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: could foobar2000 replace winamp? (Read 37939 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #25 –
Quote
I think asking whether Foobar can ever replace Winamp is such an injustice. 

It's like asking whether the PC could ever replace the XBox.


I rarely laugh at things said on this forum, but this was an exception 

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #26 –
Quote
The windows version sucks because apple didn't optimize the code, gaps between tracks


The mac version has gaps as well, and I wouldn't say its that much more optimized then the windows version.  Actually I think iTunes is an extremely good port.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #27 –
Foobar2000 won't surpass Winamp whilever it comes with it's ugly standard GUI without skin support. It doesn't bother me, but I know a heap of people that pass up Foobar for Winamp's pretty skins.
</signature>

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #28 –
Quote
Lets just hope the competition of the two players keeps making them both better.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255011"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Heh, what makes you think Peter's competing with Winamp? I've seen very few people who care as little about how anyone other than himself (and perhaps a few close friends) views his programs.

If he was competing with Winamp, he'd have compromised foobar's "no stupidity" rule and made workarounds for stupid things like ID3 tags in streams, ID3v2 tags in Ogg Vorbis files, and so on, perhaps adding in some Winamp compatibility along the way.

Quote
Foobar2000 won't surpass Winamp whilever it comes with it's ugly standard GUI without skin support. It doesn't bother me, but I know a heap of people that pass up Foobar for Winamp's pretty skins.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255089"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Using visual styles, foobar2000 can be as pretty as Winamp, requires much less effort to match to the windows ui (if that's even possible with some visual styles) and seamlessly blends with the rest of the Windows environment. Combine this with a proper title formatting string...

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #29 –
Come to think of it, not a single person I recommended fb2k to ever complained about the lack of skins. And almost every single one of them enjoyed the no-bullshit approach.

Makes me wonder..
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #30 –
Quote
Foobar2000 won't surpass Winamp whilever it comes with it's ugly standard GUI without skin support. It doesn't bother me, but I know a heap of people that pass up Foobar for Winamp's pretty skins.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255089"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I dunno... do you want to see my FB2k playlist window? It has no skins, yep, but I think it looks quite beautiful, thanks to the native skinning of Win XP, modified to accept unsigned msstyles.

People who choose to use Foobar are those who could not care less about skins in the first place.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #31 –
Quote
Foobar2000 won't surpass Winamp whilever it comes with it's ugly standard GUI without skin support. It doesn't bother me, but I know a heap of people that pass up Foobar for Winamp's pretty skins.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255089"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Foobar does surpass Winamp, where it matters.

It isn't as popular as Winamp, as Winamp is more accessible, and is basically the de facto player for Windows  - i.e.: the fist MP3 player someone will recommend to a newbie (as Winzip is to ZIP files).

I used Winamp for around six years, and then was converted to Foobar after visiting this forum, and taking the time to investigate and persevere.  I'm sure it's the same for a lot of people.  Winamp is perfectly adequate for the majority of people, who just want to play MP3s on their PC.  It is a great application, and its history shouldn't be ignored. It's those of us who want that little bit more (and I don't mean a skin that looks like Britney Spears or pretty visualisations) that Foobar appeals to - and I think that's just dandy.  Horses for courses.

I spent too much time with Winamp choosing my skin (which was last set to Winamp Classic) and deciding what visualisation gave the best beat response and looked coolest.  Shame on me.
I'm on a horse.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #32 –
Quote
  Winamp is synonymous with Internet Explorer IMO.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254909"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


  I wonder what Gates and Balmer would think of that idea.

I think they would consider WMP to be the music equivalent of IE.
So would I, for most of  the same reasons...  except that I consider them defects rather then features.

On database, there are good reasons to be able to keep metadata separately from the files.. like you don't have write access, or all members of a family share the same set of music, but want their own entries for preference.

dbpoweramp gives you this.  It also lets you select playback on multiple tags... like when the in-laws come over on 12/25 you can set it to randomly play only christmas music without parental advisory.

My problem here is that with foobar I am still poking in the dark so I don't know if it can do that.  I just use the basic album-list  plus masstagger (which is what first drew me to fb2k)

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #33 –
foobar2000 can do that as well, you just need to enable per-user settings in the installer (after installation you can enable them by putting an empty file named "user_profiles_enabled" in the foobar2000 folder)

As for the "playback on tags" thing, database search / playlist generator / etc are your friends.
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #34 –
Quote
As for the "playback on tags" thing, database search / playlist generator / etc are your friends.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255138"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


OK, I got the "extended search" download, but it isn't clear how to (the universal problem with fb2k..) how to search on a negative condition, to end up with christmas, but not parental advisory, or 18th century but not opera.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #35 –
I think that would be easier with the (Extended) Playlist Generator, which also has help button that explains the syntax used for queries. You might want to use something like "(condition for christmas) AND NOT (condition for parently advisory)". Of course, you should replace the parts in parenthesis with some queries that depend on how your files are tagged/organized. The Extended Playlist Generator differs from the Playlist Generator in that it allows to save queries as presets.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #36 –
Quote
Come to think of it, not a single person I recommended fb2k to ever complained about the lack of skins. And almost every single one of them enjoyed the no-bullshit approach.

Makes me wonder..
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255122"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've also noted the same thing. In my opinion (and I know many people who share the same opinion) skins only make programs uglier and harder to use. I've actually dumped all the programs that use skins for a simple reason: They have no "skins off" option. Because of that I always have to create a new skin for every new Windows VS I make (never touching VSs made by others again ), which is a great PITA.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #37 –
Agreed on the library database front, the lack of database management means that (for me at least) i have to use itunes to sort new files  and it makes adding songs a tedious routine of refreshing and sorting and leveling etc. At least having hotkeys makes things easier. 

As for winamp i think they have a different target audience and foobar isn't trying to be winamp.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #38 –
Sorry to revive a dead thread.

First of all, I think winamp is on par with foobar in performance. Without extra plugins installed, winamp uses very little resources, but even with dozens of plugins it still works like a charm, unless you get a bad plugin of course. I haven't found many stability problems in the core, I'm sure they're there, but they don't affect me so I don't care.

Both players seem to have the same sound quality too. Sure, mpeg123 for winamp won't interface with the ML, but you can still just use winamp like foobar with a playlist holding all your songs. Or you can use flac, ogg, aac, or one of the better formats and not have to worry about sound quality. There's a universal replaygain plugin too, and you can stack plugins if you still want to use another DSP.

Skins. I see why people don't like them, but would it really hurt if there were better skins and UIs to lay on top of foobar? The whole point of a computer is to automate things and make them more comfortable. A long time ago computers were cumberson until you learned their language, but the technology has come far enough that you can interact with a computer in a more natural way. I just don't see the appeal of resisting this progress.

Same for the media library feature of winamp. I'll bet foobar gets this eventually, but until then I can't really keep track of statistics on my files, since the tools for doing so are often format dependant. Winamp has JTFE which lets you override the playlist order and search files in a playlist (if you don't like using the media library)

I respect where foobar is now, and I realize the developers probably don't want to have to cater to idiots. It just seems like the core is really reliable and fast, and that it wouldn't be that hard to make this into something millions of people could use instead of resorting to some corperate POS like itunes, WMP, or Real Jukebox. All it would take is some collaborative effort between plugin developers, and would benefit everyone by making the most common tasks of aquiring and storing music, selecting it again for playback, and editing the metadata easier and more streamlined.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #39 –
I personally don't see anything wrong with foobar, or see a need to change it to cater to thousands or millions of other users, who are perfectly happy to use what ever they are already using.  foobar is a great audio player for people who want total control and extreme versatility, and it provides this with no extra fluff.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #40 –
Quote
Well.. This may sound kind of Simple......

But.. i started using Foobar2000 about 2 years ago....
Before that... i did use WinAmp......

The reason for the switch......

Because.....The "Sound" (PlayBack) was MUCH Better!!!!!!

Plain and Simple....


David

Dsn
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255031"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


what do you mean by playback being much better? audio qualitywise, I think, it's quite the same...

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #41 –
Some people mentioned media database, for me there is only one worth considering. JRiver's Media Center. It seriously blows away most of the competition out there. Meta-data, all you want, quick and can support 100k+ files. Not free but not too expensive either.

Winamp i still use 2.91, 3 was crap, and 5 was cute but nothing better than v2.91. Besides when i discovered  MC, there was no need for anything else.

So why am i posting this in a FB2K forum. Well there are some thing FB2K does better than MC (for the time being). Its masstagging and customisability is incredible. But i dont want to mess around with code too much, i use it to manage my CUE files. It does this job very well, its sample accurate playback etc.

If i were to critique FB2K is that its quite invovled to do simple things, you need to code stuff etc, this is good for tech minded ppl but when u want to relax and listen to tunes , i dont usually want to mess around with code too much. In this regard MC is heads over heels better than other players out there.

I'm not much for pretty interfaces as this means more resources been hogged for what is essentially an audio player. So FB2K's no bullshit view is good.

Its really hard to say which player is the best out there as they have different strengths over the other, and FB2K is not static, im sure the creator has ideas to improve it so i think FB2K will hold its own quite well in the future.


i wait for the day when i can use one media player to do everything but i have a feeling that this might be an unrealistic expectation.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #42 –
Quote
Quote
Well.. This may sound kind of Simple......

But.. i started using Foobar2000 about 2 years ago....
Before that... i did use WinAmp......

The reason for the switch......

Because.....The "Sound" (PlayBack) was MUCH Better!!!!!!

Plain and Simple....


David

Dsn
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255031"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


what do you mean by playback being much better? audio qualitywise, I think, it's quite the same...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281704"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I also agree that Winamp (with Shibatch's mpg123 plug-in for mp3 files) is on par with Foobar2000 on any low to mid-end sound system.  Only when you have a very transparent system will you notice an audible difference.  And then, the difference doesn't even translate into a "better" sound, whatever that means.  The deficiencies of lossless formats become more apparent if anything else.

I've gone back and forth between Winamp and Foobar2000 for about 2 years now.  Now I'm not so anal about it, and realize Foobar is a very good player, but then Winamp is also a very good player in all respects.  Winamp's skins are better than anything I've seen done with Foobar.  I find Foobar's attempts at looking pretty, especially the whole CD cover pic with playlist sorted by albums resulting in big chunks of white space, quite ugly and wasteful (yes, more wasteful and pointless than a Winamp skin).  I think a good Winamp skin looks much more simple and slick in comparison.  As a result, I just use Foobar's default UI.

Nowadays, I use both about equally depending on my particular needs and even mood.  Sometimes I don't care about UI and do need to eek out that 0.01% sound difference using a good pair of headphones.  And other times, I really do need to sit there and watch visualizations for 2 hours non-stop.  My spiritual well-being depends on such things. 

Choice is good.  Don't confine me to your either-or child mentality.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #43 –
Quote
I find Foobar's attempts at looking pretty, especially the whole CD cover pic with playlist sorted by albums resulting in big chunks of white space, quite ugly and wasteful (yes, more wasteful and pointless than a Winamp skin).  I think a good Winamp skin looks much more simple and slick in comparison.  As a result, I just use Foobar's default UI.

The white space is intentional to provide a visual separation between albums.  And it's no more wasteful than filling that space with redundant artist and album info.  The point is foobar can be as wasteful or unwasteful as you want.  I'll never understand the people who keep foobar maximized with a huge g-force panel, but that's their choice.  When it comes to getting exactly what you want in your UI, nothing beats foobar, unless, of course, what you want are pretty shaded buttons and useless bitmaps of circuitry or anime characters truly wasting space.

Edit: and if you think wasting screen space is more "wasteful" than wasting system resources, then your priorities are far different and we're not even arguing the same point.

Quote
Choice is good.  Don't confine me to your either-or child mentality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281824"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nobody's doing that.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #44 –
Quote
Choice is good.  Don't confine me to your either-or child mentality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281824"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't know if I understand you correctly here, but WTF does that mean? When did I say anything about either one being better? Use whichever you want, I couldn't care less...

However when someone (like Dsn) makes any statement regarding quality, he/she should back it up with FACTS.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #45 –
Quote
I also agree that Winamp (with Shibatch's mpg123 plug-in for mp3 files) is on par with Foobar2000 on any low to mid-end sound system.  Only when you have a very transparent system will you notice an audible difference.  And then, the difference doesn't even translate into a "better" sound, whatever that means.  The deficiencies of lossless formats become more apparent if anything else.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281824"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #46 –
Quote
I find Foobar's attempts at looking pretty, especially the whole CD cover pic with playlist sorted by albums resulting in big chunks of white space, quite ugly and wasteful (yes, more wasteful and pointless than a Winamp skin).  I think a good Winamp skin looks much more simple and slick in comparison.  As a result, I just use Foobar's default UI.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=281824"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The look of a prog, especially one that's customizable or skinnable, is a matter of the work of the person who made it, not a reflection on the prog itself. I've seen foobar configs I like and ones I don't. Same with Winamp skins.

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #47 –
It has replaced Winamp, on my computer at least. 
For the last year I have been using fb2k.
love, IAN
droptothetop.com/

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #48 –
Quote
If he was competing with Winamp, he'd have compromised foobar's "no stupidity" rule and made workarounds for stupid things like ID3 tags in streams


I'd give my left nut for a workaround for this. There's just no way to play these streams in foobar and I'm forced to keep winamp or itunes on my computer just for one f'n stream. Neither constructive critisism nor bitching to the radio station in question is going to help. I've done that for years now without any changes. Terrific station but their tech people are just idiots

could foobar2000 replace winamp?

Reply #49 –
Well I personally don't use winamp for more than a year. First of all, I'm just unable to use winamp's media library (ok, maybe I'm stupid...), while fb2k's database fits me perfect. Masstager and diskwriter are extremely useful too.But what I like most - fb2k is AUDIO player, while winamp is trying to be an all-in-one solution. That "winamp video" window was driving me nuts... So for me fb2k replaced winamp for good... and to hell with them skins, hotkeys rule!