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 178708 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #425 –
Honestly, I want to like foobar2000, I really do.

However, lack of any kind of integrated set-it-and-forget it Podcast/Netcast features is a major miss for me, since I listen to podcasts for at least 5 hours a day. So far only ONE program can do that, and it's not foobar2000.

I have simple requirements:
1) Must automatically download new episodes without user intervention or a second program.
2) Must remember position within the file.
3) Must have an option to automatically delete non-new Podcasts/Netcasts once listened to without user intervention or a second program.

If foobar2000 can implement such features, it will of course be my media player of choice. Lacking them - I have to pass.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #426 –
Hi, I use Foobar2000 side by side with Winamp. I like the undramatic no frills lay out. WinAmp has a slight pause between tracks, very irritating when playing continuous albums. Foobar2000 keeps on playing.
poor guy

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #427 –
Why do you use Winamp?

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #428 –
Actually I don't have a choice not to use foobar2000. It's highly addictive, and with a fast growing music collection that needs proper tagging it's the best tool around.

With the extensive ability to store custom tags and create (auto)playlists the possebilities are endless. Also I have many ideas of new components I hope I can learn to develop in the future
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #429 –
Quote from: lotherius on
I have simple requirements:
1) Must automatically download new episodes without user intervention or a second program.
2) Must remember position within the file.
3) Must have an option to automatically delete non-new Podcasts/Netcasts once listened to without user intervention or a second program.

(1) is not possible (might be with some external batch script i think), but you can try create a thread requesting such feature. I think that (2) is possible - I just don't remember if it's a function in the core or a component (i was unable to find it). (3) is possible with this component.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #430 –
I use Winamp for my player (and have for over a decade ) ... I don't have any gap problems with gapless albums. 

But as for foobar ... I couldn't live without it for tagging! The ability to powerfully edit tags in MASSES (and quickly), and then rename the files and move them into album folders based on those tags is ... outstanding.  Without foobar my music collection would be messy and horribly unorganized ... with foobar, it's clean, neat, and tidy.  Couldn't live without it.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #431 –
Quote from: antihero on
I use Winamp for my player (and have for over a decade ) ... I don't have any gap problems with gapless albums. 

But as for foobar ... I couldn't live without it for tagging! The ability to powerfully edit tags in MASSES (and quickly), and then rename the files and move them into album folders based on those tags is ... outstanding.  Without foobar my music collection would be messy and horribly unorganized ... with foobar, it's clean, neat, and tidy.  Couldn't live without it.


I initially started using foobar like that. Then I gradually started using it when I wanted a bit of music playing in the background, and to run off my ipod. Then I started customising it a bit more - and each time I did that, I used foobar a bit more for music and Winamp a little less. I've now found that every single feature I liked in Winamp is replicable in some form or another in foobar (except maybe visualisations), plus many more useful features.
The last time my computer crashed, Winamp didn't get re-installed and it's been foobar all the way since 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #432 –
Mainly because of its small footprint, and how its easy to manage/edit tags in a large music collection, does these things better then any other player.  To many players have become bloated im glad foobar has not.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #433 –
About 3 years ago I was winamp & iTunes user (i could not choose the best one between the two, so I had both of them). I made my own skins (none of them were accepted by winamp.com so it kinda sucked). The day earlier before registering here i started using foobar. It was version 0.9.3 (or so). I loved it, compared to iTunes & winamp. Because i could make the player look like I wanted. ('custom tags, bunch of components woohoo'). My library is still under construction, but I guess, it will never get to the `final version`. 

At work I have openSUSE linux. Well, let's face it, my work laptop is not for music playing, but linux native player Amarok is not so good as fb2k. But I took some ideas from Amarok, to add in my library. Also, foobar2000 has the best community site (in my opinion)to get some help..

Cheers everyone somehow connected to fbk!
Keep up the great work/development of the greatest music player 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #434 –
It works, has a clean interface and can do Kernel Streaming.

What more needs to be said? 

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #435 –
I did love it, till I installed 0.9.5.1

Thankfully I still have an older installer around to keep using

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #436 –
Have been a foo user since 0.8.3. and like it for it simplicity and the fact it can play everything you throw at without the need to install some codec that may not work.  I've fallen in love with the converter function because it keeps all tags and you can do multiple files to one if you choose so.  Plus those colored icons per codec is sweet.
foobar 0.9.6.8
FLAC -5
LAME 3.98 -V3

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #437 –
Hi,

New poster, long time lurker. I've followed foobar's evolution on the last couple of years, always tried new versions, to simply uninstall them next. Thankfully, the new DefaultUI finally allows me to have this setup my way without having to know too much technical details.

With that said, i chose foobar because no other player gives me this degree of customizability and power. Also no other player has this strong community of users always ready to help.

Cheers
foobar > *

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #438 –
Quote from: richms on
I did love it, till I installed 0.9.5.1

Thankfully I still have an older installer around to keep using


I'm quite new to Foobar2000, and I've never used older versions. Is there a particular reason you prefer the older versions?

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #439 –
I love it because every piece of it can be moved and played with.

I kinda wished it was a bunch of elements that could be changed with CSS (Think of the possibilities for looks! A background for the entire player maybe? CSS margins? Custom colors for panels, and choosing whether lists have alternating colors for rows, so on, so forth...) but then again, that's just a Firefox user talking.

I don't like that fact it's not quite fully featured from the start, but I am sure once I have a specific set of plugins, I can just keep the DLLs around for the future. That's actually the upside fo Foobar2000, no bloat. And if i need something, some finger work helps me get to where I need to go for the goods I'm searching for.

Portability means if I ever wanted to put it on my computer, that option exists. If I ever want the player on a different drive, transference is no issue. Feel the need to lean it up? I can trim the fat any time. And oh, every piece of it I know by heart. At least what i put into it.

Despite it's shortcomings, it can most times be overcome with a DLL file, some help documentation and a Wiki article. The community here helps a whole bunch too... well, not me specifically since I tend to be a whiny bitch at times, but posting what I know in these forums will hopefully help someone else in the future.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #440 –
Yay for thread necromancy!

I switched from Winamp to Foobar because of the start-up time. When I simply wanted to listen to music and do something else, Winamp took ages to start playback.
I also learned appreciating Foobar's playlist and file management and the thousandfold options and customizations, especially with all those components created by wonderful people!

Also, Oooh, shiny, it is well do-able to customize your skin to almost anything you want - background image, box positioning, and what not. Check out the panel stack splitter component. Alternating row colours should also be options in playlist viewers.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #441 –
In terms of SQ foobar is almost guaranteed to output pure.  The options are laid out to you in a very blunt way(no need to go digging or shut off addition hidden features).

It supports WASAPI and Asio painlessly. I really don't understand why people feel foobar is complicated, it is much easier to use than some more bloated players such as winamp or Jriver.  That said both winamp and jriver have other neat features but in the voyage for audio purity in a transport they are somewhat useless for me.  The interface is simple, blunt and does what I need it to do.  I can't make it pretty but I have it minimized always anyway.

As for memory and space considerations, computers are so powerful these days I have stopped counting.  Some people are wierd and use those pure ASIO/WASAPI players with no interface.  I really don't understand why,  SQ is not going to automatically become wtf uber awesome, and if it does chances are the player does something with the volume.  Not that it matters since its all to what people enjoy most and placebo is a real physical condition that can't be tweaked and even gets the best and worst of us.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #442 –
I use foobar2000 for several reasons:
  • It is lightweight, very low on resources, fast responses.
  • It has (3rd party) iPod support.
  • It completely replaces MP3Gain.
  • You have almost full control over your files and their contents.
  • You can create a layout that fits your personal needs.
  • 3rd party components add features and improve user interface and playlist handling.

In my opinion, foobar2000 is still not a perfect solution. That does mean all other programs like iTunes, Winamp, MediaMonkey etc. are even worse. For me, there's just no alternative. But it is good to know you are using the best available program.

There are some greater cons (in no order):
  • No album art embedding/removing.
  • Method of creating Autoplaylists is not very intuitive.
  • Foobar2000 solely relys on playlists. Neither a good nor a bad thing, but the default playlist view won't do the job. If at least you could have multiple playlist views and permanently dedicate some of them to specific playlists, much would have been gained.
  • When you have many playlists and just look at that big list, it is hard to locate the most useful ones, and it is impossible to see which playlist is an autoplaylist.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #443 –
@durch: I'm not sure which one, but IIRC there is a playlist component (perhaps ESplaylist or ELplaylist, look it up yourself) which supports multiple playlist views. At least with the Columns UI playlist switcher you can use title formatting to indicate whether a playlist is an autoplaylist. Furthermore there are playlist switchers, like foo_playlist_organizer, which allow you to organize the playlists in a tree.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #444 –
I do not use foobar, because it is not localised (+ extremely lame excuses for not supporting localizations by the developer).

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #445 –
I have used foobar for many years as my music player, but just recently learned really to love it through the customization options. One of the best things I discovered is the ability to use foo_scheduler to start playing music every morning without the need to get out of bed. Of course, weighted randomness provided by foo_random_pools is a perfect option with morning playlists. Also, huge thanks to marc2003 for his scripts in WSH Panel Mod, ability to show last.fm info in player and do almost anything with JScript are really nice.

Not to mention lightweight, never having any problems with codecs, widget-like sidebar show with foo_title, easy filetagging and many more great reasons to fall in love with this player.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #446 –
Because of all the organizational features, and extensions like masstagger. Before foobar my library wasn't even big enough for me to worry about tags or sorting.

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #447 –
It's just so easy, simple and clean. Although I know there are many kinds of options like the Album browser and different playlists, I don't have to use them, which is great. I still hold on to my once-made-and-rarely-changed layout:

[a href="http://i49.tinypic.com/29zd5cj.png" target="_blank"] )

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #448 –
I moved to foobar several years ago (don't remember when) as my computer had a very hard time keeping up with winamp's ever-increasing bloat. At first I found it to be a very neat, and very scaled down player - which I really liked: what I wanted was a play list, a "play" button, a "stop" button, and possibly a "shuffle"/"random" button. Anything else would be extra, and a possibility for memory hogging  Skins in particular - I keep my audio players minimized except for when I actively switch tracks.

However, I pretty quickly learned that there was a lot more to it than first met the eye: I learned to do tagging, customizing the appearance, set up file conversions, make foobar help me sort my music library... And still it uses so little memory that it once managed to convince me that the whole program was as minimal as a music player reasonably could get!

Now, the only drawback I presently see is that it doesn't(??) work natively in linux. (Yes, I should look into Wine and that stuff).

Tell us why have you chosen foobar2000

Reply #449 –
I wasn't sure where to post, didn't feel like it was worth a new thread but hopefully this'll do.

Is there a way to add like a notepad or editable textwindow ui or something, I'm quite new to foobar.

I have audiobooks in foobar and they're split up in hour long sessions so I probably can't listen to a whole track in one go so I'd like to be able to just quickly note down which track and what time I'm on to keep listening next time.