So I'm diggin' Foobar bigtime and while using it to Replaygain files thought up a few questions. Is Foobar using its own internal version of Replaygain? What version of Replaygain is Foobar currently using (or emulating?)? Is there a way to tell what the versions of programs Foobar uses are? Thanks.

Foobar uses it's own implementation based on Vorbisgain. It doesn't use an external library but it's own dll.

If there's a Replaygain update, I'd have to wait until an updated Foobar comes out with its own implentation of the upgrade?

Yes, unless a seperate updated dll is released for foobar, since there are modifications of the replaygain code so that it interfaces with foobar.

For what it's worth, the Replaygain code (for all implementations) has only been updated once, it was by Frank Klemm, and the modification is not generally used because it's questionable.

Worrying about Replaygain updates is rather senseless.

This pertains to any of the codecs Foobar uses. It's not a bad idea to be able to pop in an executable into the path or Foobar's directory so that Foobar could utilize the latest versions of the programs it uses. Not considering updates is short-term thinking.

Worrying about updates makes only sense if they have a chance of happening and if there is a good reason to want the update.

Neither apply to current Replaygain.

Garf, you're missing the main point here. This pertains to any of the programs Foobar emulates/uses. Yeah, ok, Foobar's a great program and I still intend to use it. Thanks for the info everyone.

I don't think Garf missed the point in reference to the original bit about replaygain.

As for "being able to pop in an executable into the path or Foobar's directory so that Foobar could utilize the latest versions of the programs", this isn't possible for a number of technical reasons, with the biggest one being that most of the time, this wouldn't support foobar2000's current data flow model. You'd end up missing out on the vast majority of the higher functionality that the player offers if you tried to take this approach (assuming that the software even supported some sort of method of interface like stdin/stdout pipes). The only way to support these things is to use the current approach of creating plugins (with the fb2k API) which are based around these programs.

FWIW though, fb2k is usually updated to use the latest implementations of relevant software at quite a rapid pace, especially if the update to the underlying software is critical. Basically, as Garf implied, there's nothing to worry about here in the first place.