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 181586 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #325 –
My reasons for using foobar2000 is mostly technical (I'm very peculiar about things). foobar2000 has a robust component architecture that exceeds other players like Winamp in every way. It is easier for a beginner to write plugins for Winamp because it doesn't use a C++ class based stucture which can be a bit daunting at first, but this class based structure shows it's strengths when you get more complex code and want to interface more deeply with the core (being foobar2000 itself).

Besides the technical aspects I love foobar2000 because it's outright simple to use (for me) and brings no nonsense. F.ex the latest incarnations of Winamp are a bit bloated I must say even with the option to remove plugins you don't want. The advertisements in various Media Library pages should have never been added and at least be gone when you are running the Pro version.

I also got Songbird installed which is a nice concept but nothing I would use in daily life. The same thing can be said about Amarok and don't get me started on iTunes clones.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #326 –
I like Foobar because it is light and because it support cue sheets.

The only thing that I don't like about Foobar is that there is not an installerless option for it. I would much prefer the option of simply unzipping it into my home directory.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #327 –
I use foobar for my music playback needs, conversion to various formats, and thanks to panelsUI its interface can be tweaked even further.

However, I must say that I feel a lot of people here like to 'claim' the program for some strange reasons. It almost feels like its a choice because its considered 'good' by people who have better knowledge of audio compression and playback (whatever that includes) then they do.  It reminds me of a movie that is liked a lot outside the mainstream, not necessarily for qualitative reasons they themselves understand, but because they are being told by people they look up to that it is awesome.  And so they buy into it, the analogy being Foobar, dabble with it, find it to work ok, maybe not better (dude, claiming Foobar to sound better is just a very strange (and probably untrue) statement) and feel a little 'cool' for not using the evil Microsoft'ish Winamp (or even more evil true-Microsoft WMP).  What they don't realize is that those programs might work just as well for them.

Anyway, I dont mean to troll, just wanted to vent a little.

Edit: typos.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #328 –
For anyone who does not have the technical competence to use foobar, or for those who do not need its advanced options, but still want above average degree of control, I recommend MediaMonkey. It's free (at least 95 % of the functionality), it's very easy to use, and it has a lot more options to scructurize and maintain your music library than WMP has.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #329 –
Would be perfect if they only put back the RANDOM feature!

Sometimes I like a new song i just added to the playlist so i'm constantly replaying it, however with the current shuffle feature it repeats the SAME SONGS in the same order over and over again.

I understand it was taken out b/c some ppl got confused with shuffle and random, but that doesn't mean you should delete it!

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #330 –
One - real important - reason havent been mentioned enough imo:

The great community! Many developers of plugins and stuff create it new every time they want it!

YOU are the reason for using foobar!
 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #331 –
Second that, Generalverdacht. Foobar would have been nothing without all the plugins created by the community.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #332 –
+ love at first sight because it looks like it belongs on my desktop as it uses the standard Windows GUI
+ gapless playback & cue sheets
+ title formatting
+ small memory footprint
+ total time counter
+ i hate skins
+ cute icon
H.Lo

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #333 –
Cause it dose not add Startup entry.



+ Can customize to suited my weird listening habit
+ FAST
+ Very nice icons
+ Lots of thing Foobar can do
+ A lots of good and weird(and i find it very useful!) plugin
+ Did i mentioned FAST!!

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #334 –
Because straight away I was able to play all the flac files I have. I have been using it straight out of the box with just the ape and shn plugins for about a year.

Now I just hope I can get through the steep learning curve and figure out how to wrestle this baby until it looks the way I want it to. I seen screen captures of others setups and they look amazing, much cooler than my stock settings.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #336 –
Quote from: MiSP on
Second that, Generalverdacht. Foobar would have been nothing without all the plugins created by the community.

Depends - without "all the plugins", a few interesting things would be missing.... but also alot of options-bloat and horrible configuration-hell would be missing.

Ignoring filetype plugins, as i see it, the most important thing which barebone-foobar (no 3rd party plugins) is missing, is a less minimalistic UI - and the lack of a better official UI is also what started this whole mess.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #337 –
I started to use foobar a couple of weeks ago, Mainly because it supports natively .ape files, the audio codec  I'm using to archive my cds.
So I'm a total newbie. Infact I'm using it with the standard gui, quite minimalistic, but I saw there are "thousands" of plugin that can change the aspect and add a lot of functions. I.e ReplayGain
WinMPlayer and its embedded  DRM control is another reason to change music player.
In general I would like to change the habit to use mainly Ms programs and start to use as more I can (at home for example....) free and opensource software.
Foobar Linux portability could be nice.

Ciao

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #338 –
I'm totally in love with title formatting. The way I'm able to make columns in Columns Playlist, and filter/sort my files for easy tagging.

Foobar does what I never was able to make Winamp do...
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #339 –
I started using foobar2000 PRIMARILY because the true gapless MP3 playback support. This was the first thing. Then later I found about the multi-band marvelous EQ. And not much longer, I found out a little tool that I mess and un-mess every now and again, the CONVERTER. And Not much after that, I discovered that it can also masstag...

I just painfully regret, murmur and get sad that there is NO LINUX port.
I hope the developer change his mind one day...

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #340 –
Linux Port would be cool. But until this happens I use 0.9.4.3 with wine and Jack to have audio without stutters.
I don't like the way Amarok is so less customizeable. Maybe I am a bit to fastidious from Foobar.
I like Foobar because of
- Beeing customizable
- Coverting and Ripping
- Masstagging
- Replaygain (Amarok mustchange a lot. That replaygain script works not so well)
- Media Library

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #341 –
I initially decided to switch my ripped CD's from the lossy WMA format to FLAC format for the better sound quality. 

I examined numerous music players.  Many of them to do not play FLAC format files.  Some of them are too basic.  Some of them had bad reviews by users or web sites.  I saw no bad reviews for foobar2000 

foobar2000 has quite a few features that make it a powerful player.  I love the fact that it can be customized for a more personalized function and appearance.  The customization process also presents an enjoyable challenge that will hopefully expand my audio knowledge.  The few flaws that have been mentioned for it are unimportant in my view or can be handled by secondary programs.

Thanks to the developers for providing a great program!!!

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #342 –
- A large amount of scalability
- Low system resource hog
- Good sound quality
- Out of the box codec support

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #343 –
No ugly/heavy skins, just plain good ol windows native interface
Extremely customisable
Usage of the proper decoding engines
It covers all my converting and tagging needs
True gapless playback
No ugly/heavy skins, just plain good ol windows native interface

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #344 –
Clean simple interface with custimizability via CoulmnsUI and some panels for album art and such. I hate the whole skin thing. Just show me my stuff and play it. On that note. Support for many formats. Wavpack specifically. Tag editing/cleanup/management. Would like to say the converter but currently got bug(s) with that.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #345 –
The main reason I switched from WinAmp to Foobar2000 was great Unicode support.  I have a lot of German and Scandinavian music, and Foobar is able to display characters correctly.  Some of the reasons I have stuck with it:

- Interface looks like a normal program
- Customizable in all the right ways (not just stupid eye candy, you can tweak it to display information you care about)
- Incredible community of supporters
- Great plugins (to the OP: look at foo_title if you don't like foo_looks)
- Masstagger rocks

Foobar really seems to be all about the music.  It just never gets in my way!  As others have mentioned, if it ran on Linux, it could take over the world.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #346 –
I switched from Winamp because of this:

+ Tools for organizing my music
+ Low CPU / Memory consumtion
+ Multiple playlist and Panel Tree in Columns UI

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #347 –
I chose Foobar2000 because i can have every detail i want, organised with the way i want. Total customization are the magic words.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #348 –
I can tell you why I like it and why I don't like it.

I like(d) it because of its simplicity, no graphical wizzdos or useless features, just an mp3 player.

Up until now, when it no longer has the feature I've used ever since I first installed winamp, or the feature doesn't work. It hasn't for the past three versions. See here

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #349 –
I chose Foobar2000 mainly to play FLAC with scrobbling support for Last.fm. But now I really like customizing it and making it look great. The whole plug-ins scene is really cool.