i am just wondering, what is the difference between fb2000 and say winamp or any other programs of this sort?. do mp3's/cd's sound better using fb2000?. i am curious if there are benefit's of using fb2000 over one of these other progies.

Thanks!

yes it sounds better, and uses less resources when playing. basically all of the internal routines are done at a higher resolution, and the player itself is generally developed in all it's parts with quality in mind. the highest quality components are used, with the aim being to cause as little distortion of the sound and make the output sound as it was meant to be heard. it also has a lot of advanced options not found elsewhere (such as Kernel Streaming, built in high-quality resampling, built in replaygain supoort, out of the box support for the most next generation lossy and lossless compression formats, high-quality dithering, noise shaping, and more).

anyways if you dont know what all these things are, feel free to ask... but please use the search function first... people tend to get a lil upset if the topic has already been discussed.

edit: gotta love jazz jackrabbit

and even with all this higher quality and all of these amazingly great features foobar has, the high high HIGH majority of people wont ever be able to percieve a difference between it and winamp2.

don't just say "foobar sounds better". If he's a noob, do you really think he will notice a difference? Hell. Most people, n00b or not n00b, wont notice a difference. So tell them that "it sounds better to people with trained ears, but the average person will not notice a difference".

If you feed people half the truth, then they go tell others the same thing and those people tell more people and so on until eveyone thinks something that isnt really all that true to the high majority of people.

Actually, the main reason to use FB2k instead of most other players isn't sound quality (which is ridiculously subjective); it's the fact that FB2k's interface is based around the playlist as the central element, while most other music players have some kind of visual gimmickery (like a set of buttons that looks kind-of-but-not-really-like a CD player) as the central element.

At least, that's why I use it. I get what I think is better audio quality using KS, but I'm not going to pretend that it couldn't be the placebo effect. It doesn't use fewer system resources on my system, since I have to turn on the Resampler DSP to use KS. So in the end, it all boils down to a low-intensity interface that's based around the playlist, instead of gimmickery, and user control.

Yes, the fact that the playlist is the player is why I use it. I don't need buttons. I don't need the newest product. I need something with a good playlist interface. I feel that foobar is better than the other options in this respect.

I second that - especially when title formatting kicks in - you can do amazing things with it.

Let's skip noob question on the noob quetion thread
So mine noob question is : what is this replaygain stuff ?
Does it do the same thing as the Rocksteady winamp plugin ?

IMHO, I chose fb2k instead of Winamp not only because of it's very usefull UI but also thanks to the many options that aren't in winamp (KS (good for low buffer IMO), many file format supported without installing new components, good standard DSPs)...

For the developpers too, I think this is a great choice because of a well made SDK with many samples. But for a noob, I don't think this will be important.

A lot of components are already out and allow you to do what you want.

And the last point is the very fast developpement. When someone detect a bug in fb2k, the problem is resolved very fast.

Replaygain allows you to play your musics with the same volume without changing the data in the music.
There's 2 way of using it :
track replaygain : each track will be played with the same volume (good in shuffle mode)
album replaygain : each album will be played with the same volume (good when you hear several albums without shuffle)

thanks !