Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Groove Basin: Quest For the Ultimate Music Player

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the it's-dangerous-to-go-alone,-take-this-ipod dept.

Music 87

An anonymous reader writes "Andrew Kelley was a big fan of the Amarok open source music player. But a few years ago, its shortcomings were becoming more annoying and the software's development path no longer matched with the new features he wanted. So he did what any enterprising hacker would do: he started work on a replacement. Three and a half years later, his project, Groove Basin, has evolved into a solid music player, and it's still under active development. Kelley has now posted a write-up of his development process, talking about what problems he encountered, how he solved them, and how he ended up contributing code to libav."

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819049)

Who is still looking for DEDICATED music player?
If it can't play everything I throw at it, it ain't got a place in my house.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 5 months ago | (#46819329)

Some people like to keep their interests neatly divided.

Personally, when I open my music player, I want to see only songs, not videos or what have you. And I want to see them divided by folders, not by artist, by album, genre or whatever. Folders are way easier to organize - at least for those of us that kept a fairly organized selection from the start. So my (admittedly retro) software bundle of choice is Dolphin > Totem. Extremely simple and with a fairly clean interface, just the way I want it. I think I'm in a small niche, though.

Re:Really? (1)

soupbowl (1849394) | about 5 months ago | (#46819773)

I am the same as you.

Re:Really? (1)

eyepeepackets (33477) | about 5 months ago | (#46820151)

I prefer it the same, and to the point of building my own software to do it properly.

Re:Really? (2)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 5 months ago | (#46820775)

I prefer it the same, and to the point of building my own software to do it properly.

I've gone one better - I whipped up a little tcl/tk (wish) script that uses the locatedb to show me my music files*, so I never have to click "open" or "import" or any of that crap. I simply type parts of the filename that I remember into a box and it only displays the matches :-)

* and mpg123 to play them

Re:Really? (1)

eyepeepackets (33477) | about 5 months ago | (#46822709)

MIne's also done in tcl/tk (8.6), but it's a full blown graphics job which has playlist capabilities. At the cli I usually just call a pre-made playlist.

Re:Really? (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about 5 months ago | (#46820239)

Yes. Totem for audio, Rhythmbox for streaming, VLC for video.

Re:Really? (1)

Adam Jorgensen (1302989) | about 5 months ago | (#46821031)

My music is also organised by folders, but Musicbrainz Picard does all the heavy lifting of sorting stuff into the right folders.

I use Amarok and do use the library feature most of the time but every now and then I drop back to folder view for certain albums that confuse Amarok (Age of Wonders 3 OST...)

Re:Really? (1)

nomasteryoda (801608) | about 5 months ago | (#46822835)

I don't have to open my music player. Setup mpd so my music is "always on", connect to it with Cantata, vlc, sonata, mocp, my Android, etc. Pretty much anything that can connect/output the stream. Use conky on the desktop to show what's playing.

Yes, REALLY (1)

eleqtriq (170836) | about 5 months ago | (#46828577)

That's really an outdated way to do things. A song or artist could be categorized across multiple genres. What about collaborations? What about "Walk this Way" with Aerosmith and Run DMC? Do I make multiple copies if I sort folders by artist/genre etc?

The file system is terrible for organizing music. My music is sorted into folders, too, but it lacks. The music player has to make up for the short comings.

Re:Really? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 months ago | (#46820291)

People like me who like to play music in the background while doing other work/play, and so don't want some wonky code in VLC making it chew up a whole core to play an MP3?

(I still swear by it for videos, though)

Quest For the Ultimate Music Player (0, Flamebait)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 5 months ago | (#46819055)

Maybe not the "Ultimate Music Player," but most everyone has a music player in their pocket already. They are called smart phones. Why have two?

Re:Quest For the Ultimate Music Player (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819069)

Why use my phone when I'm at home? Clementine on my desktop won't drain my phone battery.

Re:Quest For the Ultimate Music Player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819679)

Because it uses far less power hooked up to the wall than your computer?

Re:Quest For the Ultimate Music Player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820005)

But my computer's already on, and does a lot more than play music--much much more than my phone can do.
I put up with the music player on my phone when I'm away from home, but at home I can use something nice.

Re:Quest For the Ultimate Music Player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46822793)

But your phone has a shitty small screen, and small capacity, and to listen to it you have to use a headphone or plug your phone somewhere.
My music library is over 100Gb, and to browse through it comfortably I prefer using my big screen with a mouse and a proper keyboard.
The only way for me to pleasantly use it on a phone would be an app that connect to my main player on the pc and stream music from it.

Winamp (4, Insightful)

ichthus (72442) | about 5 months ago | (#46819061)

Get an old copy, because it still whips the llama's ass.

aimp winamp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819115)

aimp 3 > winamp llama whipping is so 2003

Re:aimp winamp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819195)

A bloated player made by Russians? No thank you. XMPlay for me. [un4seen.com]

Re:aimp winamp (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820257)

You got the bad one, Winamp 2.95 was the good one.

When they upgraded to 3.0 it go too bloated and slow. I can start up that Winamp and its footprint is so small you would be surprised, running with an 8MB MP3 loaded and it still took up less than 10 MB. I can run Solitaire on my PC and listen to music and the card game is a bigger resource hog.

It was around 3.0 when AOL bought it and required they throw in everything but the kitchen sink and bloat it that it died.

Still Whipping After All These Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46822891)

I have been using Winamp 2.5e (which I love) on Winders for a decade and tweaking it (adding Winamp Essentials, codecs, gapless plugin, etc., and lest I forget, Version 2 (minimal nagware) of DFX - the only thing not supported in this without paying for DFX is "3D Surround", which I need like another hole in the 'ead).

You can read about Winamp's history here [wikipedia.org] .

It will play all lossless but Apple ALAC (M4A Lossless) with the appropriate codecs installed (I've used FLAC, APE, SHN, WAV, and a couple of others I can't recall right now, and CD's), won't play videos, which is good (Winamp 5.xx will, but I swear by VLC for vids), or apple M4A's (it plays other .MP4's) for which I use VLC again. Winamp 2.50e is light, compact, cleaver and it just works.

All of version 3.xx was a nightmare and is best forgotten (even they admit that). There was no version 4.xx. Early 5.xx also worked badly and took a lot of memory and processor compared to version 2.5e.

You can get all "old versions" here [oldversion.com] . Oldversion.com used to be very good (as in the last time I used it about 10 years ago) but has doubtless changed hands countless times (who hasn't, these days?), so let the downloader beware: the site and/or install might have some nasties (but I doubt it).

Re:Winamp (1)

antdude (79039) | about 5 months ago | (#46820421)

In Linux and Mac OS X? :P

Re:Winamp (1)

JamesTRexx (675890) | about 5 months ago | (#46821649)

For this I still keep going back to XMMS (the original). Tried the various successors but it felt like there were less features and keyboard controls with these.

I only need to find the right file to load .flac files, but then again almost everything is ripped to ogg vorbis q10 anyway.

Re:Winamp (1)

antdude (79039) | about 5 months ago | (#46822413)

Same here. I did not like XMMS2 thing.

Re:Winamp (1)

nullchar (446050) | about 5 months ago | (#46824693)

Audacious isn't bad. I also fire up QMMP if I want the ProjectM visualizer.

Re:Winamp (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 5 months ago | (#46828281)

You inspired me to try installing my old version (5.08d) in wine to see what would happen. Works great!

Agreed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46821657)

Winamp classic got it right. It looks like a tape player, it works like a tape player, only it plays mp3's. It doesnt eat up my whole system to do it, even when i put a 1000+ song playlist in it. And it doesnt try to be my all encompassing multi-media front-end / librarian.

Well it does.. but you can turn that shit off.

VLC is great too... except it chokes if you throw more than a couple dozen files at it.

Re:Winamp (2)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 5 months ago | (#46821945)

I'm listening to Winamp 5.666 right now. Winamp is still being actively developed. [winamp.com] I strongly prefer it over things like iTunes and Amarok. The compact design that hails from the era of 800x600 being a common resolution is very nice, the playlist is very compact yet the font size is configurable and the list is resizable, and if I want to listen to anything I know, I just hit "j" and start typing. The only things that are remotely as good are clones of Winamp. Ugly full-screen grey-white music players with tons of space between screen elements are garbage as far as I am concerned.

Nothing ever truly competed with Winamp. It has a great and DISCOVERABLE interface with heaps of easy-to-find hotkeys. Winamp is like the Windows XP of music players; Amarok and iTunes and everything else like that is the Windows 8.0 of music players: crap interfaces, slow to get around, takes up way too much space, and hotkeys aren't discoverable enough. They might as well be RealPlayer from 1998.

BUFFERING *snicker*

Re:Winamp (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 5 months ago | (#46821967)

If you were a 90s Winamp kid and haven't downloaded the last version and hit "Nullsoft Winamp..." in the right-click menu, you should, and watch the credits roll to the end.

I'm confused ... your post is ambiguous to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46823637)

Can you please tell us what the version number you mean (it's in the Winamp tab next to the credits tab)? I'd like to see this (considering what the credits used to say).

(I was in the hospital when Winamp went down and lost the version thread long before that.)

What "last version" do you meant? Do you mean the last Nullsoft version? Do you mean the last Nullsoft version before AOL or the last AOL/Nullsoft version? As GP post states, there is not (yet) a last Winamp version.

Do you mean install and look at the last version OR do you mean don't install the last version over any or the previous version?

I'm soooooo confused...

Re:I'm confused ... your post is ambiguous to me. (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 5 months ago | (#46826939)

The final release before Winamp was officially "shut down" by AOL and subsequently purchased is 5.666 (note the three sixes, not two) and can be found here. [filehippo.com]

Re:I'm confused ... your post is ambiguous to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46827247)

Thank you! (And yes, I'm the A/C to whom you replied.)

Clementine (5, Informative)

Atmchicago (555403) | about 5 months ago | (#46819093)

A fork of Amarok. http://www.clementine-player.org/ [clementine-player.org]

Re:Clementine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819149)

Stupid name. Reminds me of an old lady or a fruit. Neither is very appealing.

Genres (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819193)

Stupid name. Reminds me of an old lady or a fruit. Neither is very appealing.

Whelp, at least we know what kind of porn you're not watching.

:-P

Re:Clementine (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 5 months ago | (#46819227)

Clementines are very good fruits.
You simply have no taste.

It's also a cute French first name.

Re:Clementine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819585)

Stupid name. Reminds me of an old lady or a fruit. Neither is very appealing.

Clem will remember that.

Re:Clementine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819845)

But it's also the name of a lunar probe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_%28spacecraft%29

Since anything related to space is automatically good, you must now like Clementine.

Re:Clementine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819581)

Clementine seems to parse audio on the UI thread. It locks up for a moment whenever I try to skip through a bunch of songs. Wtf.

Re:Clementine (2)

Niterios (2700835) | about 5 months ago | (#46819925)

This is my audio player of choice. Lyrics on the player Window. No problems setting up any hotkeys. Reasonably configurable interface. Doesn't look like it was made in 1998. Reasonable song information management. All those online music platforms which I do not use. By far the most well rounded player in Linux.

Re:Clementine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46821559)

Looked promising but no gapless playback => unsuitable for the music I like listening to.

I am so confused... (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46819095)

Was I just listening to streaming pirated music before the "server down" errors started?

Re:I am so confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819609)

I think so. There was a Download option in the right-click menu as well.

Now that's a good name! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819109)

Amarok is yet another awful FOSS name, right up there with GIMP, Diaspora, LibreOffice, and all of Ubuntu's version names and the distro name itself. Groove Basin is a name that sounds good, has some style, and is easy to identify as something to do with music. Well done!

Re:Now that's a good name! (1)

eepok (545733) | about 5 months ago | (#46819245)

It is only barely relevant, but I fully agree with this AC. FOSS programs, if they're ever going to garner sufficient usership needs to have easily pronounceable names because, like it or not, word of mouth is the most trusted form of marketing.

Re:Now that's a good name! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819377)

So, we can surmise that any comment from someone named "eepok" is as pointless as the username? That's exactly what you're claiming.

qed

Re:Now that's a good name! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819637)

Wrong. Someone's username on Slashdot does not carry the same importance as the name of a software package intended for wide distribution. Likewise, "Fluffy" is a good name for a cat or dog, but not a good legal first name for a child.

Re:Now that's a good name! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820033)

Likewise, "Fluffy" is a good name for a cat or dog, but not a good legal first name for a child.

It is if they work in the porn industry.

Banshee 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819135)

If you run the development versions of banshee today (2.9.x), as it's GTK3 in the frontend, you could use the broadway backend [gnome.org] to access your player from your browser (without a foreign UI). What we haven't done yet is the streaming part, but that will come eventually. Overall I think it's a better strategy than writing an HTML version of your player.

aaaannd... there it goes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819159)

Server fall down, go boom.

Banshee 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819175)

With a GTK3-based player like Banshee 2.9.x development versions, you could render your player in the browser without the need of creating an HTML version of the UI... Yeah, streaming is not there yet, but it will come eventually.

Supported formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819215)

Anyone know what the supported formats are?

The list gets more narrow when you want to play modules and video game music as well.

Re:Supported formats? (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 5 months ago | (#46819687)

Everything libav supports.

Thank you OP (2)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about 5 months ago | (#46819237)

I just wanted to say, this is relevant to my interests

Sweet (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about 5 months ago | (#46819409)

I can't wait until someone re-invents the wheel. Again.

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819463)

You're just jealous because you've already stocked up on old wheels.

Foobar2000 for Linux (3)

nowsharing (2732637) | about 5 months ago | (#46819487)

The Ultimate Music Player would be a solid port of Foobar2000 to Linux. Groove Basin...not so much.

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (1)

xeoron (639412) | about 5 months ago | (#46819523)

Foobar2000 runs perfectly under WINE on Linux and OS X [github.com] . I have been using it for years without any problems. So far, the only flaw I have found is that it does not find new music placed into your media folder after it finishes scanning for new files during start-up, so you have to restart the thing to help it find music just added.

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (1)

SIGBUS (8236) | about 5 months ago | (#46821925)

Foobar2000 runs perfectly under WINE on Linux and OS X [github.com] . I have been using it for years without any problems. So far, the only flaw I have found is that it does not find new music placed into your media folder after it finishes scanning for new files during start-up, so you have to restart the thing to help it find music just added.

For values of "perfectly" that include pops, clicks, distortion, and lack of 24-bit support, in my experience.

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (1)

xvan (2935999) | about 5 months ago | (#46819783)

For each music player "news" on /. someone complains about Foobar2000 on Linux...
Can you tell me what makes it superior to MPD?

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820221)

Everything?

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (1)

SIGBUS (8236) | about 5 months ago | (#46821941)

Foobar2000's big win is in its music library handling. You can view it by folder, by genre, by artist, by album artist, or make up your own sort criteria (including sorting by any tag that you might define). Nothing else I've tried even comes close.

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46822321)

Gmusicbrowser does that wonderfully

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (1)

Warma (1220342) | about 5 months ago | (#46822077)

Regarding your base question, foobar2000 is simply an extremely powerful, sufficiently minimalistic, extremely easy to use and extremely configurable music player with a clean interface and support for every format I can think of, including esoteric Amiga tracker stuff. In it I can also organize and control music by superior means to any other program I know of, by the virtue of its easily macro-able tagging and renaming functions. In pure functionality and usability in a single-computer environment, MPD, or any other music player I've ever seen, simply does not even begin to compare against it.

However, MPD has good qualities foobar does not have, the biggest of which being the ability for anyone in the household to connect to the server by terminal using any device. This is why I use it over its alternatives in Linux and prefer textmode clients, mainly ncmpc. ncmpcpp is also nice, but there are subtle differences in their operation principles of these two, that make me want to stay in the C version (#1 being the ability to remap keys easily). It would well be sufficient for general music usage, if it were not for several features it lacks.
1) Optional display of metadata from a selected / playing file on the fly, possibly in the lower part of the window. This exists, but in a different screen. Wanting to see the year a tune was made is pretty common.
2) Queuing of individual songs is impossible (this would be important because then people wouldn't destroy the general playlist all the time)

Especially the queue is something I understand people will ditch MPD over. More importantly, when I visited IRC channels frequented by client developers to ask about the issue, the main reason people claimed the clients they wrote did not support this feature was, that they were waiting for MPD itself to implement it in a non-hack way, so that their clients would not break in the future for trying to implement it themselves. I.e. the lack of the feature is also a (at least superficially) legitimate reason to ditch MPD, not just one of its clients.

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820089)

What about DeadBeef?
http://deadbeef.sourceforge.net/

DeaDBeeF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820323)

YES. DeaDBeeF is Foobar for Linux. Thank you for beating me to it.

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820319)

There's always one commenter who has to come in here and poop on everyone with foobar2000. STOP POOPING

Re:Foobar2000 for Linux (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 5 months ago | (#46821515)

The Ultimate Music Player would be a solid port of Foobar2000 to Linux. Groove Basin...not so much.

OOh it's annual piss on someone's parade day, same as every day!

The poster posted a long, interesting article about building a good (as defined by a list of features, including things like lack of glitchiness and UI responsiveness), solid music player using open source software. The article covered in quite entertaining depth almost every layer of the stack from libav to web interfaces to automatic volume adjustment. It detailed the various pitfalls, flaws and design decisions with reasoning.

And all you bother to do is (and I strongly suspect without even bothering to try it) claim that some other music player which almost certainly doesn't match the feature set is "better" without even bothering to say why.

Basically, you're an arse.

Web Based? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819649)

So its web based? Thanks, but no thanks.

Call me old fashioned, but I like my web browsers and music separate.

I do web development for a living, and I've even built my own front end to mpd in HTML5 (and a backend controller, so technically not a front end to mpd the daemon, but it handles the UI part). Its integrated into my HTPC software. I moved to a WD TV live about a year ago, for Netflix, but I've since got netflix working on my HTPC (via Pipelight) so I'm moving back when I can get some new, more efficient hardware for it.

Back to the point, i'd rather it run in the background, with a UI tucked away I can pull up with a hotkey or mouse click in the system tray.
I know I could wrap this in a simple webkit window, if I really wanted to, and it may already do just that, but still, do not want.

XMplay (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 5 months ago | (#46819751)

288kb of optimized, "true to original" playback.
http://www.un4seen.com/ [un4seen.com]

Only downside? No scaling options for dpi :(.

Amarok (1)

esperto (3521901) | about 5 months ago | (#46819753)

I don't know what he has against Amarok, he could have the same funcionality (or at least very close to) if he had writen some plugins for Amarok.
Actually it would be better, because lots of other people could use it without the need to change players.
The one thing I miss for Amarok is a good Android remote control with a widget, there is one at the Play store but it is old as hell and doesn't have a widget and the source code is not published.

Re:Amarok (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46819829)

He liked Amarok 1.4, not the direction they went with the 2.0 rewrite. Why develop plugins for abandoned code?

Re:Amarok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46823103)

If you read the article you'd see that there are limitations in the plugins which he found unacceptable - specifically, the need for the normalizing plugin to duplicate the codecs of the player independently. So that wasn't good enough for him.

Sounds interesting, need an XBMC client plugin... (2)

complete loony (663508) | about 5 months ago | (#46819907)

So a usable web interface to manage a playlist of my media collection, sounds interesting. Now I just need an easy way to pipe the audio into my house and turn it off when watching something on TV. An XBMC plugin would do it.

Where's the Beef (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 5 months ago | (#46820233)

DeadBeef thats is http://deadbeef.sourceforge.ne... [sourceforge.net]

Re:Where's the Beef (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820313)

mod parent up

Re:Where's the Beef (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820575)

In other words, pay off the mods of Slashdot and expect a frontpage, traffic-generating link to your project. And you thought the fuck beta trolls actually left Slashdot. They've just been muted.

This is the beginning of the end, folks.

Javascript required on website? fuck it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820331)

NT

tomahawk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820359)

If you use windows, tomahawk is really cool. it can play from pandora etc..., connect to Gtalk etc....

on Linux I prefer mpg123. just kidding!

No thanks...dev making decisions for the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46820417)

FTFA: "The solution is to analyze each song before playing it to figure out how "loud" it sounds to humans. Then the music player adjusts the playback volume of each track to compensate for the perceived loudness. This way, the user does not have to adjust the volume for each track that comes on."

No thanks. What is loud to you may not be loud to me or vice versa. I want programs to do what I instruct them to do, not what the developer assumes I want.

Re:No thanks...dev making decisions for the user (4, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 5 months ago | (#46821707)

eedjit.

The player analyses each track so that all songs are uniformly loud, not that it alters your volume setting. This is so, if you have 2 tracks playing next to each other - the first quiet, the second mastered to be loud - you won't hurt yourself if you turned up the volume to hear the first one ok.

Re:No thanks...dev making decisions for the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46823527)

eedjit

It's still the dev making decisions for the user based on the dev's personal preferences. That is crap programming.

Re:No thanks...dev making decisions for the user (1)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | about 5 months ago | (#46824413)

It's called Replaygain and it can be disabled if you don't like it.

Eedjit.

This is an awful Ultimate Music Player (for the re (1)

log0n (18224) | about 5 months ago | (#46821545)

I'm sure it works for the author and I'm all for 'if you can't find what you want, build it yourself', but I'm also sure he's the only person who will appreciate it.

Re:This is an awful Ultimate Music Player (for the (1)

vargad (1948686) | about 5 months ago | (#46827575)

I use mpd as desktop music play for several years, I also use it on my raspberry-like box. I miss a decent web gui, I isn't a must have, but nice to have feature. Sometimes I would like to listen to music from my browser far away form home. It seems this music player know everything I need, and has even mpd compatible interface, so the desktop client I use with mpd should also work with this. If I would design a music player, it would be exactly the same. I'm seriously considering migrating to Groove Basin.

VLC (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 5 months ago | (#46821629)

Not sure what's wrong with the Swiss Army knife of media players. It wouldn't surprise me if it could actually play a spreadsheet.

Re:VLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46823969)

It's playlist support is horrible. Plus it likes to crash on big playlists.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?