Live data from Hacker News

Foobar2000

foobar2000.org

41–50 of 219 posts

Re: Foobar2000

#41
Ah, Foobar2000. I loved using it back in Windows days. It works great, and supports a whole lot of music formats. I recommend it.

Re: Foobar2000

#42
foobar2k + soulseek was a heady combination. one abiding memory was how fragmented the components for fbk2 were and how you had to search through the hydrogen audio forums for updates and they often got abandoned/picked up by someone else, and the forum community was incredibly unwelcoming!

even though spotify has almost completely destroyed my need for fb2k, i do still use it for listening to radio streams. i'd love if there were fully fleshed out components that let you use spotify with fb2k.

Re: Foobar2000

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what.cd was one of the greatest resources available on the Internet, in my opinion. Still sad it's gone. :-(

Yet another rewrite project that went nowhere, if I remember correctly. Or was that waffles.fm? I'm probably confusing the two. edit: ok I did confuse them, see reply

You're thinking waffles.fm -- what.cd was seized by authorities. waffles didn't even come close to the glory of what.cd

Re: Foobar2000

#44
Customization still makes this a must for me. It's cool to have tree-view playlists that can link to youtube, or whatever else. You also don't need to uncompress your zip/rar archives to create playlists from them - which isn't very common, most other players won't allow you to play consecutive tracks from a compressed archive. Saves space and that's how I always liked organizing albums.

Re: Foobar2000

#45

If it wasn't for Foobar2000, I would've stayed with Winamp. It's so small, yet so configurable and extendable, that I still consider it the best music player for windows. Also I wished that they had foobar2000 on the Mac, which would replace my dependence on iTunes.

They do! It's nowhere near on-par with the Windows release but it can play your music: https://www.foobar2000.org/mac

Re: Foobar2000

#46

If it wasn't for Foobar2000, I would've stayed with Winamp. It's so small, yet so configurable and extendable, that I still consider it the best music player for windows. Also I wished that they had foobar2000 on the Mac, which would replace my dependence on iTunes.

There IS a Mac version of Foobar2K now; check the site! Just discovered this myself. However, another commenter mentioned that it's quite incomplete/different.

Re: Foobar2000

#49

Foobar is one of the greatest pieces of software ever and Linux music software only dreams it can be as good as Foobar.

Foobar2000 was the hardest app to replace when I switched from Windows to Linux. I finally settled with Clementine which is great too, but that was basically the end for my music collection, organization and rating hobby. I had even built my own replacement to Last.fm/Audioscrobbler backed with a local database as I wasn't happy with their feature sets, and I meticulously kept all tracks uniquely identifiable with full tagging to derive some data of my listening habits.

That all basically ended -- instead of being an active process and participating in vibrant communities my music listening changed to just that, listening. The eventual switch to Spotify was much less dramatic for me. Sure it was replaced with something else to tinker on, but some of my fondest computing memories are thanks to foobar2000.

Re: Foobar2000

#50

Foobar is one of the greatest pieces of software ever and Linux music software only dreams it can be as good as Foobar.

I really like music player daemon on Linux. Is foobar actually superior at reproducing sound?

The result of decoding music files is deterministic and well defined, so essentially: they will all sound the same, unless one of them is screwing something up.

Some may handle sample rate conversion better than others.

Foobar's FAQ says as much: https://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ

Post reply on HN