4 ms·

Foobar is the "new" Winamp, it has been for 15years+ https://www.foobar2000.org/ https://www.foobar2000.org/

by Thaxll 4y ago

anta40 4y ago
+1 for Foobar2000 Bonus point: https://www.foobar2000.org/mac https://www.foobar2000.org/mac (MacOS version) No idea if there are some missing features that are exists on Windows version.
- djkoolaide 4y ago
  The macOS version is different codebase -- most (or maybe all) user components are only compatible with the OG Windows version. Thankfully foo runs flawlessly under WINE, plugins and all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sprokolopolis 4y ago
  The last time I checked (year ago), the MacOS version is much less configurable. I don't think you can really change the interface with config files like you can with the Windows builds. This might have changed though.
bt1a 4y ago
I've used both Foobar and MusicBee (on Windows) and personally I prefer MusicBee's interface. It works well with my library of 21k files - not sure how it performs with libraries much larger. https://getmusicbee.com/ https://getmusicbee.com/
- babypuncher 4y ago
  The beauty of foobar2000 is that you can lay out the user interface however you want. The built-in layout editor is very intuitive, and the UI can be extended or even replaced with numerous third party components.
- rlv-dan 4y ago
  The website talks a lot, but where are the screenshot? Are they afraid to show what it looks like?
- raffraffraff 4y ago
  I'm a huge MusicBee fan. For my money, nothing touches it. It's running on all my Linux boxes (via wine 7.x) with playlists and music kept in sync using Syncthing. I would love to be able to use a native Linux app, but they all suck in comparison.
teh_klev 4y ago
I never got on with Winamp and switched to foobar2000 after getting hold of a fairly early release (pre-v0.3) sometime in 2002. It's been my mainstay audio player ever since.
AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
Foobar didn't really scratch the same itch for me as Winamp. Foobar felt more like it wanted to ingest/organize my entire library, which never appealed to me because my library was 1TB+ and it would take a lifetime to fix every album with some bad tags. Winamp much better fit my workflow, which is: I wanna right-click a folder on my desktop that houses the specific album I want to play, click "Play in Winamp", and have the music player launch quietly in the system tray and throw up the occasional notification when the track changes.
- myfonj 4y ago
  And have you tried right-clicking _whole_ "1TB+" music folder and load it into Winamp at once? I remember there were even faster ways to "playlistify" directory structure (as I wrote around here [1]). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32778932#32780387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32778932#32780387
- benjaminpv 4y ago
  No disrespect but your experience with foobar seems like the inverse of how it works? It definitely has a Library function, but my workflow for using foobar for years now is: - Install - Turn off visualization - Drag and drop folder full of audio on the main window That's one of the things I like about it the most: I do a ton of reorganization of my audio, so the fact that foobar can run in 'dumb' mode is a godsend.
stuaxo 4y ago
Took about 3 hours to setup and make look nice though, so I only really tried it once.
poisonborz 4y ago
Foobar is more tuned to play large collections. AIMP is much closer to Winamp's original use cases.
Markoff 4y ago
Foobar has horrible UI, couldn't even make it use mouse wheel to control volume same way as Winamp. And honestly what it can bring me over software I am using daily for 20+ years just to play some songs and nothing else?

Foobar is the "new" Winamp, it has been for 15years+ https://www.foobar2000.org/ https://www.foobar2000.org/

by Thaxll 4y ago

Foobar is the "new" Winamp, it has been for 15years+ https://www.foobar2000.org/ https://www.foobar2000.org/

+1 for Foobar2000 Bonus point: https://www.foobar2000.org/mac https://www.foobar2000.org/mac (MacOS version) No idea if there are some missing features that are exists on Windows version.

djkoolaide 4y ago
The macOS version is different codebase -- most (or maybe all) user components are only compatible with the OG Windows version. Thankfully foo runs flawlessly under WINE, plugins and all.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sprokolopolis 4y ago
The last time I checked (year ago), the MacOS version is much less configurable. I don't think you can really change the interface with config files like you can with the Windows builds. This might have changed though.

bt1a 4y ago

I've used both Foobar and MusicBee (on Windows) and personally I prefer MusicBee's interface. It works well with my library of 21k files - not sure how it performs with libraries much larger. https://getmusicbee.com/ https://getmusicbee.com/

babypuncher 4y ago
The beauty of foobar2000 is that you can lay out the user interface however you want. The built-in layout editor is very intuitive, and the UI can be extended or even replaced with numerous third party components.
rlv-dan 4y ago
The website talks a lot, but where are the screenshot? Are they afraid to show what it looks like?
raffraffraff 4y ago
I'm a huge MusicBee fan. For my money, nothing touches it. It's running on all my Linux boxes (via wine 7.x) with playlists and music kept in sync using Syncthing. I would love to be able to use a native Linux app, but they all suck in comparison.

teh_klev 4y ago

I never got on with Winamp and switched to foobar2000 after getting hold of a fairly early release (pre-v0.3) sometime in 2002. It's been my mainstay audio player ever since.

AdmiralAsshat 4y ago

Foobar didn't really scratch the same itch for me as Winamp. Foobar felt more like it wanted to ingest/organize my entire library, which never appealed to me because my library was 1TB+ and it would take a lifetime to fix every album with some bad tags. Winamp much better fit my workflow, which is: I wanna right-click a folder on my desktop that houses the specific album I want to play, click "Play in Winamp", and have the music player launch quietly in the system tray and throw up the occasional notification when the track changes.

myfonj 4y ago
And have you tried right-clicking _whole_ "1TB+" music folder and load it into Winamp at once? I remember there were even faster ways to "playlistify" directory structure (as I wrote around here [1]). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32778932#32780387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32778932#32780387
benjaminpv 4y ago
No disrespect but your experience with foobar seems like the inverse of how it works? It definitely has a Library function, but my workflow for using foobar for years now is: - Install - Turn off visualization - Drag and drop folder full of audio on the main window That's one of the things I like about it the most: I do a ton of reorganization of my audio, so the fact that foobar can run in 'dumb' mode is a godsend.

stuaxo 4y ago

Took about 3 hours to setup and make look nice though, so I only really tried it once.

poisonborz 4y ago

Foobar is more tuned to play large collections. AIMP is much closer to Winamp's original use cases.

Markoff 4y ago

Foobar has horrible UI, couldn't even make it use mouse wheel to control volume same way as Winamp. And honestly what it can bring me over software I am using daily for 20+ years just to play some songs and nothing else?