Winamp vs Foobar2000 ?!
May 11, 2010 at 3:07 AM Post #61 of 106
Foobar can handle hundred of thousands music files with tags without breaking a sweat and it is database driven, what is this tbh , Column UI has a similar panel called filter. If you have database that large on itunes it would slow down to be impossible to use as it uses xml based database, I don't know about JRMJ though, but I doubt it has the speed and efficiency of foobar.
May 11, 2010 at 9:22 AM Post #63 of 106
Indeed it is preference that typically comes from a user's experience with a player visual style, functionality and usability.
May 11, 2010 at 12:17 PM Post #64 of 106
J River can handle a library of over a million files spread out amongst multiple drives on local, NAS, or shared.  It can act as a music server to allow other computers and devices on the network to connect to the library and play files.  It doesn't get bogged down by a large library the way iTunes does.
Is J River as efficient as Foobar?  Depends on your definition of efficient.  If you don't want to waste a single CPU cycle and be able to account for every CPU cycle being used then Foobar is more efficient.  If you want to manage and interact with a library and play music then J River is more efficient.  For what J River does I don't consider it a resource hog or a drain.  Foobar fanatics though will disagree.
My general view of various media players is:
Foobar is file based with some basic database things added on.  Enough database to get what is needed done.  But you're still likely to end up browsing by directory structure at some point or at least be made aware of the file structure at some point.  It is possible to avoid that with different layouts and components.  It's just the general feel I get when using Foobar.  When I want to play something I navigate to where the file is and play it.
iTunes is database driven.  The primary way of organizing and navigating around is through playlists.  Want to do something?  Make a new playlist.
J River is database driven and focused on the library.  When I get new music the preferred thing to do is import the files to the library then play it.  It is possible to navigate to the files and play them directly without ever putting them in the library, but why?  You navigate around using different views or by typing searches or database queries in the search box.  Views can be customized both in how things are displayed and by database queries to limit or select what is displayed.  When I'm using J River I'm thinking about the library and tagging and finding what I want to play.  I'm not thinking much about files or directories except for during import and the initial configuration of the program.
If someone brought over a drive full of music files and I wanted to take a look at what is there and play some of it I'd load it up in Foobar and browse around.  Foobar is good at that.  That would be an example of being file based and browsing by directory structure.  I wouldn't reach for J River Media Center in a case like that.  I could, and J River Media Center would do it, but Foobar is better suited for a task like that.  And that's part of the reason why I consider Foobar to be more file based rather than database based.
May 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM Post #65 of 106
I used to use Winamp while on XP. All the plugins and stuff were great! I had Media Monkey as a backup for library purposes. I tried Foobar but couldn't convince myself to like it.
When I switched to W7, I had to use Foobar for WASAPI. I quickly grew to love it once I figured out about its fantastic Replaygain scanner and built-in FLAC conversion. The tagging could be better, but I installed the Discogs tagger and it serves as a perfect backup for the freedb one. I came to like it so much that I got rid of Winamp on my other computers. Haven't needed Media Monkey yet, either.
May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM Post #66 of 106
Actually, I use Fb2k like itunes, everything is playlist oriented, or a query searched through the database.
And I actually browse in fb2k with genre > artist > album, even when my folder structure is pretty much disorganized.

All is well if your files are correctly tagged (via fb2k itself), what's really good is that it handles personal tags, you can have different fields for composer/performer/conductor/catalog number... pretty much whatever you what.
one of the best thing is actually the folder monitoring system, a file appears in a monitored folder, it immediately appears in the database, tags and all, in less than 1 second. You had to tag a particularly rare album with dBpoweramp, the new tags are immediately detected in Foobar...
May 11, 2010 at 2:16 PM Post #67 of 106
@Ham Sandwich: Let's suppose that everything you said about JRMJ are hams with sandwich and not spams with sandwich then I can only say foobar can do every single feature you mentioned. In fact I doubt that JRMJ can match its feature count. It might not be out of the box but like UPnP/DLNA media server/client feature it can added with this component. Besides Itunes like media library browsers for 2 common used UI component, you can create smart playlist as called autoplaylist in foobar through these browsers or Album List (a component to list media library content in tree view format that you can flexibly define). Otherwise foobar has a query language that support complex searching logic based on comparison of various values from tag values to time, number of song so you can create autoplaylist with fine tuned sort string that I doubt any player can match. Albeit it's hard to use for the average folk to use this way. Other than these features you seem to be attached on you can read on the obvious features it supports here.
As it seems like you haven't read my post about foobar database or media library as it is called in newer version so let leave our discussion at I love foobar and you love JRMJ. I just hope that you stop having and spreading mis(spam)information about something you don't know quite enough and thank you for these ham information about JRMJ, I might try it out or I might not try it out :D.
P.S. About ham and spam I was using spamassassin (a spam filter typically used with MTA like qmail) terminologies about spam mail and normal mail. I can't help but poke fun at that seeing your nick, sorry for any offense these usages might incur.
May 12, 2010 at 12:51 AM Post #69 of 106

May 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM Post #73 of 106
I have been using SongBird Portable for a couple months (can't install anything on my work machine).  I'd like to hear from the experts what they think of it.  I use a uDAC out of my work laptop, which is running XP Pro.  Will be a while before we go to W7.

I really didn't like Songbird at all.  I'd probably setup a Foobar2000 Portable Install.
May 12, 2010 at 12:16 PM Post #74 of 106

I have been using SongBird Portable for a couple months (can't install anything on my work machine).  I'd like to hear from the experts what they think of it.  I use a uDAC out of my work laptop, which is running XP Pro.  Will be a while before we go to W7.

It's been over a year since I last tried Songbird.  In that time they claim to have gotten gapless playback with MP3 working perfectly.  I'll have to give it a try again.  See how it does with gapless for MP3 and FLAC.
The thing though with Songbird is their focus is on the experience around playing music.  Interactions and connections around music.  Their focus is not on actually playing music to audiophile standards.  Players like Foobar are the opposite being focused on playback quality first and turning the player into some sort of social interaction is not the goal.
May 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM Post #75 of 106
I was using WinAMP, then found FooBar and now found uLilith, which sounds best for now.. Its pretty similar to WinAMP in terms of appearance. I like lots of things on FooBar, but sound isnt exactly that thing.. plus I cant control WASAPI without some plugin ( I will try it eventually) to use 192/24 as FooBar cant control anything for WASAPI.

Users who are viewing this thread