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: Why go for Foobar2000? (Read 19592 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #25 –
Quote
Yes, it can be tricky to learn how to use to its maximum. However, I've converted several of my rezmates, my ex-girlfriend, and my family. They all find it loads easier to use than Windows Media Player or Winamp (or for that matter, any of the non-Win32 GUIed players; in other words, most of them), both of which confused them. This leads me to believe that the people who are confused by it are the ones who think they're more adept at computers and audio playback than they are.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252711"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


True, but one major advantage of foobar is that I can create a custom 'base' build containing just the things people need to play stuff with a nice customised but clean UI using ui_columns, then I can zip it up and give it to mates that don't have a clue about faffing with the installer and then the options. Works a treat as foobar doesn't need anything installed in the registry or other system folder crap. It only needs whats in the directory (with a couple of obscure exceptions)

If only foobar was implemented as a service or with a generic com interface or something, then it could be used as a general purpose but powerful audio api that could even be easily made cross platform. That would rock more than free drugs and beer.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #26 –
Quote
True, but one major advantage of foobar is that I can create a custom 'base' build containing just the things people need to play stuff with a nice customised but clean UI using ui_columns, then I can zip it up and give it to mates that don't have a clue about faffing with the installer and then the options.

That reminds be of something I've been meaning to ask about FB2K.  Not knowing much about the technical end of customizing it... I'm wondering if it's possible to configure it so as to lock people out of the settings?  Say in a situation where you have a small network where you want every system to have a copy of FB2K, each set up to accessing the same media database, but where you don't want the people accessing the configurations.

Can that be done/Has it been done?
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #27 –
Use file permissions to lock down the foobar2000.cfg file in the Foobar directory. Users will still be able to change options during runtime, but they won't be saved since it won't be able to write to the file.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #28 –
Here's why I use foobar2000: ONLY PP.
It's My Life,
It's Now Or Never,
I Ain't Gonna Live Forever,
I Just Want To Live While I'm Alive.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #29 –
i love foobar 2000 but the only problem i have is when i try and write a cd with foobar(cause i like to use the dsp) it starts fine and processes the files and starts to write. then i get the disk complete but nothing is written on the cd-r. i cannot figure out what i am doing wrong here, i also have the very latest Nero installed also. any thoughts???

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #30 –
And yet another reason: Because Winamp was discontinued.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #31 –
Quote
And yet another reason: Because Winamp was discontinued.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253475"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Does that make any difference?

Winamp already does everything I need it to do and lots more. It's also highly extensible through plugins, so that should keep me safe about future formats and other functionality.

Actually, I could have stopped upgrading my Winamp on 2.95 and I would still be very happy with it.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #32 –
Quote
Winamp already does everything I need it to do and lots more. It's also highly extensible through plugins, so that should keep me safe about future formats and other functionality.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253482"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

does winamp has a masstager (with tagz like) and a freedb querier?

(i really would have thought that an advanced used like you would be using foobar only)

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #33 –
No, Winamp doesn't have a masstagger that I know of.  Might be a plugin for it, but I can't remember one.  I as well use Winamp, but regardless of it ever being developed further I still like it as a player, and it suits my needs fine.

I do use Foobar for replaygaining and mass conversion/tagging however.
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #34 –
there'll always be a special place in my heart for winamp - it got me through several years of exams.  i spent so long typing crap one night with winamp going that i'd somehow sussed out it's shuffle play algo, and could guess the next song played with 90% accuracy.  scary (my playlist wasn't all that big back then... prolly only 2 gigs worth).

i'm hooked on foobar, because as soon as i think of something i'd like to be able to do, i find a plugin to do it (like HTTP reader that saves streams, or DTS decoding).

one thing i'd love to see is a stereo-to-ambisonic upconverter plugin.  a dolby pro logic II decoder would be cool as well, but i can't expect something like that to be done any time soon.

with the demise of Nullsoft, i'd love to see winamp opened.  AFAIK there's not much that isn't open in it, but i think it would be very cool to see - then we could see native gapless and replaygain, plus all the other cool stuff foobar does.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #35 –
Quote
Here's why I use foobar2000: Everything it does is done *right*. There are no crappy hacks. There are no extraneous features that can't be disabled or ignored. And when people do things *wrong*, the community moves to right that wrong. Be it revising the SDK, stopping the circulation of crashy/hacked plugins, or so on, the community is focused on making foobar2000 the most architecturally sound player on the market. I can't emphasize how much that means to me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252711"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quoted for truth.

Canar managed to put into words, my exact motivation for using foobar2000.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #36 –
After a year using this forum, a few good things happened.  The best of those was adopting Foobar2000.  I use it for playback, some conversions to .wav from compressed formats, and removing gaps prior to buning MP3's.  It is even is good for ripping CD's, especially if your drive caches audio and is painfully slow with the EAC secure mode.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #37 –
Quote
does winamp has a masstager (with tagz like)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253483"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't use tags. I always saw them as an useless waste of time.

Quote
and a freedb querier?


Yes.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #38 –
Quote
Winamp already does everything I need it to do and lots more. It's also highly extensible through plugins, so that should keep me safe about future formats and other functionality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253482"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That certainly is a nice thing about winamp.  It is quite modular, rather than being monolithic.  I can choose which mp3 decoder (nitrane, FhG, MAD, or in_mpg123) or AAC decoder (Dolby or FAAD)  to use by dropping the plugin in the right location and/or enabling it.  If a plugin is buggy and has been fixed later on, all I need to do is grab the latest plugin and drop it into the plugins folder, rather than downloading the whole winamp installation program each time.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #39 –
Quote
I don't use tags. I always saw them as an useless waste of time.

The question was, if I read it correctly, "does winamp have a masstager (with tagz like)?"

And the last time I checked, the answer to this question was "no, winamp does not have a masstagger".

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #40 –
Quote
The question was, if I read it correctly, "does winamp have a masstager (with tagz like)?"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253565"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You surely seem to have reading problems then. In case you didn't notice, Kwambis quoted me when posting. So I understand the question was sirected at me and my sentence that "Winamp does everything I need".

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #41 –
Quote
You surely seem to have reading problems then.

I'm afraid it's rather a problem with you lacking a certain something... something that people call 'logic'.

You did also mention winamp's 'extensibility' in your post... which is in reality rather limited.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #42 –
Quote
Quote
I don't use tags. I always saw them as an useless waste of time.

The question was, if I read it correctly, "does winamp have a masstager (with tagz like)?"

And the last time I checked, the answer to this question was "no, winamp does not have a masstagger".
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm thinking this thread has become an 'insert audio/media player name' versus Foobar2000. If I'm wrong, I'll sure as hell be told.
To answer the question; no it doesn't have a masstagger, and its a bit of a moot point, hence the reason there are other utilities for proper tagging -- mainly I'm talking about [a href="http://members.home.nl/w.speek/]Tag and Tag Frontend[/url].

People will choose a audio/media player based upon their own personal preferences; features/functionality (etc) vs. looks/functionality (etc). Some of us (me, myself, and I included) are very finicky about how the damn think looks, after all I didn't get an almost maxed out PC back in December 2003 to look at a minimalist/simple display -- no offense. There's always going to be Winamp, QCD, 'insert audio/media player name' users whom will deal with "less functionality" to what others deem "superior," however it's a worthless argument that pits the users of one audio/media player vs the other guys/gals -- and it's about as frivilous as asking a vegetarian to switch to a meat only diet. Enough.

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #43 –
For me Foobar2000 is great for just playiing music, and fully customizable.  It's simple and does what it's supposed to do perfectly imo.  However, besides iTunes, Winamp is the only other player that can play back the few protected AAC files I own.  That is the only reaason I use winamp more often than Foobar.
- FLAC/200GB external
- AAC 128 vbr/local
- iPod Nano 2G 8GB

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #44 –
Quote
Quote
The question was, if I read it correctly, "does winamp have a masstager (with tagz like)?"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253565"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You surely seem to have reading problems then. In case you didn't notice, Kwambis quoted me when posting. So I understand the question was sirected at me and my sentence that "Winamp does everything I need".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253652"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

what i meant was if winamp had something like the masstager included in fb2k with tagz like capabilities.

after many years of using winamp, and after trying qcd, sonique, et all, i only moved to fb2k after i really so the advantage of using it ... since then, i could neve return to winamp (it reminds me of the many tires i did while using mozilla with firefox, once i felt firefox did all i wanted, i couldn't return to moz, let alone IE)
 

Why go for Foobar2000?

Reply #45 –
Quote
Quote
Why not go for Foobar?
There is no version for Mac OS X.


How true, and how unfortunate. If there was, I'd drop iTunes in a second!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252719"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Same here. foobar2000 is the only thing I miss from my Windows machine.