Talk:Foobar2000

Extensibility and Components

I believe the foobar2000 page lacks detail as to the extent that foobar can be customized. A brief section with details, core components and examples could be beneficiary. This is one of the main reasons users choose foobar over other media players and is thus an important aspect of the application, an aspect that is not immediately evident from the wiki page. Fofr 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Misc

Why do people keep saying foobar is windows 2000+ ONLY? I ran it for a year or more on windows 98..... I didn't notice it not-working. :) -User:Poddster - 1st July 2006

Clarified on article. --Kjoonlee 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be abusive to say that Foobar2000 is the only audio-only player able to read Matroska files (.mka) ? I mean, there's no other audio player that can read then, but all other Matroska-enabled players are video players. That's logic because Matroska is mainly used for video, but trust me it can also be used for audio-only ! --Rheuh

Think we could get enough support to get foobar with linux support?

Never, as stated numerous times on the foobar forums. - Xorx77 06:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's reported to run in Wine, but I can't find forum links. -- 154.5.97.33 04:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the windows theme in the screenshot called? I have to know. :)

It's called Royale, also known as the Windows Media Center 2005 theme. Microsoft used to have it as a free XP download, but now you'll have to find it somewhere else.

Tagz

The name Tagz is not official. -- Canar 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The name 3M is was not official but that didn't stop the company from using it for ages and ages. I'm a descriptivist, and I think the name Tagz is helpful for people who want to find out more. --KJ 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, outdated information should be relegated to the footnote, not current information. Article changed to reflect this. -- Canar 19:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If people still call it Tagz, it's not outdated. --Kjoonlee 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The foobar2000 scripting language is anything but "straightforward." Drano 07:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"%artist% - %title%" is pretty straight-forward and intuitive. Advanced usage is less straight-forward, but as the language lacks looping and other features of Turing-complete languages, it is less complex than most other scripting languages. Compare with Perl and Python if you'd like to see some complex scripting languages. -- Canar 16:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable

I have proposed this page for deletion due to what I believe to be the non-notability of Foobar2000. It is, at best, a marginal music player among many others, few of which need such extensive documentation. --66.92.130.57 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for deletion anyway. Oh, by the way, it was true that shsc.biz was a shock site run by the GNAA. You would have found that out if you had clicked on any of the bottom links. --Kjoonlee 02:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Based off the amount of people who have worked to create this page, and the amount of pages that link to the foobar2000 page, as well as the google page hit - over 4 million, I would have thought that foobar2000 would be thought of as notable. It is a free alternative to the bloatware players that populate the market at the moment, which makes it popular with the 'hardcore' computer user market. Dwayne Kirkwood 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

definitely notable, I suggest removing the page for deletion note (sorry for anonymous posting, forgot my account details...) --84.190.162.164 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion template. I think we have enough of a consensus to keep this article around. --134.10.2.36 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Acording to http://alternativeto.net/software/foobar2000/ foobar200 has only 8 likes less than iTunes but 209 more then WinAmp.--92.198.37.119 (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't measure notability in "Likes" on obscure download sites (or Facebook for that matter), Google Hits, or the number of anonymous IPs who have vandalised the page. It is measured in coverage in reliable and independent sources. Try finding some coverage in independent and reliable sources, rather than using the subject's official website, and I might be inclined to change my mind. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Also in the following article „Foobar2000 gilt derzeit als einer der besten Software-Audio-Player überhaupt“ http://www.netzwelt.de/news/73959-foobar-gegen-rest-welt.html And also on heise.de it is noted that: „Unter Windows dürfte foobar2000 der vielseitigste Audio-Player schlechthin sein“ and it also gets 5 from 6 stars. --93.233.36.192 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC) It is also mentioned in the following article: http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/mp3-players/1290481/sandisk-sansa-clip-zip --93.233.29.78 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I'll enumerate all presented external links presented here and in the article and the problems (as I interpret Wikipedia policy) with regard to establishing notability:

• http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4997 (ref 1) - A forum post. Not reliable
• http://www.foobar2000.org/ (Ref 2 & 6, External link) - Official site: Not independent.
• http://perkele.cc/software/boom - (ref 3) Authors's page: Not independent.
• http://www.foobar2000.org/?page=ReleaseNotes&version=096 (ref 4) - Official site: Not independent.
• http://www.foobar2000.org/?page=ReleaseNotes&version=10 (ref 5) - Official site: Not independent.
• http://techland.time.com/2012/03/02/can-you-hear-the-difference-between-lossless-and-lossy-audio/ (ref 7) - Passing mention of another product that is available as a plug-in in an otherwise unrelated article.
• http://forums.foobar2000.org/ - (External link) Official site: Not independent.
• http://www.foobar2000.org/components - (External link)Official site: Not independent.
• http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Foobar2000 (External link) - Wiki. Not reliable
• irc://irc.freenode.net/foobar2000 #foobar2000 -(External link) IRC - not a reliable source.
• http://alternativeto.net/software/foobar2000/ - (on this page) Download site. I would argue download sites can rarely be considered to be reliable AND independent - e.g. summaries/reviews often appear to be written by the software's publisher (or at least copy and pasted from material they prepared).
• heise.de - (on this page) Looks like a download site to me (see above).
• http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/mp3-players/1290481/sandisk-sansa-clip-zip -(on this page) Passing mention in a review of something else. The only thing of use is that it is one of an unidentified number of packages with a particular feature.

• http://www.maximumpc.com/article/howtos/manage_your_music_foobar - (External link) How-To Guide. Debatably passable. Although personally, I have serious concerns if it is the only English language reference we can count.
• http://www.netzwelt.de/news/73959-foobar-gegen-rest-welt.html - (on this page) Although a blog format in German, one of the more passable references.

Pit-yacker (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need better references, but Heinz Heise-run heise.de is a reliable source, a mainstream news site, and very popular: Alexa Traffic Rank: 693, in Germany: 28. Non-English source count for showing notability. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The current lack of good sourcing in *any* language is a serious issue for concern. None of the current inline sources can be regarded as reliable, independent and useful for establishing notability. To be clear, of the 7 inline sources, we currently have 1 passing mention, 5 from affiliated sites and 1 unreliable site.

None of the 2 or 3 other sources that I *might* be inclined to accept as useful for notability have been used in the article. Until that is the case, the article has failed to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Of those, in reality, I'm minded to say the only one presented that is of any real use for notability (or the article) is netzwelt.

Heise.de itself may be a reliable source. However, the section of the site it is taken from looks suspiciously like a download site. I'm inclined to suggest download sites are rarely reliable sources. There is all too often a vested interest which means a "review" can't be regarded as being objective. Nor, IMHO, should a download site alone be used to establish notability - unless there is a clear and rigorous threshold for inclusion. In this case, it’s worth noting that just because the main site is reliable, doesn’t mean that everything on the site can be regarded as such. Many mainstream news sources also have forums and reader comments sections. However, we quite rightly don’t regard those comments as reliable or as a source for establishing notability.

Whilst, we don't need English language sources per-se, surely if the subject is notable, there must be some English language sources somewhere?

Pit-yacker (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a link to a Time article before your non-notability trolling went into full-swing, recommending foobar2000 and none other as a tool for ABX testing. This is not a marginal reference, this is one of the core principles of the article: Objective double-blind testing as the basis for quality analysis. foobar2000 is their recommendation for how to do this on Windows. I've added a reference to Cambridge Audio using foobar2000 as their reference Windows 7 ASIO playback platform. http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/play-music-audiophile-foobar2000-windows/ http://www.head-fi.org/a/foobar2000-a-guide-to-set-up http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381532,00.asp http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/foobar/ There's a bunch more links to various organizations that might be notable. I figure Cambridge Audio and Time (magazine) should be sufficiently "notable" for all intents and purposes, but I'm far from up-to-date in the arcana of Wikipedia policy. Canar (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be grateful if re-familiarise yourself with WP:AGF before you start throwing around accusations of trolling. As far as I am concerned the inclusion criteria have tightened significantly since this article was first created 9 years ago. Unfortunately, it appears this article hasn't kept up. IMHO these days Wikipedia is about quality rather than quantity and it is no longer acceptable for an article to soley use unreliable and primary sources. The reason it hasn't already had a visit to AfD is because I believe the subject *is* notable. However, the article should illustrate that by using numerous references from independent and reliable sources. Unfortunately, I dont have time to fix everything on Wikipedia (increasingly I dont have time to fix anything).

As for references. The references presented by yourself, taken together (whilst still many miles from the quality I would expect for a Good article) are a start. Problem is, only one of them is in the article. Furthermore, I'm sorry but my opinion is that the Time article *is* a passing mention. I'm not sure that the context would qualifies as a recommendation either. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

There have been a number of edits lately trying to sneak in a link to a shock site, using a misleading and harmless-looking edit summary. Please don't.

To people who are interested in foobar2000: please check all edits for the time being, to spot vandalism. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Both sites look the same to me, what is the difference? Dwayne Kirkwood 03:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Download the HTML source of shsc.biz, and look at the "External links" section. Download the source of the linked pages and you'll see. --Kjoonlee 04:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I see. Thank you, I will keep watch. Dwayne Kirkwood 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Foobar2000_heavy_plugin.jpg - i tried uploading that for an example of a heavily modded foobar2000 using a vertical interface thanks to Columns UI. The transparency didn't come out well. I'm not sure how to thumbnail it next to plugins, i'll do it soon. --Sprafa 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice GUI mod :) --GTPoompt 12:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sort order

Can anyone come up with any better sort order for features than I've currently got? Roughly, they're sorted by length as they appear on my screen. -- Canar 05:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that i do. however, i suggest that the minimal/normal/full instalation sections be removed since the last version of foobar2000 to contain more than one installer was 0.8.3. --Mangix 01:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But we still have Normal/Full/Minimum/Previous/Custom presets in the full installer. --Kjoonlee 04:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I once made a change in the order to match the list of components in the newest non-beta installer. It's easier to check for additions this way. --Kjoonlee 04:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know of any websie which has a list of third party components? the current list is quite small and it doesn't really list the famous ones such as foo_ui_columns. would be a nice adition to the wiki. --Mangix 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

this page has most of it: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9 --Boombaard 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i-pod

it says in the article, that there is a third party plugin for i-pod support?? has anyone got an idea where i can download the plugin?? thx --moorooduc 05:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Google is your friend (first link). //Halibutt 06:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

also, there is http://yuo.be/ipod.php

Vista compatibility?

Although the changelog mentions much about "improved vista compatibility," foobar is constantly crashing on my system. and there is not a sausage about this in the wiki. hmm. --Catbeef 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you using any third-party plugins? Are they all up-to-date? --Kjoonlee 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was an outdated audioscrobbler that was causing the mischeif! forgot about that :( --Catbeef 02:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Age

Does anyone know when the player was first released? Really, I'd be interested in seeing any of the players history and I didn't see it on the official site (which is firewalled for me right now anyway, unfortunately) --Morbid-o 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First public release was 2002-12-13 or earlier.[1] I can't find the post that led to it, though... --Kjoonlee 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement / NPOV

I have removed the advertisement / NPOV tag, as I am not certain what is NPOV or advertising-like about giving a list of the features of the software. -- Canar 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert, but I think a list of features can sound like an advertisement at times. ("This software has these features... so go on and try it.") --Kjoonlee 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable References and Sources

I added today some sources from well-known German publishers about good, notable and highly usable software products. Those publishers are in no way related to the programm's author(s). Features, quality and notability are dicussed in these sources.

The German resources could e.g. be accessed via language tools of Google or Bablefish. I would like to suggest that you have a look at your favorite computer magazine in your home country to be able to add English reliable sources about foobar2000 originating of outside both the Wikipedia and outside the HydrogenAudio domain.

BTW: It might be seen as an independant hint of notability for foobar2000 that there are up to 20 articles in other language versions of wikipedia about foobar2000. Because every and each Wiki has almost the same GUI you could e.g. access those articles' histories to get an estimate about how likely this piece of software is of the non-notable kind.

And it would be nice if someone else could please be so kind and add some independant and reliable English language resources about foobar2000.

Thank you!

PS:

I would like to make the additional suggestion that the tag 'This article does not cite ...' should not be removed until there is at least one such reliable external reference of US-American or British origin added to this article.

CasaMeaEuropea 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Those seem to be listings (not RS beyond proving something exists) and therefore are not really the sorts of references that would be needed. As for the fact that it has articles on other wikis - entirely irrelevant - notability is not inherited from wiki to wiki, so I'm afraid they tell us nothing about the program's notability - leaving aside the fact that wikipedia is an unreliable source. --Fredrick day 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Being listed in a list of quality software of two independant publications of publishers of known high quality standards is perhaps not a proof - but it is highly significant indication.

FAZ is a newspaper of high reputation in general, and ct is a computer magazine of equally high reputation in its field. Foobar2000 has been included in ct's editors' choice cds.

The third reference is an article, and as far as I know this kind of text is nowhere qualified as listing. The order of the reference could be changed because of there signficance naturally.

BTW: The notability of foobar2000 has been dicussed on this talk page before - so I am afraid that I only added some hints for its notability. Nothing else was my intension as to provide some examples of what could be done to get rid of the 'This article does not cite ...'-tag. And naturally in the English Wiki there should be citations of English sources showing its relevance ...

--CasaMeaEuropea 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The initial blurb has been edited somewhat since I wrote it, but all the details that I wrote came straight from my conversations with the developer, Peter, himself. At the time I wrote it, foobar2000 internally supported sampling rates up to 1MHz and currently supports greater bit depth than any audio hardware that I am aware of can currently render accurately. At 6dB/bit, 32-bit audio output should allow for 192dB of signal-to-noise ratio, given flat dithering. With noise shaping, foobar2000 can provide even greater perceptual signal-to-noise ratios. To the best of my knowledge, there is not any audio hardware that can currently provide 192dB of signal-to-noise ratio.

I'm only saying this to show that my statement that foobar2000 supports a greater sampling rate and bit depth than any current hardware can render is true.

I don't have external citations for this. Of course I wouldn't. The information comes straight from the guy who wrote the software, not from some other source. I'm aware that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily operate that way. I'm just saying what the truth is. If you'd rather have the truth, here it is. If you want to fulfill Wikipedian legalism to its maximum extent, keep the status quo. Canar (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

then we keep the status quo - wikipedia is not about truth but verification. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Lead

Quite a number of dubious and questionable statements appear in the lead of this article, which seems particularly un-encyclopedia like. I've attempted to document them using using the necessary inline templates but those changes have been reverted for whatever reason. I'm particularly interested in the weasel words "High quality output" (in light of the developers claims)as well as this edit in which the program has moved from being best know for a "minimal" interface to a "highly customizable" one.

Anyways I'd be willing to re-write it as to be more accurate, especially considering that the most of the 3rd-party components that might have made the program "highly customizable" are no longer being developed and are incompatible with the most recent versions of the program. 74.215.119.104 (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

After a few weeks with no objections to this suggestion, I've made the needed changes. 74.215.117.240 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this player's notability is being argued?

This is the most widely used player among audiophiles. I'm not even one and I know that. Krystaleen (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See discussion above. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Just notability trolls further ruining Wikipedia. Nothing to see here, folks. Canar (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As above, see WP:AGF. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard to assume good faith when this is the only one of many audio players of lesser notability that's being evaluated this way. Canar (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)