Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:18 am
Does anyone here use Foobar2000? It seems to have an avid following but also a high learning curve. It's very configurable and supposedly low footprint if you have a large library. Just curious.
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:32 am
I tried it a couple years ago. When they say bare bones, they really mean it. The base package doesn't even have volume control. I posted a comparison of various memory footprints on here a while ago, but I don't remember where. I think foobar clocked in at about 8 megs, whereas itunes was kicking in around 30+.
Ultimately, I didn't stick with foobar because I didn't want to go hunting for all the various add-ons to make it the way I wanted. I'm sure if I had the time and knowhow to program things myself it'd be great, but I wanted something with more built-in functionality.
I heart Foobar
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:47 pm
I use foobar almost exclusively for everything, and I really like it. I currently have 3 different instances of Foobar I have configured for different purposes. What I like about it is that the program gives you access to the nitty-gritty details of how the player works. A software engineer might say it is a lower-level program because it operates on a level that is closer to the hardware of your computer than, say I-tunes.
Ultimately, what that means is it is going to take longer to configure it like you want it... and you might want to bang your head on the keyboard a few times while you are learning how the program works. BUT, once you have learned the program, you can essentially build the exact player you want (I was able to get it to do what I wanted it to do after a total of a few evenings of messing with it). I have even known a guy who wanted the program to do something that it couldn't do at the time, so he got on the Foobar forums and one of the program designers implemented what he requested.
The big features that I really like about it are these:
1. You can control exactly what sound card output it plays to. So you can run two instances of it with different outputs selected and have a monitor player and a live room player.
2. The interface of the player is completely customizable via modules. Foobar comes with most of the ones you will probably end up using, but there are a few out there that are 3rd party that are really great.
3. The visualizations that the program comes with are really useful in looking at the content of what you're playing back. There are a few real-time spectrum displays that I use constantly for QC on the songs that I get. (IE, is that pop or dropout on the mp3 or was that a computer hiccup?)
4. The interface is not over-designed from a visual standpoint. It is simple sliders, tabs, buttons, and playlists... just like you would expect a normal computer window to look like.
5. It is JUST an audio player. There is no video, internet browsing, add banners, or other crap... just audio playback (and some basic music library management and mp3 ripping).
To finish my long-winded idolization of Foobar2k... its good.
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:23 pm
Good to see someone who has made it work. I've been experimenting with it to deal with a large music library but it does have a high learning curve. I probably won't dj with it since i dj off a mac, but i do have it loaded on my pcs and have a portable copy on a usb.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:56 am
I like foobar2000 but one thing is driving me nuts which I can't seem to figure out. In almost every other DJ package you can select a song from the UI and add it to a playlist while the current song continues playing. There seem to be several f2k components for adding songs to a 'queue' playlist, but they still don't seem to replicate the ease with which every other player does it.
How did you get around this, if you did at all? It's a little mindblowing that this functionality isn't native to foobar2000.
I really like foobar2000 for all the reasons you mention otherwise.