Author Topic: foobar...honestly...WTF?! WTF?! (Read 52209 times)

urlwolf · « **Reply #50 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:46 PM »

ok i upload it here.
i just tried it with foobar ver 0.94 in virtual pc, it worked.
(i am still using foobar 0.8.3, )

-kimmchii (September 28, 2006, 03:32 AM)

kimmchii, the file is gone due to inactivity. Can you upload it again somewhere at DC? Looks like this is the perfect way to test foobar (with someone else's help!).

cthorpe · « **Reply #51 on:** March 26, 2007, 09:03 AM »

Here's my setup. It's nothing spectacular, but it is very fast and responsive on my PC (see specs in my sig).

foobar...honestly...WTF?! WTF?!

urlwolf · « **Reply #52 on:** March 26, 2007, 09:24 AM »

I'm trying foobar.

Up to now, this is the app that uses the least CPU (even less than xmplay in my system, both with ozone).
However, loading my 32000 tracks library makes it use 100mb of memory (!).
Is that what you find? Is this normal?

I have used this config:
http://www.head-fi.o...wthread.php?t=184284

Lashiec · « **Reply #53 on:** March 26, 2007, 09:28 AM »

Hey, good guide for the ones trying to enter foobar world!

Yes, I think is normal. It was mentioned a few times on the Hydrogenaudio forums, and some tips for minimizing the usage were given. Unfortunately, I don't have a link around, but I think you can found the thread using the search function and some imagination.

I usually use both, foobar for playing complete albums (ripped from my CDs) and XMPlay for loose songs and VGM (Video Game Music)

Curt · « **Reply #54 on:** March 26, 2007, 11:41 AM »

100 pages in that thread? Good god.
-JavaJones (September 27, 2006, 07:56 PM)

100 pages? No no; that was the old threat, on 0.8. Here is the "new" threat, on 0.9>, started march 2006. So far this is 215 pages...

Lashiec · « **Reply #55 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:21 AM »

WHOA! I admit that I've been out of touch with foobar world for some time (why Peter made 0.9.x versions incompatible with Win9x?

), but I couldn't imagine they could come up with something like the configuration they're showing on page 215...

foobar...honestly...WTF?! WTF?!

WTF?!

Curt · « **Reply #56 on:** March 27, 2007, 05:29 AM »

I wouldn't mind my mediaplayer to look like that; I think it is really good looking

But with such an outlay I see even less reason not to have foobar a full media player, and not just an audio player. I'm not too interested in any audioplayer at all, because my playlist is crowded with music videos as well. I mean: foobar is still an audio player only, or what?

urlwolf · « **Reply #57 on:** March 27, 2007, 06:51 AM »

hmm
After playing around with columns UI, and azrael/navigator "skins" foo is not resposive at all. Moving around a list with the arrow keys makes it go 100% CPU, and it is extremely slow.

I like tabbed playlists, cue support (it sucks in mediamonkey!), and the album replaygain, but everything else... ugh.

It's >100mb with my library too.

Lashiec · « **Reply #58 on:** April 19, 2007, 06:06 AM »

* Casts the thread resurrection spell... *

urlwolf, and those having problems with the massive overhead caused by giant libraries in foobar, I finally found the tips I was talking about here and here. I hope it can help you.

urlwolf · « **Reply #59 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:33 AM »

Thanks lashiec. I'll try those sometime soon, currently I don't have my collection with me...

I think the problem is that the metadata has to be in memory. That's a lot of metadata for >30.000 songs...

f0dder · « **Reply #60 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:40 AM »

30k songs still shouldn't amount to 100 megabytes of in-memory metadata... that's some very sloppy code and data structures then!

crono · « **Reply #61 on:** April 19, 2007, 08:24 AM »

Check out http://www.fooblog2000.com/ for some nice configs

crono · « **Reply #62 on:** April 19, 2007, 08:29 AM »

30k songs still shouldn't amount to 100 megabytes of in-memory metadata... that's some very sloppy code and data structures then!
-f0dder (April 19, 2007, 07:40 AM)

Depends on the Metadata - you can have a lot of CoverArt in you metadata for example. But your right - it shouldn't be in Memory... My Foobar with a lot of custom config takes about 15 MB with a normal playlist (about 1000 Files)

//edit: Sorry for the double post

superboyac · « **Reply #63 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:30 AM »

foobar is the most ridiculously configurable app I've ever seen.
After hours of browsing and configuring, this is the best interface I liked (I got bits and pieces of it from other people, I barely did anything). Just FYI, I don't use my mp3 player as my "library" meaning all the songs are loaded in once, and I keep playing them. I drag and drop my songs from my file manager. I say this because a lot of people use their mp3 player as their library manager, so the preferable interface would be different. I also don't prefer the foobar configs that automatically group the songs of one album together in a fancy way. I like having each file it's own entity. Anyway, that being said, here's my screenshot:

foobar...honestly...WTF?! WTF?!

urlwolf · « **Reply #64 on:** April 19, 2007, 11:16 AM »

god, I cannot recognize a single artist in your screenshot, superboyAC

I do use foobar as my library, tagger, transcoder, and ripper

I think one explanation for the high memory usage is that I may still have some album art in tags; but I think I read in one of the threads that Lashiec posted that these are completely ignored.

In fact my current library (a small one on a 2.5 HD!) is about 1242 entries (most of it cue sheets) and foo is using 45mb of RAM + 37 of virtual memory.

I wonder why that is...

superboyac · « **Reply #65 on:** April 19, 2007, 11:37 AM »

god, I cannot recognize a single artist in your screenshot, superboyAC

Yeah, I'm pretty old school. I'm mostly into jazz, but have nostalgic ties to good country, classic rock, and a pop tune occasionally.

I do use foobar as my library, tagger, transcoder, and ripper smiley
I think one explanation for the high memory usage is that I may still have some album art in tags; but I think I read in one of the threads that Lashiec posted that these are completely ignored.

Just about all my mp3 files have album art embedded in the tags (I don't do the whole keep the jpg file in the folder business). I don't know if I've ever noticed the memory usage being high. Sometimes it goes high, but I don't why, and it's only temporary. Then again, I don't have my whole library loaded into it, usually just a couple albums or maybe 100 songs or so.

In fact my current library (a small one on a 2.5 HD!) is about 1242 entries (most of it cue sheets) and foo is using 45mb of RAM + 37 of virtual memory.

I wonder why that is...

I have about 700 songs loaded right now, it's 15 mB RAM. Cue sheets?! What are you playing, lossless files? Or do you keep your albums as one file and navigate the tracks through the cue? That's pretty hard core.

Lashiec · « **Reply #66 on:** April 19, 2007, 12:05 PM »

god, I cannot recognize a single artist in your screenshot, superboyAC
-urlwolf (April 19, 2007, 11:16 AM)

What?! You don't recognize Lynyrd Skynyrd, Norah Jones and Manfred Mann (well, I admit the latter were very famous only during the 60s

)?

30,000 songs... that's something like 3000 discs! My library is about 3900 tracks, and that's including video game soundtracks, and excluding most of my discs, which would amount another 700 songs, but with a 8 GB HDD, well... Anyway, 100 MB is something big, but I'll want to see Winamp 5 or iTunes with so many songs... The full installation of Winamp was almost 50 MB without anything on the playlist or the library

Curt · « **Reply #67 on:** April 19, 2007, 12:23 PM »

, I cannot recognize a single artist in your screenshot, superboyAC
-urlwolf (April 19, 2007, 11:16 AM)

I knew half of them

1242 entries (most of it cue sheets) and foo is using 45mb of RAM + 37 of virtual memory.

I wonder why that is...
-urlwolf (April 19, 2007, 11:16 AM)

- "I wonder why that is..."

I was thinking 'wonder what that is' when I read the words "cue sheets"

cue sheet:

(Theater) list of instructions and explanation for the director's or technician's use when preparing for a performance
-Dictionary

What's a 'cue sheet'?

Lashiec · « **Reply #68 on:** April 19, 2007, 12:25 PM »

Remember that in those cases, Wikipedia is your best friend

Nudel · « **Reply #69 on:** April 22, 2007, 06:46 AM »

fb2k is great. It demands that you put some time into setting it up but it works great and it actually allows you get the UI you want.

It's sad that Winamp, with its millions of ugly and functionally-challenged skins designed by people who think hiding buttons in strange Photoshop filters makes a good UI, never provided me with a UI that I liked half as much as what I got out of foobar2000 with half an hour of tweaking from a fresh install. (After discovering columns_ui and the album-art plugins, of course.)

I'm glad there's at least one media playback application for Windows that doesn't have to look like it came from outer-space (but can if that's what you want).

Here's my fb2k config. It's simple and it's exactly what I want.

f0dder · « **Reply #70 on:** April 22, 2007, 09:58 AM »

<3 Year Zero.

nosh · « **Reply #71 on:** October 25, 2007, 05:55 AM »

I think the beauty of Foobar lies in its simplicity and speed. What's the point of downloading something that's meant to be lean and mean and then pig it up to resemble an ugly looking winamp mod? Why not just run a retro (pre-bloat) Winamp version instead? I've actually started using playlists (the drag-drop functionality is awesome!) since I started using FB2K... integrates directly with my iPod too in the simplest possible way and I just _love_ the fact that the damn thing opens nearly as effortlessly as Notepad on my system.

Tried the 0.9.5 beta and didn't particularly care for its look out of the box, other than that I'm a fanboy!

foobar...honestly...WTF?! WTF?!