5 ms·

I'm also a fan of Foobar2000: not as pretty, but surpremely small and functional :)

by scott_karana 10y ago

guitarbill 10y ago
There's no accounting for taste. I found Winamp gaudy, and actually preferred Foobar. The black theme was quite nice once the font colour was changed to off-white. I cannot recommend Foobar enough, the tools for fixing up dodgy mp3s are very useful. It isn't so hot with mp4 tags though.
- gcp 10y ago
  It isn't so hot with mp4 tags though. What do you mean exactly? mp4 tags in all variations, including various iTunes oddities, are fully supported.
  - guitarbill 10y ago
    Way back in 2009/2010, I remember there being some issues. But that's coincidentally when I switched to a Mac, and started doing all my tagging in iTunes instead. Come to think of it, it's likely they've fixed it by now. I have used foobar since, but mainly for playback.
zerr 10y ago
So far to my knowledge only Winamp is able to open a dir with a lot of mp3's and subdirs in a blink of an eye and have all the functionality, including search/jump available. Others (foobar, XMMS) fail badly. I killed the foobar2000 task after waiting for several minutes.
- gcp 10y ago
  I killed the foobar2000 task after waiting for several minutes. You should've gotten a progress dialog, very briefly, because the process is quite fast. Did that step just take a while due to a slow disk, or did it hang? foobar2000 does scan the metadata and tags for all files on adding, so "search" and "jump" will work correctly when it's done on metadata that is not reflected in the file name or path. Winamp does not do this - it scans metadata and tags only on playback. There's a few more differences like foobar2000 being able to scan inside archives. Winamp can't do this. So the difference you saw is likely exactly because "search" and "jump" functionality is not actually guaranteed to work correctly in Winamp if you do what you say.

5 ms·

I'm also a fan of Foobar2000: not as pretty, but surpremely small and functional :)

by scott_karana 10y ago

I'm also a fan of Foobar2000: not as pretty, but surpremely small and functional :)

guitarbill 10y ago
There's no accounting for taste. I found Winamp gaudy, and actually preferred Foobar. The black theme was quite nice once the font colour was changed to off-white. I cannot recommend Foobar enough, the tools for fixing up dodgy mp3s are very useful. It isn't so hot with mp4 tags though.
- gcp 10y ago
  It isn't so hot with mp4 tags though. What do you mean exactly? mp4 tags in all variations, including various iTunes oddities, are fully supported.
  - guitarbill 10y ago
    Way back in 2009/2010, I remember there being some issues. But that's coincidentally when I switched to a Mac, and started doing all my tagging in iTunes instead. Come to think of it, it's likely they've fixed it by now. I have used foobar since, but mainly for playback.
zerr 10y ago
So far to my knowledge only Winamp is able to open a dir with a lot of mp3's and subdirs in a blink of an eye and have all the functionality, including search/jump available. Others (foobar, XMMS) fail badly. I killed the foobar2000 task after waiting for several minutes.
- gcp 10y ago
  I killed the foobar2000 task after waiting for several minutes. You should've gotten a progress dialog, very briefly, because the process is quite fast. Did that step just take a while due to a slow disk, or did it hang? foobar2000 does scan the metadata and tags for all files on adding, so "search" and "jump" will work correctly when it's done on metadata that is not reflected in the file name or path. Winamp does not do this - it scans metadata and tags only on playback. There's a few more differences like foobar2000 being able to scan inside archives. Winamp can't do this. So the difference you saw is likely exactly because "search" and "jump" functionality is not actually guaranteed to work correctly in Winamp if you do what you say.