar and then take the same look in clean install of Winamp: You will see that Winamp has much more options.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #355 –
Quote from: q-stankovic on
I cannot understand why this rumour doesn't end that you can change everything by yourself. It was a big improvement in Foobar 0.9. that many options in the preferences were removed. Take a look in a clean install of foobar and then take the same look in clean install of Winamp: You will see that Winamp has much more options.

I think he's talking about plugins too. I've installed UI Columns, Navigator Suite and foo_playlist_tree. I've configured and scripted them (the two latter) way beyond the standard settings, to fit my music collection.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #356 –
Mostly because of the extent in which you can customize it. And for the amazing tag features.
Also, it fits the same profile an app like Firefox does. Which is keep it clean on default and let the individual user extend it's functionality to his or her preference instead of overloading an app with functions you only use a portion of.
For a long time I wanted to like foobar, but I couldn't stand it. I had kinda like a love/hate relationship with it  The default UI did not meet my wishes and the task of coding your own config seemed to big for me. But, I did it anyway eventually and now I love it 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #357 –
Quote from: barry123 on
Quote from: Frank Bicking on

Quote from: barry123 on
Open Source.

Uhm... no.



well maybe open source is not the right defining, but I mean you can change almost everything by yourself.


Ignorance to this degree is a major issue causing factor in the world. Do you just hear a term and presume it applies to something you like? Does it ever occur to you to actually look things like this up?

People like you are responsible for the idea that people that spread msn viruses are "hackers", low fps in games is "lag", and other stupid misinformed terms of slang that make accurate communcation significantly more impossible.
hi

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #358 –
My reason for installing foobar2000 is not a technical one - but as I don't think it's been mentioned here, it may be of some interest to those monitoring the take-up of the software.

I decided to try out a music database and streaming radio website called Last.fm - this recommends a small list of audio players (only about three, I think) that work with the site. My player wasn't listed, but foobar was, so I decided to install it too.

My other player was VLC (which has never let me down on audio, even if its video handling is occasionally problematic). I don't think I would have installed another player without having visited that website.

For a new user, a big plus for foobar is that it seems to work straight after installation, with a big, clean, uncluttered interface. It may strike a new user as more complex than VLC, but that is largely due to its many optional advanced features, which require a lot of discussion and documentation. Obviously the advanced features are a strong recommendation for those users who need them - but once it's realised that those who don't need them can run it in a basic mode, the complexity is more apparent than real. I particularly liked the fact that you don't need to search through lots of preference menus to tweak the privacy settings, as can be the case with commercial players.

It's too early to say whether I'll stick with foobar (or last.fm) as I've only just started to try them - but first impressions are good.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #359 –
Quote from: tool++ on
Quote from: barry123 on

Quote from: Frank Bicking on

Quote from: barry123 on
Open Source.

Uhm... no.



well maybe open source is not the right defining, but I mean you can change almost everything by yourself.


Ignorance to this degree is a major issue causing factor in the world. Do you just hear a term and presume it applies to something you like? Does it ever occur to you to actually look things like this up?

People like you are responsible for the idea that people that spread msn viruses are "hackers", low fps in games is "lag", and other stupid misinformed terms of slang that make accurate communcation significantly more impossible.


well to be honest I googled before I posted 'opensource'.
I googled for "opensource foobar" and came out to:
"FooBar2000 - a Free, Open-Source, Extendable digital music player"
the reason I used this term was because it's hard for me to express my words as non native englishman.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #360 –
In order of priority:

1. Full Unicode support.
2. Great sound quality.
2. Small footprint.
3. Customizable interface.
4. Last.fm support.
5. Masstagger.
Alex

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #361 –
No order of importance...

Simple interface
Customizable as HELL
Small footprint (ninjaing what Sashka said >.>)
Great format support

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #362 –
Well, I've been using WinAmp for a little while, as WMP sucks in little ways (for one, I hate its shuffle) and doesn't have FLAC or APE support. 
I've recently gotten into Foobar because of its converter--I can convert from many formats (like APE and FLAC, huzzah!) to others very easily.  I also like its interface simplicity, though I wish it could minimize to small toolbar like WinAmp.
I also rip often to .FLAC images with .cue sheets for backup, and I love that Foobar can play these.  And it can burn using Nero?  What can't Foobar do?  (well, I'd like to be able to rip to image with separate .cue, not embedded, but I use EAC anyway)
I like its shuffle, but I wish I could click "next" and it would shuffle to another song, like in WinAmp.  Doesn't seem to work in Foo.
Would I be able to use a remote control with Foobar?

So, in short, I like it's simplicity and the depth of its functions!  Very powerful little player.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #363 –
I'm an old-timer, a DOS fossil, and I'm filesystem oriented. I use foobar2000's default GUI.

To me, foobar2000 is like an audio oriented filesystem browser, with a toolbox. That is how I think of it; that is what I want; that is how I use it. iTunes and WMP, etc., are overwhelmingly intrusive by comparison. (And foobar2000 can do what they do too, if desired.) The tabbed playlists make my preferred mode of operation effortless, exactly as with a tabbed internet browser. It is a mystery why most of the other audio player developers don't agree with this.

My answer to the original post: I like the transparency through it to the file on the disk, and the tab-navigation.

Edit:
My main usage of foobar has not been music: it is a central tool in my Chinese studies. So, I appreciate the Unicode support. Foobar actually makes a very good adjunct to a flashcard program: chop up the language-lesson audio as desired, edit the formatting string to show just the (Chinese) filename, set the font very large, set the window size to show just the filename being played, select "random", and let it fly!

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #364 –
Most of the popular players seem to be playlist oriented.  That is, you create a number of playlists for different moods/scenarios, and then when you startup WinAmp or WMP or VLC you just select the playlist and off you go.

What I need is a library-centric music player.  I want to have a library view (sorted by directory structure or artist/album) from which I can drag-drop albums and, rarely, individual songs into the Now Playing list.  If I can use ctrl/shift keys to select multiple albums/songs for dragging, all the better.  You just can't do this with the popular players.

I started with MusicMatch which was exactly what I needed, except that it had a pretty big footprint AND it didn't support Flac.  I then tried  the Monkey, which was fine except that it was really an adware player, which I didn't want.  And then I stumbled upon Foobar, which seems to do the job.

Now I've got to tell you, I'm not in love with Foobar.  Its been a pain in the neck to get setup in a way that works for me.  MusicMatch was extremely easy to use in comparison and was setup the way I liked it out of the box.  But given the memory footprint and lack of FLAC support, I've decided to use Foobar.

Here's to hoping that Foobar becomes easier to use (a slim maybe?).

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #365 –
I've been using it for about a year, switching from Winamp because...honestly, I don't even remember the reason I switched. I think I was just frustrated with Winamp's interface and ready to try something new.

Foobar 2000 strikes me as, not so much a music player in itself (though it certainly is that), as a framework around which you can build your own ideal music player. If you want something minimalist, with no frills or fancy graphics, it can do that. If you want something incredible-looking, it can do that too. If you want pretty advanced media management, it can do that too. There's never been anything I've wanted the program to do that I couldn't, eventually, after a great deal of work and/or hunting for plugins, make it do.

The dark side here, of course, is that the task of actually *making* it do what you want it to do can be daunting (to say the least), especially if you don't have a lot of time to invest, or a mind for technical tasks. This, the scattershot documentation and, sorry, the (perceived, at least) attitude of some folks (namely, that if you don't have a lot of time to invest or a mind for technical tasks that you don't *deserve* to use Foobar2000) keep me from being able to unreservedly recommend it to people. There's a difference between having a steep learning curve and being actively hostile to new users, and while I'm not sure FB2K or its community is unreservedly the latter, both certainly edge in that direction at times.

Also, I kind of hate the name.

Still, I love tinkering with things, and I love being able to make it behave exactly as I desire, so I'm almost certainly going to stick with it.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #366 –
Quote from: DocBeard on
There's a difference between having a steep learning curve and being actively hostile to new users [...]

I have never seen that happen and frankly, i don't believe it's true(we have good mods here). If someone aren't prepared to invest alittle time on reading up on things and expects everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, then i don't really see it as being hostile to say that they probably should go use another player instead. On the other hand then newbies which aren't lazy is newer brushed off like that...
Quote
Also, I kind of hate the name.

Although the name of a player is utterly irrelevant, then i personally really love it, as it reflects just that...

My own reasons for being a diehard fb2k fan is simply because of it's feature set, configurability, GUI and footprint, and where the most important features of that feature set, is the support for WavPack images with embedded cuesheets, tagging/mass-tagging, renaming/moving, converting and ReplayGain support.

Anyway, that was just my 2 cents

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #367 –
1) FLAC + full unicode support
2) masstagger
3) album list plugin (it's like iTunes w/o the bulk)
4) KS

not a fan of the default UI, but hey to each his/her own. At least there's a plugin that allows me to let foobar look the way I want.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #368 –
Quote from: Martin H on
I have never seen that happen and frankly, i don't believe it's true(we have good mods here). If someone aren't prepared to invest alittle time on reading up on things and expects everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, then i don't really see it as being hostile to say that they probably should go use another player instead. On the other hand then newbies which aren't lazy is newer brushed off like that...


Maybe hostility wasn't the right word, but there's definitely a culture of...something, I don't know, and don't particularly want to use any loaded terms. But the characterization of a certain group of new users as 'lazy' (even as you are trying to argue that there is no hostility to newbies) lends a bit of support to my perception.

My point, I suppose, is that it's a great program, but not one that I'd recommend to anyone without a lot of time, technical ability, and patience. And that's kind of a shame, because I think there are people without a lot of time, technical ability, and patience who would use and benefit from the program if some effort were made to meet them halfway.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #369 –
Quote from: DocBeard on
but not one that I'd recommend to anyone without a lot of time, technical ability, and patience.

You forgot to mention special needs. If you don't have any special needs, that being connected to compression format as well as organizing and layout, then you don't really need foobar. MediaMonkey will work just as good for those people.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #370 –
Quote from: DocBeard on
But the characterization of a certain group of new users as 'lazy' (even as you are trying to argue that there is no hostility to newbies) lends a bit of support to my perception.

When someone is trying to get into fb2k, then they will without a doubt notice that it will take a little effort to learn and use propperly. Then if you are not the type of person who takes joy in getting down and dirty with such things, then the logical next move would be to admit to yourself that this player is properly not meant for my target group and then go look for another more suited alternative instead. This behaviour to me is fully accepted and also not the slightest bit lazy, however, when some person of that same group dosen't go that route, but instead comes to this forum section and demands help and support without really wanting to make some efforts themselves, then to me that is totally unacceptable and without a doubt lazy behaviour and that was solely the thing i meant previously with my use of the 'lazy' term. 
Quote
My point, I suppose, is that it's a great program, but not one that I'd recommend to anyone without a lot of time, technical ability, and patience.

Neither would i
Quote
And that's kind of a shame, because I think there are people without a lot of time, technical ability, and patience who would use and benefit from the program if some effort were made to meet them halfway.

Very true, but that would also spoil it for the current target group though, so i honestly dosen't hope that it will change, but that's just me, though

Btw, i'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything like that, but just expressing my own personal oppenion about this issue

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #371 –
Quote from: Martin H on
Very true, but that would also spoil it for the current target group though, so i honestly dosen't hope that it will change, but that's just me, though

Btw, i'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything like that, but just expressing my own personal oppenion about this issue


Oh, I certainly wouldn't advocate crippling the program to make it easier to learn. It'd be nice if it demonstrated some of its flexibility and power right out of the box, though. Although I suspect that's difficult, since so much of what makes the program incredible comes from its plugins, and it's probably unfeasible (if not outright impossible) to distribute them along with the executable.

And believe me, I'm not seeing this as a fight. I appreciate the replies, really. Never hurts to have one's preconceptions challenged!

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #372 –
The conversion capability of foobar2000 fits me perfectly.  Being able to convert into or out of Single image files with embedded cuesheets and logs has simplified my Backup Archive immensely.  Not to mention I can keep up with the latest codecs to encode with and don't have to wait for program updates like with other audio players to use them.  Foobar2000 with its conversion ability is seriously all I could ever need or use.

Recently, I switched back to using foobar as my audio playback after I discovered panels and how pretty darn neat they come out as.  Also, grabbed the continuator and tube plugin.  Granted the PanelsUI does increase the footprint of foobar but it doesn't slow the program down unlike some other player that begins with a small i.  It is also not slowed down by my current mp3 library of 5,000+ songs (it grows when I convert my CDs or buy new CDs). 

Use PanelsUI 0.14.9 or 0.13.8, as I read in the PanelsUI thread 0.14.10+ have crashing problems.  I have had problems with 0.13.8 but some people don't, while I have had zero problems with 0.14.9.  So take your pick of those two.

So in short:

Conversion
Customization
No Slowdown

That sums it up.
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #373 –
+ Lightweight, in both CPU and RAM usage
+ Good with big playlists
+ Very configurable
+ Can play everything from MP3s to burned sandwiches
+ No annoying features like the common skin bullshit
+ Works great with wine in Linux. If it didn't, I  would still be running windows. :-)
+ Playlist tabs
- Not open source

I recently switched to Linux, and after walking through most of the good music players there are, I just had to run foorbar2000 with wine. (for those that don't know, wine is an windows environment emulator kind of program for Linux + other unixes).

http://keitsi.minttupuffet.net/misc/fb2k_linux.png

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #374 –
I already pointed this out in the foo_discogs thread, so apologies for the repetition, but I moved over because I wanted my MP3s, all 30,000 of them, tagged properly, once and for all, according to the Discogs standard. 

I'd become a bit tired of Winamp hanging and crashing too, whenever it felt like it, but often on exit from the program.  This would cause things like playcount and ratings I'd set in that session to be lost, with no way to get them back.

I also have felt for a long time that the extended syntax in Winamp's search bar was kind of limiting, a bit annoying, but no deal breaker.  I'm very happy with the power of this feature in foobar, and happily enjoying the learning curve.  Lots to read, and lots to learn.

My music sounds better in foobar too, without DSP.

I am one happy bunny now, thanks to foobar.  I can't wait to get rid of Winamp once and for all.