anybody know of one?

i have no interest in foobar.

WHy not just use winabx/pcabx/ect then? The whole idea of foobabx was that it could decode any file that foobar can use.

It also uses the player output path (float to int conversion, dithering, selected output device) and can be configured to use the player DSP chain, all without having to duplicate the player core.

why is this any less relevant with winamp?

Because with Winamp, such a component would practically be a stand-alone application. It would have to duplicate much of the functionality of the core. Even if it used the installed inputs to do the decoding, and supported a DSP, it would need to replicate the same component finding and loading mechanism employed by the core. It would also need to load the output component itself, or, since that would probably clash with the core having the output already loaded, it would need its own output mechanism as well.


... Might as well be a complete stand-alone application.

(Noticed some of the on-topic posts are missing. A bit of confusion about TOS 6? )

Wouldn't running two output components in parallel not be a problem for a card with multiple virtual outputs, such as the Echo Indigo? If that's not viable, then a dedicated output would need to be created. Is this how foobar does it?

Seems like the goal of using it within Winamp would be to test with DSPs (for cases where this would be relevant), or to compare different decoders or decoder settings.

Even if a standalone ABX tool would make more sense, would it then be possible to incorporate the use of audio player plugins in such a tool to satisfy the scenarios above?

No, you can put several different outputs through the Windows Mixer simultaneously. It may be a bit of a kluge, but it can be done. I'm probably misinterpreting you here though.



First it decodes both the files to PCM, so that there's less seek time and more consistency in computer usage.

Then all that needs to be done is to decode the two PCM files, and pick one to run through the output. I don't recall if foo_abx uses the selected output.



Yes. It'd be a bit of an exercise in masochism, thanks to the way Winamp's architecture is designed (I tried adding Winamp input plugin support to one of my projects once... yick), but it'd probably be possible.

@prozaic:
C'mon man, was that really necessary?

Edit: Updated/fixed the weird phraseology and stupidity inherent in my explanation of the decoding process.

Split to Recycle Bin

just to get my say in after the fray, i am well aware of the zealotry and think it sucks that i had to add that qualification ("no interest") to a question that obviously didn't have a damn thing to do with foobar because i knew what sorts of responses i'd get if i didn't.

and still, that wasn't enough.

No the problem was you didn't give a reason or enough information about what you wanted. The effect of your post was "I am aware of the ideal tool for this job but am not interested in hearing about it and I don't feel the need to tell you anything more". This tends to annoy people to some extent because it seems illogical to exclude something without a reason and because it makes them guess what exactly you are asking how to do.

A better pharseing would have been "I would like a tool that duplicates fooabx, except allows me to use winamp which is my prefered audio player" or "I would like a way to test winamp's DSPs, does an ABX componet exist that would allow me to do so?".

My point exactly regarding some of the on-topic posts. Yet TOS#6 remains an issue. *sigh* Back on topic. please...


I think you're interpreting me correctly. After my last post, I realized that it wouldn't be two outputs simultaneously, but rather switching the same output back and forth from two input sources. Maybe less complicated?


So effectively, the core of an ABX tool is an input switcher, right? Or at least a toggle between two audio sources that are already decoded.


I was afraid of that. WA seems to have have architectural problems at multiple levels. Different versions have compatibility problems with plugins and skins, the Media Library has always had UTF-8 issues, and it's usually a case where most or all of the application would have to be re-written to accommodate a fix. If something similar is true for an ABX plugin (or core update), then it wouldn't be worth it. There are other ways to test decoder variants or DSPs. Output to file (diskwriter equivalent) then test it in WinABX or ABC/HR.

Oh well, it was worth conceptualizing anyway.

Less complicated and more reliable. If you're outputting both files to a single buffer, you've got a lot more precision in the switching functions.



Precisely.



Blame the end-user. WA3 was supposed to fix a lot of these, but it got rushed and eventually cancelled due to lack of interest.

Edit: Just put a bit of thought into it, and it might be possible to hack together a WA ABX plugin by writing an input plugin that could use other input plugins. It's been a long time since I worked on adding WA support, and it'd be a hack like everything in advanced Winamp plugin design, but it might be doable.

what i wanted was an abx tool for winamp. pardon me if that was unclear in my initial post.



the effect of my post was that it pissed off the people who are fanatically devoted to foobar because i cut off the chance for them to push their preferred software from the outset. and explain to me again how it is that a separate application is the ideal tool for someone who wants abx tests in winamp?



i don't see a) how this accomplishes an information request that is at all different from what i did ask, nor b) how this would have avoided the "switch to foobar" replies.



let me preface this by saying that i know next to nothing about writing code for these sorts of things...

from what i understand, it's obvious that winamp3's design was several orders of magnitude better than winamp2's and that abandoning the project was an unfortunate and short-sighted solution... but what i don't get is that if winamp2 is such a disaster, why on earth are there so many stable, successful plugins for it?

i mean, dbpoweramp and jriver media thingamajig were both specifically designed around accepting winamp plugins.

and don't tell me it's an "opiate of the masses" thing, that'd be wmp or musicmatch.

You never said you wanted to ABX in winamp, just that you wanted to know if a plugin existed! This is really the crux of the problem. Many people (myself included) assumed you wanted to ABX in order to test codec samples, for which foobar is arguably the best tool. As such one person recommended that you reconsider it.

I'm sorry if this is harsh, but if you are not specific in your question, you will not get specific answers. This is no ones fault but your own and you now get the horrible consequences of dealing with an overwhelming 3 sentences suggesting that you try foobar.



I'm sorry if that one paragraph, by one person, who also answered your orginal question really hurt your feelings, but theres no need to get bent out of shape nor to incorrectly claim he is multiple people.

The original poster's question could not have been more concise, in my opinion. And which audio utility (for playback, ABX testing, etc.) is the "best" is a subjective matter based on personal requirements...foobar may be the best for you, but it's not the best for everyone.


Would an input plugin that uses other input plugins be similar in design to plugins that can run simultaneous DSPs (specifically "DSP stackers")? Like a process thread manager, basically. Anyway, if you (or anyone else) would be interested in creating a WA ABX feature, I'd love to test it out.

"use foobar" doesn't answer that question either.





and when you get that response despite a "no foobar" premise -- which, as i see it, indicated that i was already familiar with the prevalence of using foobar for abx, no? -- then something isn't going quite right.




i'd welcome constructive criticism on how to make that request more direct and to-the-point.

the rest of the the foobar business was split, by the way.

i'm not terribly worried about this, though, and if we could just get back to the topic at hand...

@veej007:



Ugly, stupid hacks. That's it. There are "stable, successful plugins" because the architecture is so limiting that there isn't more to muck up. I wish zZzZzZz would contribute a bit to the discussion here; he's got a lot of experience dealing with the stupidity of the winamp code base. The zeal0try of some people may have scared him off though.

Here's one of his posts listing a few of the more user-noticable bugs in Winamp. These are far from all of them, as he notes.



The problem is that it isn't feasible to do ABX tests in Winamp in the same way it's doable in foobar2000. It may be possible in Wasabi. I'm not a Wasabi user though, I don't know the tech there.

@ScorLibran:



Heh, sorry man, I wouldn't touch that with a 50-foot pole. It would be one mammoth of a hack job, and would probably only allow a single DSP. You'd essentially be building an alternate Winamp off of Winamp itself.

The problem is that it's per se not possible to implement an ABX PlugIn with the Winamp2 API.
You seem to have serious problems understanding that.

"Not possible. Use standalone tools like ABC/HR or fb2k." would have been the most appropriate answer to the original question.

An amazingly high number of people seem to keep missing that part.

That sounds like I'd be expected to know that. Or perhaps anyone else would. How?


Pardon me? Respectfully, you're assumption is incorrect and unfounded.


If that should have been the answer, let it be known now as the official response. Problem solved! (Although it's not explanatory...and hence has very limited value.)

It seems to be resolved now that an ABX plugin for Winamp, though maybe possible, wouldn't be viable for the amount of work required. So the best solution would seem to be to output from Winamp to a file (to capture input decoder settings, DSP and output settings) then use any dedicated ABX tool. I hope this provides some value to Veej007.