Extremely customizable.
Good community.
Light and fast.
Open Source.

I wish there was something like Foobar but then as Operating System. (I dont mean Linux)

Uhm... no.

well maybe open source is not the right defining, but I mean you can change almost everything by yourself.

Thats hardly the definition of open source.

I cannot understand why this rumour doesn't end that you can change everything by yourself. It was a big improvement in Foobar 0.9. that many options in the preferences were removed. Take a look in a clean install of foobar and then take the same look in clean install of Winamp: You will see that Winamp has much more options.

I think he's talking about plugins too. I've installed UI Columns, Navigator Suite and foo_playlist_tree. I've configured and scripted them (the two latter) way beyond the standard settings, to fit my music collection.

Mostly because of the extent in which you can customize it. And for the amazing tag features.
Also, it fits the same profile an app like Firefox does. Which is keep it clean on default and let the individual user extend it's functionality to his or her preference instead of overloading an app with functions you only use a portion of.
For a long time I wanted to like foobar, but I couldn't stand it. I had kinda like a love/hate relationship with it The default UI did not meet my wishes and the task of coding your own config seemed to big for me. But, I did it anyway eventually and now I love it

Ignorance to this degree is a major issue causing factor in the world. Do you just hear a term and presume it applies to something you like? Does it ever occur to you to actually look things like this up?

People like you are responsible for the idea that people that spread msn viruses are "hackers", low fps in games is "lag", and other stupid misinformed terms of slang that make accurate communcation significantly more impossible.

My reason for installing foobar2000 is not a technical one - but as I don't think it's been mentioned here, it may be of some interest to those monitoring the take-up of the software.

I decided to try out a music database and streaming radio website called Last.fm - this recommends a small list of audio players (only about three, I think) that work with the site. My player wasn't listed, but foobar was, so I decided to install it too.

My other player was VLC (which has never let me down on audio, even if its video handling is occasionally problematic). I don't think I would have installed another player without having visited that website.

For a new user, a big plus for foobar is that it seems to work straight after installation, with a big, clean, uncluttered interface. It may strike a new user as more complex than VLC, but that is largely due to its many optional advanced features, which require a lot of discussion and documentation. Obviously the advanced features are a strong recommendation for those users who need them - but once it's realised that those who don't need them can run it in a basic mode, the complexity is more apparent than real. I particularly liked the fact that you don't need to search through lots of preference menus to tweak the privacy settings, as can be the case with commercial players.

It's too early to say whether I'll stick with foobar (or last.fm) as I've only just started to try them - but first impressions are good.

well to be honest I googled before I posted 'opensource'.
I googled for "opensource foobar" and came out to:
"FooBar2000 - a Free, Open-Source, Extendable digital music player"
the reason I used this term was because it's hard for me to express my words as non native englishman.

In order of priority:

1. Full Unicode support.
2. Great sound quality.
2. Small footprint.
3. Customizable interface.
4. Last.fm support.
5. Masstagger.

No order of importance...

Simple interface
Customizable as HELL
Small footprint (ninjaing what Sashka said >.>)
Great format support

Well, I've been using WinAmp for a little while, as WMP sucks in little ways (for one, I hate its shuffle) and doesn't have FLAC or APE support.
I've recently gotten into Foobar because of its converter--I can convert from many formats (like APE and FLAC, huzzah!) to others very easily. I also like its interface simplicity, though I wish it could minimize to small toolbar like WinAmp.
I also rip often to .FLAC images with .cue sheets for backup, and I love that Foobar can play these. And it can burn using Nero? What can't Foobar do? (well, I'd like to be able to rip to image with separate .cue, not embedded, but I use EAC anyway)
I like its shuffle, but I wish I could click "next" and it would shuffle to another song, like in WinAmp. Doesn't seem to work in Foo.
Would I be able to use a remote control with Foobar?

So, in short, I like it's simplicity and the depth of its functions! Very powerful little player.

I'm an old-timer, a DOS fossil, and I'm filesystem oriented. I use foobar2000's default GUI.

To me, foobar2000 is like an audio oriented filesystem browser, with a toolbox. That is how I think of it; that is what I want; that is how I use it. iTunes and WMP, etc., are overwhelmingly intrusive by comparison. (And foobar2000 can do what they do too, if desired.) The tabbed playlists make my preferred mode of operation effortless, exactly as with a tabbed internet browser. It is a mystery why most of the other audio player developers don't agree with this.

My answer to the original post: I like the transparency through it to the file on the disk, and the tab-navigation.

Edit:
My main usage of foobar has not been music: it is a central tool in my Chinese studies. So, I appreciate the Unicode support. Foobar actually makes a very good adjunct to a flashcard program: chop up the language-lesson audio as desired, edit the formatting string to show just the (Chinese) filename, set the font very large, set the window size to show just the filename being played, select "random", and let it fly!

Most of the popular players seem to be playlist oriented. That is, you create a number of playlists for different moods/scenarios, and then when you startup WinAmp or WMP or VLC you just select the playlist and off you go.

What I need is a library-centric music player. I want to have a library view (sorted by directory structure or artist/album) from which I can drag-drop albums and, rarely, individual songs into the Now Playing list. If I can use ctrl/shift keys to select multiple albums/songs for dragging, all the better. You just can't do this with the popular players.

I started with MusicMatch which was exactly what I needed, except that it had a pretty big footprint AND it didn't support Flac. I then tried the Monkey, which was fine except that it was really an adware player, which I didn't want. And then I stumbled upon Foobar, which seems to do the job.

Now I've got to tell you, I'm not in love with Foobar. Its been a pain in the neck to get setup in a way that works for me. MusicMatch was extremely easy to use in comparison and was setup the way I liked it out of the box. But given the memory footprint and lack of FLAC support, I've decided to use Foobar.

Here's to hoping that Foobar becomes easier to use (a slim maybe?).

I've been using it for about a year, switching from Winamp because...honestly, I don't even remember the reason I switched. I think I was just frustrated with Winamp's interface and ready to try something new.

Foobar 2000 strikes me as, not so much a music player in itself (though it certainly is that), as a framework around which you can build your own ideal music player. If you want something minimalist, with no frills or fancy graphics, it can do that. If you want something incredible-looking, it can do that too. If you want pretty advanced media management, it can do that too. There's never been anything I've wanted the program to do that I couldn't, eventually, after a great deal of work and/or hunting for plugins, make it do.

The dark side here, of course, is that the task of actually *making* it do what you want it to do can be daunting (to say the least), especially if you don't have a lot of time to invest, or a mind for technical tasks. This, the scattershot documentation and, sorry, the (perceived, at least) attitude of some folks (namely, that if you don't have a lot of time to invest or a mind for technical tasks that you don't *deserve* to use Foobar2000) keep me from being able to unreservedly recommend it to people. There's a difference between having a steep learning curve and being actively hostile to new users, and while I'm not sure FB2K or its community is unreservedly the latter, both certainly edge in that direction at times.

Also, I kind of hate the name.

Still, I love tinkering with things, and I love being able to make it behave exactly as I desire, so I'm almost certainly going to stick with it.

I have never seen that happen and frankly, i don't believe it's true(we have good mods here). If someone aren't prepared to invest alittle time on reading up on things and expects everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, then i don't really see it as being hostile to say that they probably should go use another player instead. On the other hand then newbies which aren't lazy is newer brushed off like that...

Although the name of a player is utterly irrelevant, then i personally really love it, as it reflects just that...

My own reasons for being a diehard fb2k fan is simply because of it's feature set, configurability, GUI and footprint, and where the most important features of that feature set, is the support for WavPack images with embedded cuesheets, tagging/mass-tagging, renaming/moving, converting and ReplayGain support.

Anyway, that was just my 2 cents

1) FLAC + full unicode support
2) masstagger
3) album list plugin (it's like iTunes w/o the bulk)
4) KS

not a fan of the default UI, but hey to each his/her own. At least there's a plugin that allows me to let foobar look the way I want.

Maybe hostility wasn't the right word, but there's definitely a culture of...something, I don't know, and don't particularly want to use any loaded terms. But the characterization of a certain group of new users as 'lazy' (even as you are trying to argue that there is no hostility to newbies) lends a bit of support to my perception.

My point, I suppose, is that it's a great program, but not one that I'd recommend to anyone without a lot of time, technical ability, and patience. And that's kind of a shame, because I think there are people without a lot of time, technical ability, and patience who would use and benefit from the program if some effort were made to meet them halfway.

You forgot to mention special needs. If you don't have any special needs, that being connected to compression format as well as organizing and layout, then you don't really need foobar. MediaMonkey will work just as good for those people.

When someone is trying to get into fb2k, then they will without a doubt notice that it will take a little effort to learn and use propperly. Then if you are not the type of person who takes joy in getting down and dirty with such things, then the logical next move would be to admit to yourself that this player is properly not meant for my target group and then go look for another more suited alternative instead. This behaviour to me is fully accepted and also not the slightest bit lazy, however, when some person of that same group dosen't go that route, but instead comes to this forum section and demands help and support without really wanting to make some efforts themselves, then to me that is totally unacceptable and without a doubt lazy behaviour and that was solely the thing i meant previously with my use of the 'lazy' term.

Neither would i

Very true, but that would also spoil it for the current target group though, so i honestly dosen't hope that it will change, but that's just me, though

Btw, i'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything like that, but just expressing my own personal oppenion about this issue

Oh, I certainly wouldn't advocate crippling the program to make it easier to learn. It'd be nice if it demonstrated some of its flexibility and power right out of the box, though. Although I suspect that's difficult, since so much of what makes the program incredible comes from its plugins, and it's probably unfeasible (if not outright impossible) to distribute them along with the executable.

And believe me, I'm not seeing this as a fight. I appreciate the replies, really. Never hurts to have one's preconceptions challenged!

The conversion capability of foobar2000 fits me perfectly. Being able to convert into or out of Single image files with embedded cuesheets and logs has simplified my Backup Archive immensely. Not to mention I can keep up with the latest codecs to encode with and don't have to wait for program updates like with other audio players to use them. Foobar2000 with its conversion ability is seriously all I could ever need or use.

Recently, I switched back to using foobar as my audio playback after I discovered panels and how pretty darn neat they come out as. Also, grabbed the continuator and tube plugin. Granted the PanelsUI does increase the footprint of foobar but it doesn't slow the program down unlike some other player that begins with a small i. It is also not slowed down by my current mp3 library of 5,000+ songs (it grows when I convert my CDs or buy new CDs).

Use PanelsUI 0.14.9 or 0.13.8, as I read in the PanelsUI thread 0.14.10+ have crashing problems. I have had problems with 0.13.8 but some people don't, while I have had zero problems with 0.14.9. So take your pick of those two.

So in short:

Conversion
Customization
No Slowdown

That sums it up.

+ Lightweight, in both CPU and RAM usage
+ Good with big playlists
+ Very configurable
+ Can play everything from MP3s to burned sandwiches
+ No annoying features like the common skin bullshit
+ Works great with wine in Linux. If it didn't, I would still be running windows. :-)
+ Playlist tabs
- Not open source

I recently switched to Linux, and after walking through most of the good music players there are, I just had to run foorbar2000 with wine. (for those that don't know, wine is an windows environment emulator kind of program for Linux + other unixes).

http://keitsi.minttupuffet.net/misc/fb2k_linux.png

I already pointed this out in the foo_discogs thread, so apologies for the repetition, but I moved over because I wanted my MP3s, all 30,000 of them, tagged properly, once and for all, according to the Discogs standard.

I'd become a bit tired of Winamp hanging and crashing too, whenever it felt like it, but often on exit from the program. This would cause things like playcount and ratings I'd set in that session to be lost, with no way to get them back.

I also have felt for a long time that the extended syntax in Winamp's search bar was kind of limiting, a bit annoying, but no deal breaker. I'm very happy with the power of this feature in foobar, and happily enjoying the learning curve. Lots to read, and lots to learn.

My music sounds better in foobar too, without DSP.

I am one happy bunny now, thanks to foobar. I can't wait to get rid of Winamp once and for all.

I've been using foobar for about 3 years or so now and I would never go back, for all the reasons mentioned above! I recently switched from Windows to Ubuntu linux (which I recommend to anyone and everyone!), and after trying a few media players made for linux had to go and get foobar running on a windows emulator. There really is nothing better!

@keitsi: just noticed your post, seems like someone should do a linux port!

Why I've chosen Foobar?
Because it is repeatedly mentioned as the best audio player available. Plain and simple.


That and now that I've discovered Samurize, I can get around the lack-of-skinability:

One MAIN reason : ASIO and Kernel Streaming OUTPUT. I'm currently testing foobar within a very high-end custom-made Hi-Fi ensemble with active crossover, engineered from the beginning like a studio monitoring system, so "bit-perfect" playback is crucial for me.

In plain stereo mode, foobar's output goes to a VST Host software (Console) where the audio is splitted (treble, mid, bass - this is the active crossover part) via VST plug-ins like IZotope Ozone, before accessing a multi-analog ASIO sound card (Lynx 2B) connected to six amplifiers and two 3-way main speakers.

I guess that's all.

Been using f2k for several years now, mostly as a hi-fi player for SHN and FLAC shows and other personal recordings (along with a few archived reference CDs.) Bought an iPod Nano when they first came out (for audiobooks) but foo_pod was not quite right at the time so eventually got hooked on iTunes for the library management and podcast support. Kept coming back to f2k and VLC whenever I had a file with problems or wanted to critically evaluate something through my RME card & quality playback chain. Years of *nix use and a multiple OS/file format world have trained me to have many tools at hand and to simply use each for the things it is best at, while (mostly) ignoring the weaknesses -- as long as some other tool can meet the specific need at hand.

Fast forward to this month, discovered facets and am diving headfirst into 0.95 and no looking back!

There is nothing in *nix media player land comparable, fingers crossed for some enterprising soul who decides to port...

What made me change to foobar from the beginning was when i bough my new Hi-fi system and realized the really bad sound quality in Winamp.
And there was really no alternative to foobar.

What made me stay with foobar is the configurability, great downloadable configurations and really good plugins.
And not to forget the nice community/user-forum.

I've started using foobar bout 3/4 years ago, and the main reason for that was that I finally could do everyting I wanted with one program (converting, tagging, burning, blind abx, etc), and do it well too, instead of having a util for every function I need. The only other program I use for audio besides foobar is EAC for it's secure ripping to wav, then foobar handles whatever I wanna do with it.

Also the memory use of foobar with my 30k+ collection of mp3/ape/flac files is much better than with other players, winamp crashed regularly, would hog many mb's of memory, and was extremely slowpoke with all my files in the playlist, where foobar deals with it without any problems.

Third, the flexibility and quality of sound reproduction rocks. I find the DSP plugins to be very good, and stuff just seems to sound better than with other players.

Alltho foobar is a great program which I love to use, I still have problems with it on a regular basis, mainly due to it's complexity and because I grew up in the precomputer age. For example, title formatting code is like total jibberish to me (thank god for columns UI), and many of the settings in the preferences menu I don't fully understand.
Also, finding out how to do something I haven't done before with foobar can be quite tedious. The forum gives a wealth of information about the program, but I often find myself reading for hours, while I just wanna know one little thing. It's like finding a single leaf on a tree. One of these days I'd really like to like to read the manual.

This aside, I've been a happy user ever since I first met foobar, and I think I will remain a happy user for a long time cuz you guys know what you are doing. I have confidence that by the time version 1.0 is released, it will be perfect

Cyberschelm

It's good quality player,and it's fast and small.
Foobar2k is the best ever~

Foobar2000 is small, fast, basic, has many plugins and above all it can just play anything for small CPU load. It's fun to see Foobar2000 customizable, but I think the not need to install various audio codecs yourself. Able to play any music file for low CPU load, is why I use foobar2000.
Ofcourse the community at self is great community. One who listens, asks and acts. Good job people.

I am thinking of switching from Winamp 5.5x because of all the bloat but some things in foobar still don't satisfy me.

1) I want a minimalist view option available as a toggle option. And it should be the default layout. No playlist except for the displaying of the currently played song name/ singer/album/year (filename and/or tag info). No 'File, Edit...' menubar. No title bar.

2) Missing 'Repeat' on play control. Missing 'Shuffle' on play controls. (Shuffle is not the same as Random according to this: http://rateyourmusic.com/board_message/mes...d_board_id_is_1 )

3) Missing timer/negative timer on the play control.

4) Missing option to minimise player to tray icon like Winamp. I don't want real estate on my Windows taskbar taken up by a music player.

5) Not really foobar's fault, but I need similar plugins as shown here for Winamp:

http://www.zophar.net/winamp/

6) Drop the 'Application' from Right click (music file) -> Open with -> 'Foobar 2000 Application'

Did you even tried using it? (2) and (4) (6) is already built in and you don't have to do anything special to use it at all. of course you can set your play order to 'Repeat' and 'Shuffle' and 'Random' too (for 0.9.5). and (4) (6) can turn on in preference.

(5) There is some plugin for foo that do this too. but maybe not exactly the same.

For (3) you going to have to edit some titleformating string a bit. but it's not that hard.

(1) You have to edit it. but of course it can do this.

i like it because,
- i can switch playlist so easy.
- replay gain info.
- can convert 'everything' that foobar2000 recognize.
- use tag for display information (so audio tag are very important).
- easy & simple.
- gapless & good sound quality.
- awesome equalizer.
- customize configure for convert *.exe.
- easier tagging (i love this feature very much).
- more importantly it's FREE.

As for 1) and 3) you're using wrong software. Foobar2000 has possibilities to implement all of it in several ways, but it needs some actions from user. But basically it is play-list based player. If you don't like it don't use it.

2) is available
4) is also available for a long time already
5) http://static.morbo.org/kode54/
6) it's registry thing but foobar can do it for you anyway

From the earliest day, I was a Winamp user. Several plugins and the somewhat configurable layout was enough, and with a life-saving plugin, Dynamic Library (dynamic disk scanning opposed to default Media Library), I could browse my collection (40-50k files) relatively easily. But as time moved on, with the new releases, the whole thing became more and more a cpu/memory hog, sometimes search queries took 2-4 sec, startup/shutdown a lagfest... This, and the fact that my expectations were raised (album art display is still laughable in WA) so I've had to search for something new

I knew foobar from a few years ago, but back then, it was too complicated to set up properly, and there was a lack of components - but now, with all the great amount of them, easily configurable default ui, etc. foobar seemed a far superior alternative. Lastfm plugin, and the fact that I can use my old Winamp dsp-s (sorry, foobar DSPs are still to esoteric for me) made it even more sweeter.

Nothing is perfect though - here's my list of the sour things in foobar:

• - I really miss some of winamp's playlist functions - like pressing 'q' on a track, and that track plays after the current one, overruling the playlist.
• - I miss the shuffle toggle button. Having a 'shuffle play' button is not equal to that, and I don't want to go to the preferences just for that.
• - there's a great amount of cool components, but the fact that all the UIs are not compatible diminishes this fact... Like I like facets, but would like to get a decent track display... no luck.
• - still to much scripting is needed. I know foobar is not for the average joe, eg. should I really bother all that much to get a decent track display? the documentation is, well, there, but it's hard to find. A foobar newbie still has to crunch trough tons of forum posts.
• - pre-made configs are hard to install... why not use a simple compressed click-and-install format (which can be edited after decompressing)?

All in all, foobar is an excellent player, and unbelievably fast - I think the problem with it is the same with linux (which was also not intended for the masses) - functionality is there, but a lot of people won't have the nerve and ability to give that much time to solve it. The new default ui is a great step into the right direction. I only wish developers would start to code more and more components for it.

1. The function "add to playback queue" does this. Set it to "Q" in the keyboard config.
2. Right-click somewhere near the play controls, then add the "playback order" toolbar.
2. I did it, and my life's been all better ever since. Though, as you say, it's not for the "average joe". I think of it as a music player for people who know what they want and how they want it. For anyone else, MediaMonkey should probably cut it.

It's the Swiss Army Knife of Audio codecs.

I have used Foobar exclusively for 3 or 4 year snow.

I am not a power user, I just like the clean sound and the multiple playlists.

I used to use Winamp and used to get upset with it cos you did not know the name of the playlist you were playing. So I love Foobars tabbed playlists.

I used to ask Winamp for this feature, but they spent all their time on Skins, which are a bit of fun, but not really essential.

I have hardly ever used any of Foobars Options and like others on here I wish they would write a manual and also the various user interfaces are getting confusing.

Regards

Digby

Hi,

I don't like to develop any sentimental sense of loyalty towards any software. I like to try new things and for the last four years I have tried each and every new version of any mainstream and high-end audio player I was able to localize on the web (it's my hobby!), and there are many audio and media players indeed.

I have to say that, after thousands of attempts of leaving foobar2000 aside, at the end of the day, by any or other reason -many reasons in fact- I find myself again with foobar2000. So it has survived till now as the first one on my estimation, and that means something.

Ys,
Rozzo

Because in foobar you can set file buffering in advanced > decoding.
I never understood why other software players didn't do this automatically. This is way better than for instance winamp that accesses my hard disc every other second. And it has the added advantage that one can delete a track from disk while it's still playing from ram (massive timesaver) which is a blessing when sorting a lot of music.

Foobar is the only player I have tried that allows me easy flexibility to define, display and manipulate tags in a way appropriate to classical music.

Still upgrading from 8.2 or .3.
~4 years non power user
Stumbled onto .9.5 today as I needed to convert flac to mp3 and 8.2 couldn't handle it and wouldn't accept new lame 397 command-line switches. FB2k 9.5 handles it just fine.

Oh, thanks for the new Default UI and Quick Setup, nice to see Album Art without programming the UI.

First of all – it’s high quality sound.
Second - SDK, if you have good programming skill in C++, there is no problem to add some functionality.

I choose Foobar a few years ago when looking for a Flac player. I liked that it was a simple, clean player, that was not a commercial product, that people were free to develop plugins for.

I still have no idea how to use it, or catalogue anything, or have a cool looking player like so many.... but for the new year that is my goal.

Keep it up Foobar!!

Cheers!

I love Foobar2000 because it plays music without getting in the way. It's a surprise how many players fail to do just this.

1) Full Unicode Support
2) Replaygain
3) Masstagger / File Utils / String Formatting
4) keyboard-centric
5) ... and with 0.9.5, the lovely default UI.

Hi all, first post on this forum. Been reading stuff here to get foobar working, I really appreciate all the time people put in this player and its community.

I started using Foobar2000 because I heard people saying it was such a great player. Although I was content using WinAmp Lite, I decided to give it a shot. When I got it working just right after hours of reading forum posts and tutorials and a lot of trial and error (my, that's a lot of ands in one sentence) there simply was no way back.

Well I'd like to use foobar (I really like the way it handles *.cue files) but there is no support for a dynamic library (meaning the id3 tags are stored in a seperate file). I'd like to keep my files untouched. Other than that it looks like the perfect player. I'll be using Amarok 2.0 when it comes out since that supports everything I need in a audio player.