Live data from Hacker News

Foobar2000

foobar2000.org

51–60 of 219 posts

Re: Foobar2000

#51

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?

foobar can do bitperfect output. MPD too, given configured properly. A lot of players is missing this option (specifically bypassing system mixer), and it making sound noticably worse. On MacOS situation is dire (there are some players, but their UX is terrible, imo)

Re: Foobar2000

#53
post #15
post #3

Foobar2000 was such a golden age of music discovery (mostly through piracy forums) for me in my teens, used to spend hours upon hours customising it and posting the results on Hydrogen Audio while weird and wonderful music was downloading from yousendit, rapidshare, soulseek, and megaupload. Bands I now go see live and support through bandcamp now that I'm not poor! So much more exciting and engaging than fucking Spo…

oink and what.cd. Ahh, the memories.

Definitely a go-to but I used as well, up until it went dark within last couple years, the nmp3s off-shoot from SAF all those years ago.

Re: Foobar2000

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Only if system mixer is bypassed

Not sure about linux, but on windows, macos, android difference is huge if you have some good DAC & headphones

Re: Foobar2000

#55

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?

No, the quality of the sound itself isn't better. If anything a higher quality pipeline is easier in Linux IMO.

Re: Foobar2000

#56
post #40

I love foobar. Are there any alternative programs that are similar to Foobar2000 on Linux?

As a long time foobar user, when switching to linux I only found quodlibet to be able to sort by multiple columns at the same time, quite buggy but kinda works, for a few days, then it resets for whatever reason.

Gonna install wine and foobar again sometime in the coming days anyways. this one won't even let me edit the date field as YYYYMMDD, apparently it's an invalid format, and I use it for sorting..

Re: Foobar2000

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would you happen to know if the story is written out anywhere?

Re: Foobar2000

#60
post #17

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

I've used Linux as a desktop since 2013 and to this day I still use foobar2000 as my music player under wine because I've never found anything better.

Same. Deadbeef comes close but it doesn't support all my foobar2000 metadata.
Post reply on HN