Thanks! I'm trying it right now.
Okay... I've been listening to the same tracks (doing A/B comparisons) using winamp2 and fb2k and I think that fb2k beats winamp2 when both are compared not using any sound-altering dsps (like equalizer). The sound that fb2k produces is... different. In a good way. Sounds that are produced by instruments sound more realistic IMO. One thing that I don't think it has lots of is low-bass punchiness. It has bass, but for some reason it doesn't deliver the low-bass impact I was hoping for. Mids are awesome though.
Winamp2 with the enhancer plugin is another story. Very close decision. Actually... I'm still not totally sure which to pick. Using the normal settings on enhancer with the volume setting maxed out at 5 produces more punch in the bass department. This makes for a more exciting sound IMO. Also, the highs sound a little more apparent when using the enhancer. Although it may sound more apparent... I question how acurately enhancer produces highs, and lows for that matter.
I would have to agree what others have written about FB2K having an airy quality to it. It certainly sounds more open compared to winamp. That is one thing that is very noticable. Instruments just seem to have more room to let their sounds flow out nicely. Winamp seems as if the sounds the instruments produce are sharper, but with less decay... giving it a more cramped room, artificial sound.
So I'm sure audiophiles are going for the realism that foobar produces, whereas winamp2 + enhancer creates a more artificial, bass-heavy sound.
Of course, both could have their own niches. Winamp2 + E being more suited towards bass-heavy tracks electronica, and FB2K being more suited towards natural sounds produced by conventional musical instruments.
I'm going to give foobar a good trial run and see how I like it. I've been using winamp2 forever and I have no beefs with it in terms of functionality.
I will most definitely miss my Legend Of Zelda : LTTP winamp skin. It rocks.