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 181584 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #300 –
I got tired of Winamp taking forever to load. Forum friends seemed to really enjoy foobar, so I gave it a shot.
elevatorladylevitateme

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #301 –
With a few plugins I can play just about any music file I have managed to mass up during the years, excluding a few exotic tracker formats. Been using fb2k for some years now, and as I recall, the main reason why I changed from QCD was foo_sid... ^^

- J

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #302 –
foobar . . . love it or leave it.

Well, you can't LEAVE foobar. It's like Hotel California.

You might as well try to leave Cynthia.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #303 –
Because it doesn't automatically play a wave file when you first install it.
f to c to f to c

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #304 –
I started using foobar from version 0.8.x.
Foobar can be suited for taste from anyone.
If you like simple look, it's already in simple look from default installation.
If you like fancy "eye-catching" outlook, you can customize by yourself or use  theme desgined by foobar's user.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #305 –
I started using it because iTunes slowed my system down to the point of not being functional anymore. Winamp is tested and true, but to me it's too much "in the middle"; too customizable to be as straighforward as iTunes but not customizable enough to be anywhere near Foobar. So I decided to go "all the way" with Foobar  Only use iTunes to sync my iPod these days
Les mots d'amour...

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #306 –
at first i tried foobar because is saw users screenshots of their own modifications/themes and thought that foobar looks very good. then i realised it needs lot of tweakin to get it look good and i switched back to winamp. But i was bored and tried foobar for "one more time". I got a good tutorial that i used to get my foobar look good. After that i discovered all the great utils, tagging possibilities and replay gain. now I'm not switching back to winamp anymore!
 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #307 –
I tried Foobar last year, and I did love it. For awhile. It was customisable, played more formats than WMP and I like stuff like this. Plugins? Great idea!

However I switched back to WMP (Windows Media Player).... why?

1) The multimedia library.

Yes just that one thing only. I like to browse my library easily inside my media player. I don't wanna have to write a complex plugin to make a media library thats easy to use. WMP has a far superior library (out of the box).

I can expand albums and see all my albums. Or I can go to artists and see all their songs when I click the artist. But if I then expand artist I can see the individual albums. I can double-click and whatever is in that list becomes the new play list. Or I can right-click and add to the current playlist rather than killing it.

If Foobar had a multimedia library that was on par with WMP it'd be the superior player in the market, but sadly it's not. If someone reckons they can get that same functionality or close to it with Foobar then please, correct me! Show me!

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #308 –
Changed to it because WMP... errr... whatever the latest one is... went crap. The main reason is I like the artist/album expandable trees, and especially the directory one, which is difficult to find elsewhere.

I would probably change away from it, to something that may in many ways be worse, if someone came up with something similar that was slightly more usable. What irritates me about Foobar is that it's very well done, technically excellent, stable and more, yet missing some blindingly obvious and pretty much trivial features.

By this I mean things like my old gripe that shuffle and repeat are not separate. Another is that you play through an album in normal mode, reach the end, press the play button (in my case, a hotkey) - and instead of starting again, it plays the last track. Why?! All of this wonderful player and it's let down by some spectacularly simple annoyances.


Quote from: Narusegawa on
I can expand albums and see all my albums. Or I can go to artists and see all their songs when I click the artist. But if I then expand artist I can see the individual albums. I can double-click and whatever is in that list becomes the new play list. Or I can right-click and add to the current playlist rather than killing it.

If Foobar had a multimedia library that was on par with WMP it'd be the superior player in the market, but sadly it's not. If someone reckons they can get that same functionality or close to it with Foobar then please, correct me! Show me!
http://crap.wapoc.com/foobar.png

Works for me - took a bit of messing around to do it, but not too bad. I can try to explain but it might be difficult.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #309 –
I switched because I was fed up with Winamp's crap, it was to the point were it wouldn't even start.

The only down side to foobar is that fact that I change my shell style, icons, etc. a lot and like to have everything match, this would be fine with Winamp but in fb2k it's a bit more difficult seeing as how I can't find many .fcs files, and I'm not very good at coming up with a layout

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #310 –
Because it's quick and plays every format I throw at it, Sick of other players taking forever to load.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #311 –
It hasn't been long since I began using foobar (late last year), but I don't exactly remember why I began using it. I think I got it recommended from a friend. So, I installed foobar and was met with a white minimalistic interface which looked like it could do nothing at all. It kind of set me aback, but I quickly learned of ColumnsUI, which suddenly changed everything. That, combined with foo_playlist_tree and not few hours learning the basic of TAGZ and other scripting, made foobar THE best choice for me.

In every other music player I used, there were some things that I didn't like, and some things that were not suited to my needs. In foobar? I change it myself. Do I want ColumnsUI to not show artists unless the album artist equals "Various"? No problem, wrap it all up in a little $if($stricmp($meta(album artist),Various)) and you're good to go. Do I want to be able to organize my whole music collection in one, two... make that three clicks? No problem, I've made an advanced "rename, move or copy files" script perfectly suited for my needs, and my needs only.

It's the customizability, generally speaking. To be able to do basically what ever you want to fit it exactly to your music collection. Yes, it takes quite a while to get it all working just the way you want it, but my oh my, is it worth it.

Edit (darn me for always remembering things a split second after adding the reply): The reason I started using foobar, was because of the gapless playback. I needed that, and a friend of mine said that foobar probably was the best gapless player for Windows.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #312 –
I'm a masochist. 
Nov schmoz kapop.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #314 –
It's mostly visual for me. I can adjust Foobar in any way I want, and it really works for me, the way I set it up. The sound is fine and gapless and all is nice, but I change songs and look for them so much, that it really matters to me how the songs are laid out. I need to be able to quickly do what I want, and only Foobar can do it.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #315 –
I does'nt want to talk about Windows Media player, it stink.
Itunes doesn't give me what I want, not good sound, doesn't read Flac.
I spent a year with Winamp, but I was never satisfied, It takes an Hour to load my Library. Don't like the media library and these windows which open in my face and resize themselves when and were they want.

Now I find the Holly Graal, it's Foobar2000 + GSM_flavored mod v0.1.5,
--The most important thing-->Foobar sound great and the music in my Grado's is more clean and clear with foo than with Winamp. For those who haven't make the experience, try to listen the same song with the same volume wthout any Dsp, with another Media player, you will hear the difference, it's the same beetween Flac and MP3.
--Library load quickly
--I can see Album covers while navigating in the media library
--I can change tags and download covers in more efficient way than with other media player
--almost anything is possible and can be done with Foo

What I don't like is that I need to understand (a little bit) how it works.


I am very satisfied with MY Foobar

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #316 –
I use it as an auxiliary player for tracks that aren't in my music library and also to convert CUE+WAVs ripped in EAC to LAME 3.97 -V 0 --vbr-new.

It's fast and it's lightweight, but the learning curve is way too steep and time consuming for me to get the same features as WMP11 (my choice for library management/playback), and it doesn't offer seamless integration with the AMG database (crucial feature for me) as WMP11 does.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #317 –
I like it due to its minimalism (or what can be achieved, I hate people trying to mimic WMP in foobar2000 but that just shows what can be achieved) and that it can still have load of features accessible without turning in to the beast that is WMP\iTunes.

Its also able to manage my music library to my tastes and others via tagz n such.

I also like it having to use its own input plugins rather than bog up the entire system with codecs.

I like its speed and resource management. It doesnt bog down the computer nor does it arrive with "Agents".

Thats why I use Foobar2000

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #318 –
i like foobar because:
  • plays every format under the sun with minimal optional plugins (see below)
  • extremely fast loading (beats winamp and especially itunes by miles)
  • looks ugly but i don't give a sh|t because i'm listening to music not watching my music player
  • has absolutely no problems handling unicode (i have sh|tloads of japanese/chinese files)
  • super easy to convert from one file type to another
  • free!

here's all i have to add and i'm all set:
foo_burninate.dll (right click CD burning!)
foo_dop.dll (best thing ever made for my 2G shuffle)
foo_input_alac.dll (for those pesky itunes rips)
foo_input_monkey.dll (not sure why they can't include this default... but at least it's not hard to find like...)
foo_input_tta.dll (like this one... *hint* google "tta foobar" will bring you straight to the right page)

keep up the good work foobar devs
Trends UD-10 | Pioneer VSX-1015TX | Energy RC-10 | AV123 x-sub

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #319 –
I like foobar2000 because it works. Also it goes by the "if you don't ask for it, you don't get it" philosophy.

Things I really like about:
Titleformating - tag based ui rocks
A dedicated, friendly, and helpful dev and user community

Things I don't like about it:
Titleformatting

Also I don't like the concept of the queue, I think everything should be a playlist, since the ui is based on playlists and that is, primarily, how the user interacts with the program. I also think the queue confuses basic functionality and distracts from features that would more easily be introduced if the backend had a simpler model. "Cursor follows playback"/"Playback follows cursor" - intermixed with active/playing playlist, plus the fact that you can play tracks by "adding to queue" or by playing a playlist, which are two completely different things. These are concepts I have never adequately wrapped my head around, and don't honestly care to. I don't use the queue, and I think that there some features (mentioned in previous posts) missing that a purely playlist based system could handle quite easily.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox. Cheers and thanks again for this great player.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #320 –
I believe my initial reason for switching to foobar was that I dislike applications that abandon the standard windows look & feel in favor of some ugly selection of skins, which seems to be what most media players go for.  Ironically since then I have customized my foobar to the point that it's barely recognizable as a windows app other than the titlebar.  I guess the difference is that it's something I designed, so that makes it ok.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #321 –
Simple. 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #322 –
The way it handles tags is vital to me. In other media players, there is a screen with predefined tags, and if there are any more, you can't see it. It's also not easy to add new custom tags. In Foobar, it's as natural as typing text in a text editor. It's very powerful, and I need that. Also, it doesn't mess up tags, like WMP does. If I play something from my foobar music library in WMP, the tags get totally messed up, especially the rating.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #323 –
I like it because it' a swiss army knife for audio. What I don't like is maintaining it. I'm using foobar for quite a while now and it worked fine for me, so I didn't keep track of some component's developement. Yesterday I tried to add album art, which wouldn't work with my old version of Columns_UI, so I had to replace it with te newest version. But that disturbed my Trackinfo and so on. In the end it ruined my config and I had to do everything anew... 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #324 –
I tried it once a few months and didn't know how to do anything useful with it. Then I saw the wiki here, and set it up so it could do everything that iTunes could do (well everything I used it for), but better in every way and without the bloat or slowness