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 181277 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #250 –
+ Has all the techy features you could ever wish for.
- Needs wine to run here...

For this last reason, I'm mostly running Quod Libet lately. Integrates well with the desktop environment, and at least the tagging and library features are about as extensive as those in fb2k. It lacks the dsp-features, but I'm trying not to worry about that anymore and just enjoy the music now

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #251 –
replaygain, diskwriter and notepad look.

did I mention replaygain? I couldn't live anymore without it.
that's pretty much it I guess.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #252 –
I first tried it for the lower resource usage. I got hooked on for:
- high amount of costumization possible
- awesome playlist handling (the only thing I miss is the "update file sources")
- masstagger
- replaygain
- support for any kind of format there is

thinking about it, I'm not even sure what I could use in place of Foobar now.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #253 –
+ CUE support
+ Extreme customization
+ Replaygain
+ Converter
+ ABX
- Doesn't properly support .aac files
- No easy way to check for component support
- Not scriptable natively

For the minuses, I still have to have MediaMonkey & WinAmp.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #254 –
I would have to agree 100% with all of these features and more.

The only things I don't like about FB2K is the nature of the plug-ins and how they integrate (or don't integrate) and how the authors disappear w/ a trace between major versions.

I would much rather FB2K be open source (versus proprietary) and all plug-ins be the same, but I'm just one of those open source monkies with a lotta bias.

Overall, however, I could never go back to Winamp.

Quote from: pepoluan on
+ CUE support
+ Extreme customization
+ Replaygain
+ Converter
+ ABX
- Doesn't properly support .aac files
- No easy way to check for component support
- Not scriptable natively

For the minuses, I still have to have MediaMonkey & WinAmp.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #255 –
@bytemastr: LOL... well WinAmp is not *that* bad actually... besides it's the only player on my PC that can properly play .aac files... so I have no choice there, do I?

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #256 –
Winamp is also one/the only (?) player that defaults to ripping to .aac, so it's quite natural that the Winamp developers would work around the issues that are the result of not using a proper container. The anser you will get around here when asking for "proper" AAC support is to use AAC the way it was meant to, that is inside a proper container (like .mp4).

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #257 –
You know... I never figured out how to rip with WinAmp  Always did it with AudioGrabber, before having a brief fling with CDex, and then converting completely to EAC

Still my elderly Nokia6230 can't play *any* properly contained .mp4 files, so I am stuck with .aac
 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #258 –
I still don't know what is ReplayGain 
And now I have another reason for using foobar2k:
- Converter, for burning audio CDs
-foobar2000 + Burrrn + EAC
-HD 80Gb using High QualityVBR MP3s

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #260 –
I chose foobar because of it efficiency... Its small and I absolutely like, that I can make playlists very quick and switch between fast too.  Later I discovered columns_ui 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #262 –
+Sound Quality
+Extremely Customibility
+Miniamal Resource Usage
+Support for just about every format i can think of

Like others have said, "I dont think I could ever go back to using winamp"

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #263 –
I like it because it sits in my system tray/'notification area' and plays music. Why would I LOOK at a music player?


Oh, and because it looks like notepad. I found the concept of a notepad that played music great at first. It's a pity two other people have said this already

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #264 –
i like it because of its simplicity and multiple playlist handle. But i don't use it anymore because music sounds wayy better with izotope ozone plugin and i couldn't make it work on fb2k

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #265 –
Low resource usage.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #266 –
ReplayGain. Compatible with so many formats. Low resource usage. Great tagging power.
Project Leader of DDResampled

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #267 –
I love Foobar because it still  is able to disprove my opinion i am not longer influenced by the players i used before even if i think so.

I wrote one page before:

Quote
The only weak point i can recognize is the fact that foobar isn't able to update database automatically by watching database folder ...


But why it should? If you rip a cd your tracks are corectly named and organized taken in media library, if you use renamer to add/remove or rename files to media library your database is updated. And that without scanning harddrive!

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #268 –
Before i got foobar, i just LISTENED to music, but then a friend showed me Foobar and i was excited. It´s not only a Player for music, it´s also a nice Freetime Activity  I mostly work on the player instead of listening with it  but now i´ve got 2 Foobars on my computer, one for the music and one to work on.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #269 –
my only solution to manage and play and keep track of my thousands albums collection

Foobar : leap forward

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #270 –
+ Only gapless I could get to work flawlessly on my computer
+ Supports all my formats (flac, wav, mp3)
+ Supports a directory-tree interface (via foo_uie_explorer), the only way I will EVER use a music player.

- Steep learning curve
- Changing the look of the UI can be a lengthy process
- Does not do my laundry for me

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #271 –
I have moved from Winamp to foobar2k because of the GUI. The GUI appears to be faster than winamp. There is no memory consuming design, just a good old well structured standard window. So you can concentrate on functions and not on fucking design like winamp.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #272 –
I tried many players (winamp, jetaudio, musicmatch, dbpower...) before discovering and adopting F2k 0.8.2.

+ low resources usage
+ reads the good formats (ogg, mpc, flac)
+ a lot of very good plugins
+ the best tagging capacity
+ higly customizable

- I still have a lot of troubles to handle (understand) the purpose of some plugins, script and configuration writting, but...

+++ the F2k community is so helpful !

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #273 –
I was actually working on a WA3/5 skin that emphasized the playlist (part of the 'working' was that the layout didn't exist in any at the time, so coding it was a bit odd)...and found Foobar2000,

+ Gapless playback, natively.
+ Replaygain (I like the report in 0.9).
+ Good tagging (even nicer in 0.9).
+ Good conversion tool (though the 0.9 one's UI is my one and only gripe for FB2K, ATM).
+ ABX...
+ Shuffle by album; not a killer feature that gets you right off, but it has certainly grown on me.
+ Independent volume setting, with intutive default keys of numpad+/-.
+ No skins required, and the buttons aren't too tiny.
+ Multiple flat playlists, tabbed.
+ Every version I've tried so far has worked under WINE w/o hassle. I haven't tried 0.9.3.1 yet beyond Windows, but I have already read simple success cases.
+ In general, it hasn't sucked more with newer versions, as is generally common in software.
+++ As with the above, it does not organize my music for me, or get in the way of my going through it. Non-flat database interfaces add plenty of hassle, and offer no benefit when wanting to listen to my music. Sure, they're handy, but not as a default method of handling the playlists. The work required to use players like iTunes, Amarok, and Banshee is just too great, and even then, they still get in the way. FB2K has multiple big flat playlists with good drag&drop support.

- Hard to read mostly functional scripting langauge for formatting.
+ Er, a scripting language for formatting that does orders of magnitude more than I have yet required of it (all I've really needed has been $replace(s,'&','and')), and much more than I ever will need.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #274 –
I might as well jump on this bandwagon, new account here, and all.

I played with foobar back as far as 0.5, and, now, 0.9.3.1.  Between them, I opted to drop Windows, and go MacOS X native.  I loved UNIX, and, hey, it gave me UNIX and Photoshop.  However, now I need to be compatible with about 90% of the world - like it, or not.  The only thing that could play MOD files mostly-correctly (and wasn't DeliPlayer), is foo_dumb.  I take my MOD files too seriously.


What I like:
I like how much power foobar has, that you can make it do almost anything you want.

I like that foobar has a wonderfully documented (and BSD licensed) API.  That's tasty.

I like that it starts out simple, and it's primary focus is the audio, not some extra flashy junk that has nothing to do with what I'm listening to.

I like that it DOESN'T require me to install the .NET frameworks, or some bizarre not-found-anywhere-but-here OCX, or strange widgets.


What I don't:
I don't like that the API has changed so much that the jump from 0.8x to 0.9x has broken things so completely.  There are many 0.8x utilities that will never be recreated.

Lack of documentation.  Most dates back to 2003, and references long dead items: I was incredibly annoyed how long it took to find a 'recent' foo_modplug (since foo_mod is gone), only to find that it didn't work at all with 0.9x.

The whole Tagz system needs an overhaul.  It's powerful enough to be archaic - or is that archaic enough to be powerful.  It's nifty that you can register your own, but there should be a universal way for a plugin to notify foobar that it has these new display variables, and allow the user to decide what to do with them without padding or insane justification tricks, jeeez.

Closing Comments:
I'm old, lazy, and spoiled enough to want something to 'just work', or at least have some functionality that I don't have to wade through a hex editor to find what I want.  (Ok, this one was partially kode54's fault.)  Foobar isn't anywhere near there.  However, I love it now that it works - if an upgrade breaks it horribly, I'll probably dump it forever.. there are thousands of media players in the sea.