User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Your editor's computerized music collection started small - a few CDs converted to Oggs and placed on the laptop to eliminate the need to carry a CD player when traveling. Then the live music trading community, of which your editor is occasionally a part, moved away from complex and unreliable tape formats to optical media, and, increasingly, online exchange. The digital music player showed up, replacing the old CD player as another gadget which must be hauled (along with charger) in your editor's increasingly heavy backpack; it brought with it a larger collection of highly compressed music files. Over time, the pile of digital music has become an unorganized mess of files in several formats, overflowing from its own, dedicated disk drive. There must be, one would think, a better way.

In search of better ways, and looking for an excuse to listen to more music while pretending to work, your editor delved into the world of free music managers. The manager part of that is key: the world is full of music players, but they are generally not helpful in organizing that big pile of music files. Your editor would like a tool which brings some order to the mess, makes finding and playing music easy, and helps with the management of one or more digital audio players. The search turned up three tools, all of which have some nice features, but none of which are, yet, a full solution.

Before getting into the specific tools, however, please indulge your editor with a topic which brings out his grumpiest side. Most of the tools discussed below offer iPod support. They can move files back and forth, interface with the on-device database, and generally perform the functions that an iPod owner might like to do.

Your editor does not own an iPod.

None of the applications reviewed has any useful concept of working with other digital audio players. Supporting only the iPod is as foreign to the free software way of doing things as supporting, say, only the i386 architecture or the Word document format. The iPod, as nice as it is, remains a highly proprietary device in a sea of alternatives. One can understand if iPods are supported first, since so many of them are out there; your editor very much hopes, however, that the developers have thought a little beyond the iPod and designed a digital audio player interface layer which is capable of a little more flexibility.

Beyond that, few of the managers reviewed appear to have much idea that a digital audio player is a separate domain, with, perhaps, its own rules. These players, for example, generally require lossy, compressed audio formats. But, when using a larger system, the idea that lossy audio is fit to be pumped through one's $1500 (each) speaker cables is insulting at its core. If much of one's audio collection is in lossless formats (FLAC, say), it would be nice to be able to move files to a portable player and have them automatically transcoded into a format that works on that player. In the absence of such a feature, it becomes necessary to keep music around in multiple formats - and most music managers do not deal well with that.

Rhythmbox

Rhythmbox is a longstanding GNOME music manager. It contains many of the expected features, but it has also been subject to a certain amount of muttering in the GNOME ranks. The biggest [Screenshot] complaint appears to be that the pace of development is slower than some would like. There have been comments to the effect that this project was slowed down recently by external events, but that development can be expected to pick up again soon.

The initial Rhythmbox display is sparse, essentially a large, blank window. Gaining access to music requires "importing" it into the "library." An entire directory tree can be imported at once, but Rhythmbox feels the need to complain about every non-music file it finds in the process. After the import process, the user is presented with a list of every known track in one very long, scrolling window. There is not a great deal of organization evident at this point.

A small button marked "show browser" opens a pair of panes allowing the selection of a subset of tracks based on the artist and/or album. There is also a "search" blank which restricts the list to tracks which contain (in the artist, album, or title field) a given string. Searching can be used, say, to find that recording of "Louie, Louie" that you know you have somewhere, or, for fans of a certain persuasion, to get a full list of all performances of "Dark Star" in the collection. The results form a sort of instant playlist, so one can perform a quick search, hit "play," and get hours of uninterrupted, out-of-tune Jerry Garcia goodness. Not that your editor would be into such a thing, of course.

Speaking of playlists: they are created from a menu entry, and appear in the left side pane. Creating playlists is a simple matter of dragging and dropping songs into it. It is not possible, however, to see the contents of a playlist and the library at the same time, so the creation process is somewhat blind.

One obnoxious feature of Rhythmbox is how it treats albums: it sorts the tracks by title if the track files do not, themselves, contain ordering information. Since much on-disk music is created with file names which describe the order of the tracks, it would be nice of Rhythmbox would use that information.

The music player itself is functional, if rudimentary. It has repeat and shuffle modes, as one would expect. There is a scrollbar which can be used to move within a track, but it is strangely located far from the other player controls. Rhythmbox, like most of the other applications reviewed here, puts an icon in the panel tray, allowing it to be controlled without having a window on-screen.

Rhythmbox also understands (and can "tune into") Internet radio stations. Of course, the out-of-the-box install fails to cope with the formats used by most stations, but some quick searching and installing takes care of that problem. Additional features (help in finding stations, recording from a stream) would be nice, but what's there is a start.

Rhythmbox has the ability to import tracks from CD - though it outsources the work to SoundJuicer. It is unable to burn tracks to CD. Rhythmbox also lacks any sort of digital audio player support; not even the iPod is supported.

Banshee

When GNOME users talk about replacing Rhythmbox, the most [Screenshot] commonly-suggested alternative is Banshee. Banshee is a Mono application which is coming along quickly, but which still lacks some important features.

The initial Banshee experience is similar to what one sees with Rhythmbox. After an import process, a long list of tracks appears. Unlike Rhythmbox, however, Banshee has no features for narrowing the list of tracks by artist or album. The search facility can often be pressed into service to obtain similar results, but it is more awkward. Playlists are handled in pretty much the same way as in Rhythmbox. Banshee lacks Internet radio capability.

Banshee does have a couple of nice features. One of those is the ability to edit the metadata in music files. A CD ripped using information from one of the online databases often ends up with some very strange metadata: it's always fun to find that whoever entered the information decided that Led Zeppelin belongs in the "ambient" genre, or that they decided to change the spelling of disk set name between the first and second CDs. Once you find the metadata editor (nicely hidden as "properties" on the "view" menu), you can fix problems like that.

By most accounts, Banshee has the best iPod support among the available free music managers. Among other things, it understands that it may have to transcode music as it moves it between the computer and the player. Banshee has a few different ways of controlling the movement of music to and from the iPod; it can be done entirely manually, or the library can be automatically synchronized with the player.

Banshee has a CD importer built into it, and it can import to a number of different formats. The ability to burn CDs is also there. At least, the web page says so; the version of Banshee from the Ubuntu repository does not appear to be able to perform either task.

Quod Libet

Quod Libet is a GTK+ [Screenshot] music manager written in Python. Its authors appear to place power and extendability above eye candy.

Quod Libet resembles other managers at startup time, and users go through the same sort of import process. Tracks are displayed in one big window. It is possible to get a browser which narrows based on artist and album, but the user must explicitly ask for it, and the browser is separate from the music player controls. In fact, there are two different browsers with very similar functionality.

When a playlist is created, a separate window is popped up; the usual drag-and-drop mechanism will populate the list. Access to playlists is via a pulldown menu slipped in between the player controls and the track list. It's a somewhat awkward interface, especially as the number of playlists gets large.

The distinguishing feature found in Quod Libet, perhaps, is its plugin mechanism. A simple Python interface makes it easy to add new features to the system; some of the available plugins include a song blacklist, various features for obtaining and displaying album cover art, a CD burning feature, an AudioScrobbler client, and a simple plugin for copying files to a portable player.

Amarok

Amarok appears, as of this writing, to be where much of the music management action is happening. The Amarok hackers have, in a short [Screenshot] time, put out a number of releases of this increasingly attractive and capable tool.

Amarok makes an immediate impression when it is started; the developers have clearly put quite a bit of effort into its appearance. The interface makes more use of color than the other music managers. It also never sits still; like a jukebox in a bar, Amarok is always flashing lights and generally trying to attract attention to itself. Some of the gaudier features (like the "on-screen display" which comes up every time Amarok starts playing a new track) can be turned off, but others (the flashing track name in the playlist display) are seemingly permanent. The work which has gone into creating a visually appealing tool is appreciated, but not everybody likes flashing distractions on their screen.

Needless to say, Amarok does album covers. They can be obtained from the net, browsed, and saved by the user, and come up with the relevant tracks are played. It also has features for digging up song lyrics and looking up artists in Wikipedia.

Tracks are imported into the "collection" in the usual way, but things change after that. The music collection is displayed in the left pane in file manager-like presentation. Nothing one might try in that pane, however, will cause a track to be played. In Amarok, everything is a playlist, and tracks must be added to a list before one can hear them. Double-clicking on an album will cause all of its tracks to be moved to the current playlist; from there, they can be heard. Individual tracks can also be dragged over. The playlist is cumulative, so a bit of wandering around in the collection can create a truly eclectic selection of tracks in the list. Playlists can be saved, at which point they appear in the hierarchical playlist display. The playlist display includes a section for Internet radio stations.

The music player itself has seen a fair amount of development attention. There is a small, xmms-like player window, a fancy frequency-amplitude display, and a built-in graphic equalizer. There is also a "queue manager" which can be used to program a sequence of tracks to be played; your editor is not entirely clear on how this feature differs from the regular playlist mechanism, however. There is a "dynamic playlist" feature which is poorly documented; it appears to try to find tracks (with help from AudioScrobbler) which are, in some way, similar to those which are already in the playlist.

There is reasonable player support built into Amarok, but, of course, it only supports iPods. Unlike the other players, Amarok allows the user to configure a mount command to make the player available.

Amarok is scriptable, and has a script manager built into it. Some of the available scripts can make the player stream out whatever is being played, perform transcoding of audio files, and more. There is also a "transfer to media device" script which can make Amarok move audio files to a USB-storage device. It knows nothing about the filesystem hierarchy on the destination device, however, not to speak of issues like encodings, so this script is not particularly useful.

There are many other features to this tool: fancy "visualizations," CD burning, track metadata editing, cross-fading between tracks, downloadable themes for the "context" window, automatic track rating (who knows how it works), basic podcast support, and more. Hopefully the idea is clear by now.

Conclusion

Readers who are mainly interested in iPod support may also want to have a look at gtkpod. Those of us with other devices will have to be content with advanced tools like rsync.

Clearly a lot is happening in this particular "type manager" niche. That is a good thing: computers are increasingly at the center of the audio experience, and we are going to need good tools to keep our music collections from looking like those piles of CDs, DATs, cassettes, records, eight-tracks, and other media that many of us have been surrounded by for much of our lives. The tools which are available now are far beyond what was out there even one year ago; once again, the free software community is showing how well it can create great applications when it gets fired up.

There is still some thinking which needs to be done in this area, however. The Rhythmbox and Amarok developers have realized that net-based audio is of increasing importance; their support for Internet radio streams is the result. Amarok's podcast support is also nice, if a little hard to get started with. Feed it an RSS file, however, and your playlist will always have a current listing of what's available from that podcast source. Now if we could just convince more podcasters to offer something other than the MP3 format, things would be even nicer.

Most of us want to take our music with us, and, thanks to the availability of high-capacity digital players, we can. The music management application developers are still figuring out how to cope with a music "library" which comes and goes, and which may or may not be a mirror (perhaps in a different encoding) of a local library. And they all seem to have difficulty with the idea that some of us folks - the more unfashionable ones, certainly - might use something other than an iPod. Your editor is looking forward to improvements in this area. An especially nice thing would be a cooperation with the Rockbox project to ensure that Rockbox-equipped players are seamlessly integrated. Given that, soon, iPods will also be able to run Rockbox, it seems that there should be a large enough user community to motivate some effort in that direction.

Your editor, if pressed to make a recommendation now, would have to go with Amarok. It has a feature set and visual appeal which is unmatched elsewhere. For those looking for a basic manager for music which lives only on the computer, Rhythmbox is also a stable and functional alternative. Banshee shows signs of developing into a highly capable application, but it is not there yet. Given some time, however, along with a broader willingness to install the whole Mono system, and Banshee may yet push its way toward the top of the list.

Now, if you don't mind, your editor has some tunes to listen to.


(Log in to post comments)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 18:06 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

Apparently you missed the mechanism to switch browsers in Quod Libet. The "View" menu lets you change to any of the browsing methods (there are 6 in the latest version) in the main window, with the player controls. The Music menu lets you open separate browsers. One of the alternate browsers is the more traditional "playlist" view where you can drag songs around and into separate lists.

More information is available at http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/wiki/Guide/Browsers -- we're definitely interested in feedback if something was nonobvious.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 1:37 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

Another developer point out to me that this appears to be a review of Quod Libet 0.13, which is 2.5 months old -- subsequent versions added Internet radio, a new playlist editor, and many other things.

Jon and anyone else, if (as the Banshee review suggests) you're running Ubuntu, you may want to grab 0.15 from the dapper repository. It should install fine.

All four media players mentioned in this article see fast development -- even Rhythmbox, which today released a version with CD and Podcast support. So unfortunately this probably isn't a very useful comparison overall.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 18:07 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

>> In the absence of such a feature, it becomes necessary to keep music around in multiple formats

although not integrated (as far as i know) into the graphical players, gnupod allows casting ogg -> mp3 upon write to the device. not sure about flac.

gnupod is an incredibly useful package, easy to integrate into scripts as well.

i see more players able to handle ogg, hopefully this trend will pressure apple into one day supporting it directly, although given their business model with itunes, i'm not holding my breath.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:42 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

I gotta put a little plug in here for my own little device: a Samsung YP-MT6. It's a 1GB Flash player that supports WAV, MP3, WMA (including, unfortunately, the DRM'd variety), and, !! OGG !! Gloria in excelsis! :-) It also has an FM tuner (which you can record from--to 128kb MP3), voice recording with a built-in mic and a line input, and it uses AA batteries, which I love because I don't have to worry about the battery being non-replaceable and dying after a few months (like certain devices discussed above in this thread...) It has USB-2.0 support, acts as a USB mass storage device (you can store non-music files on it too--it just ignores things it doesn't understand) and generally just works. The one thing I have found a little annoying is that the firmware requires a Windows utility to upgrade, and there's a few little annoyances with the firmware it shipped with, like the sound preferences get wiped occasionally when I delete sound files to replace with others, but that's no big deal to me.

Sorry for the commercial, but I just love this little device and I had to speak up for the non-iPod devices (and the OGG support!) Samsung really did good by me with this product.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:48 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

One other thing--the YP-MT6 is *small*--60x25x25mm, and the headphones that come with it are quite nice for being earbuds. OK, end of commercial, I promise. :-)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:29 UTC (Mon) by davidw (guest, #947) [Link]

I got one of those for my wife, and was really surprised at how far the whole Linux experience has come.

We took it out of the box, and plugged it in, and it just showed up on her desktop as a USB drive (no surprise, but it's neat to see) that she could open and drag stuff into. When she puts a CD into the drive, it asks if she'd like to make ogg files from it, which are then easy to just drag over to the Samsung.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 18:31 UTC (Mon) by ecureuil (subscriber, #3507) [Link]

If you use KDE and want something simpler than Amarok, Juk is nice and
very intuitive.

http://developer.kde.org/~wheeler/juk.html

Maybe you could add it to your review

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:23 UTC (Mon) by nhasan (guest, #1699) [Link]

Sadly, JuK is missing from the list of reviewed player/managers. I would like the editor to do a part II with JuK.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 18:35 UTC (Mon) by astrophoenix (guest, #13528) [Link]

have you used an ipod? it is proprietary, but it is also very, very, very
nice. sure, you can get a player with more storage for less money and with
more 'features', but I haven't yet seen a player which was as nice as the
ipod. and by that I mean works as flawlessly and elegantly, looks as nice,
and is as simple to use. I think there is a reason why so many more ipods
are sold than any other player.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:19 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Some of us care about sound quality. iPods consistently rate near the bottom in blind comparisons.

Of course, most people can't tell the difference, and deserve what they get.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:50 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

>> iPods consistently rate near the bottom in blind comparisons.

my readings on this indicate that the ipods have competitive if not high quality:

http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/934/index.html

http://home.comcast.net./~machrone/playertest/playertest.htm

(linked from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1777890,00.asp)

cruising google for links on this topic does not indicate a glaring deficiency in ipod sound quality.

can you provide a link?

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:54 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

I think the results of the these tests depends more on the quality of the music files and the headphones used...

The iPod got better ratings a few yars ago, so I suspect that either has the sound quality sunk on the new iPods, or the competition has caught up.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:00 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

the machrone comparison is quite recent. and i have not yet seen definitive data telling me the ipod quality is low. so far this is just conjecture.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:06 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

True enough. The best is to do the listening yourself.

I chose an iAudio X5 myself, because of ogg and flac. The good sound quality I got from it was an added bonus.

...after I binned the crap plugs that comes with it and replaced them with something good, that is...

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:55 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

> The best is to do the listening yourself.

This is bullshit. The best is to do ABX tests. "Just listen yourself" is what audiophiles tell themselves to justify their thousands of wasted dollars.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 23:41 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

Oooh! Flamebait ;)

"This is bullshit. The best is to do ABX tests. "Just listen yourself" is what audiophiles tell themselves to justify their thousands of wasted dollars."

Not everyone uses the "Just listen yourself" approach to justify wasting money. I use a simple approach that has always worked.

1. Listen to a music that you are very familiar with.
2. Select recordings that are known for their good sound quality.
3. Set EQ to off.
4. Listen to the whole song on on kit.Then repeat on the other one.
5. Things to listen for: s-sounds in voices, murky sound, depth and firmness of bass.

Usually, it is easy to tell the difference. Sometimes there is a difference, but you can't tell which is better. Or the differences are very small. In that case, it's time to try an ABX test.


ipod :)

Posted Dec 5, 2005 11:38 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

Hmmmm, ABX testing is a tool to help in listening tests, not to replace "listen yourself" tests AFAIK

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:19 UTC (Mon) by mikeraz (guest, #155) [Link]

And some people have abused their hearing and have minimal response over 15khz. The quality that audiophiles love is not perceivable.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 3:38 UTC (Tue) by etwilson (guest, #8459) [Link]

most people can't tell the difference

Well, if most people can't tell the difference then why should they care? I must be one of those people because my ipod mini sounds fine to me. Am I an idiot because of that?

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:23 UTC (Mon) by vputz (guest, #5639) [Link]

> it is proprietary, but it is also very, very, very
> nice.

So was BitKeeper.

Don't get me wrong. I *like* Apple. I love my (wife's) iPod. I'm fascinated by the one company among tech design firms which actually puts some thought into the "design" side. I even admire BitKeeper, for that matter. No one says that all proprietary software is bad software.

That's not the point. The point is that NO MONOCULTURE IS SAFE--particularly when that monoculture owns your data. If you are dependent on a single proprietary source code version manager, things get nasty when the software is removed and you have to flail to get control of your own data. If all your music is controlled by a single proprietary digital music player, that digital music player has way more control over your data than it should.

A better solution would have an open, vendor-neutral repository format which could be accessed by various front-ends, with separate back-ends to upload to a player of your choice, supporting whatever players you may wish. I'm alarmed that RockBox isn't supported more; I don't have a player that supports it (I can't carry any digital storage device at work, so don't have a player) but it looks like a fantastic project.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:21 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

> (I can't carry any digital storage device at work, so don't have a player)

Showoff. :-)

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:54 UTC (Mon) by jeld (guest, #22397) [Link]

Can you copy music to/from iPod without special software?
Can iPod play OGG?
Can iPod play MS formats?

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:20 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

>> Can you copy music to/from iPod without special software?

i can't speak to the access available in windows or osx, but on my linux box, my shuffle is available as a usb drive. if you want to do things the hard way you can poke around in the directory hierarchy of the device itself in a terminal or you can use gnupod to have a simpler interface to this functionality.

itunes may be required to deal with apple's aac formatted files, but for straight mp3s, gnupod should work.

>> Can iPod play OGG?

no, but gnupod will convert to ogg to mp3 on the fly while writing to the device. if you just close your eyes during this part of the process you can just pretend you are listening to oggs.

can't speak for wma, never had a need for it.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:30 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

> no, but gnupod will convert to ogg to mp3 on the fly while writing to the device. if you just close your eyes during this part of the process you can just pretend you are listening to oggs.

Until you actually have to listen to it and notice the transcoding quality loss plus MP3's horrible quality, or run out of space on the device.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:58 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

>> Until you actually have to listen to it and notice the transcoding quality loss plus MP3's horrible quality

mp3s can be encoded at a high bitrate (just like any other codec). not lossless, but i am 99.9999% sure you would not be able to tell the difference at a high bitrate anyway. also you can encode your oggs at a very low bitrate if you wish. while ogg quality is very good, its main selling point is that it is free/open.

the fact is that if you are over thirty and have spent considerable time listening to music on headphones, you have probably suffered some low-grade hearing loss already (get tested, you will be surprised)...you might as well scale down the bitrate you encode at.

>> or run out of space on the device.

how does this change if you use ogg?

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:59 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

You run out of space faster by reencoding Oggs as high bitrate MP3s. You save space by encoding Oggs at lower bitrates for the same quality as high-bitrate MP3s.

Sure, I probably can't tell a 256kbps Ogg reencoded to a 320kbps MP3. But I sure can notice the 25% space increase. And I can also notice the difference between a 128kbps Ogg and a 128kbps MP3, *before* errors compound from transcoding.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 23:59 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

well i see your point about issues with transcoding. i guess my only response is that my ipod shuffle 1GB, which i use for trailrunning, is barely half full and i've run out of good running/workout music to put on it. so for me transcoding is not an issue.

i've never run into space constraints on the ipods i've owned, i don't think i've ever exceeded 60% space used. for other people, i suppose this may be an issue.

so far the shuffle has been the perfect running device for me - very light, resistant to light abuse, very easy to control in mid-stride.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 1:18 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

Ah, the old patent encumbered format avoidance by closing your eyes technique. :) Seriously, why rip to ogg if you're only going to listen to mp3s anyway?

ipod :)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 5:18 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

>> Seriously, why rip to ogg if you're only going to listen to mp3s anyway?

i'm holding out hope that one day a player i like will support ogg.

and on my desktop/laptop i have a variety of ogg players.

if i only want to rip my cds once, i prefer to put them into a format that gives me the most options for the future. barring flac (i don't have the disk space to encode my all my cds in lossless), ogg seemed the next best "reserve" format.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 28, 2005 23:35 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link]

Sorry, almost every other player wins in the most important category. They are normal USB drives that you can copy files to and have them play. So long as the iPod is just an accessory for iTunes I'll never consider one.

And yes iPod fanboy (and there is ALWAYS one when one speaks of an Apple product in a less than adoring way) who would otherwise have to reply, I do know an iPod will appear as a drive and that you can use them to transport random data files. They just can't be music that you intend to play, which kinda defeats the number onw reason for copying files to an iPod.

Yep, "almost"

Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:23 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

My sis bought a Creative Zen Micro, which I like rather well on every other front... except that while you *can* see it as a USB drive, *you can't put music on it that way*.

All you can do is use some of it as mobile storage.

<sigh>

ipod :)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 5:21 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

the only reason you need extra software to copy songs to your ipod (or any other player) is to rewrite the songlist database so your player knows about the music.

this would be the same with any player.

once again, there is open source code to write this data to the ipod.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:26 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

No, many (most at this point?) players are smart enough to scan the files themselves and just need the files copied over. No special software required.

ipod :)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 23:53 UTC (Tue) by omez (subscriber, #6904) [Link]

> this would be the same with any player.

The Neuros machines will rebuild automatically if it can't find the song database on startup. Simply deleting the database after copying songs over is enough to get it squared away.

That said, reading the vorbis comments and reindexing tens of thousands of songs is best left to a beefier CPU/memory/disk arrangement. The positron utility for updating the device, allows you to listen to the fresh tunes the same day.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:22 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]

$1500 speaker cables? Those must be some awesome cables...

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:41 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Yeah, but you need the $2500 power cables to really hear the difference.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:02 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

My $2500 would buy two squeezeboxes (www.slimdevices.com) and an Electrocompaniet ECD-1 DAC (www.electrocompaniet.com).
If I remember correctly, the DAC also comes with a up-rated power cord!
Oh well. Time to stop dreaming and come back to the real world ;)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 17:11 UTC (Tue) by arafel (guest, #18557) [Link]

Don't forget the GSIC-10 Intelligent Chip.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 30, 2005 6:24 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I'm still convinced the Machinadynamica site has to be a parody site. It's full of stuff that can allegedly improve CD quality and so on by just being in the same building as the CD. Surely not even the most maddened audiophile would fall for that!

amaroK rocks!

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:28 UTC (Mon) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link]

amaroK to me is one of the shining examples of fantastic open source.
It's configurable, though not overly so; and its great functionality is
not buried behind programmer panels.

I have been a die-hard Winamp user since my Windows days (which ended a
year ago and left me a die-hard XMMS user). I tried amaroK randomly one
day and was so impressed that within 10 minutes of first opening it I was
looking for a feedback link to thank the authors.

I could go on and on quite a bit, but it's really one of those things
that you just have to try.

amaroK rocks!

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:02 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Agreed, it looks really cool. Now if only I could get it to produce any sound... none of the engines make as much as a whistle.

I must debug it one of these days.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:51 UTC (Mon) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link]

I listen to a lot of music at home.. I've got about 40 gigs of MP3's that I've ripped from CDs I have purchased over the last 5 years. My Linux system at home is linked to my home stereo system through a nice long patch cable, so I can get good quality sound in my living room.

I still prefer to just use XMMS, in conjunction with NCXMMS, which lets me queue up music to be played from a Wi-fi laptop or Palm Handheld in the living room.

Do any of these programs include APIs for remote driving? I'd love to have a custom Palm app which presented a nice Wi-fi driven remote GUI for a music player on my Linux box.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:18 UTC (Mon) by balazs (subscriber, #4704) [Link]

amaroK has a DCOP interface. Some examples:
$ dcop amarok collection totalAlbums
414
$ dcop amarok collection totalTracks
2674
$ dcop amarok player isPlaying
true
$ dcop amarok player nowPlaying
J. S. Bach - II. Largo ma non tanto
$ dcop amarok player playPause
$ dcop amarok player next
$ dcop amarok playlist addMedia /path/to/your.ogg

etc.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:25 UTC (Tue) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link]

Banshee has an API as well.

It is explicitly packaged in four pieces:

  • The application itself.
  • The gstreamer based backend (engine).
  • The helix based backend (engine).
  • The development support package.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:32 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

Quod Libet uses Python plugins that hook into the same signals it uses internally; it also has a rich FIFO interface for people who prefer echo(1) to more bloated tools.

Rhythmbox can use Bonobo, and in recent versions, D-BUS. It's not as convenient for quick use as QL's FIFO or amaroK's DCOP support, but it does get the job done.

Programmatic access is definitely something all the players are interested in.

amaroK features

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:10 UTC (Mon) by balazs (subscriber, #4704) [Link]

The queue manager is very nice if you hear classical music or other kinds of music where tracks "belong together" like the movements of a concerto or symphony. Normally, I have my entire collection in the playlist and use random playback, but sometimes I add an entire symphony/concerto/whatever to the queue list. So I get the advantages of both random playback (no need to tell the player what to play) and playlists (the player plays whatever I want). If you use amaroK with classical music, you will like that feature.

The automatic rating means that songs get an average score at the beginning; when you hear them, the rating is increased (until 100 %); when you skip a song, the rating is decreased. The rating is then used to select the next track in random playback (so songs you like are played more often), and there are even "smart playlists" to just select songs with a high rating if you are in a "top hits only" mood.

amaroK features

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:18 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I don't quite understand. Do you somehow designate all your symphonies or something (your collections of must-play-in-a-particular-order music) each as a separate queue, or something?

amaroK features

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:28 UTC (Mon) by balazs (subscriber, #4704) [Link]

No, most of the time I just use random mode and don't care. But sometimes I'd like to hear some things in the correct order so I just queue them. With Winamp, I'd have to double-click the first part, switch off random playback and remember to switch it on after the last part. But if the music I want to listen to doesn't come from the same CD (e.g. two symphonies of the same composer), the tracks are not behind each other in the playlist, so in Winamp, after one symphony I'd need to search for the second one. In amaroK I just queue up the tracks I want to hear in the next hour(s) and they get played, and I don't have to care to set some options back.

I don't want to diss Winamp, I've been using it for at least 5 years but amaroK gives me a much better user experience.

amaroK features

Posted Dec 5, 2005 11:48 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

You can do exactly the same in Winamp (Unfortunately I have to use Windows quite a lot, because of stupid Windows-only electronics software).

Just choose the playlist entry and press <Q>, then the song gets marked with a [1] and will be chosen next time no matter what, next ones gets a [2] mark, and so on...

Or maybe I misunderstood?

amaroK features

Posted Nov 29, 2005 3:10 UTC (Tue) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]

it's more for choosing the next n tracks to be played. during random mode for example, if you see a song in the playlist you want to hear next you can queue it, along with any others, and they will play in that order and then return to random mode. during sequential listing, you could choose to play a couple songs from further down the list and then return to the previous place in the playlist and continue. it's mainly a convienience thing, where you don't have to go back into the player and turn random on/off or manually reorder the list by dragging tracks around.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:39 UTC (Mon) by rossburton (subscriber, #7254) [Link]

Tried Muine?

And now for something...

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:21 UTC (Mon) by rise (guest, #5045) [Link]

In a completely different direction there's Plait (pronounced "play").  It's a music player controller that seems to be aiming for a very Unix approach to the problem: a command-line tool that searches your music (and Shoutcast directory if requested), builds a playlist and,[*] hands it off to your player.  It appears to only look at filenames and paths, but surprisingly this turns out to be plenty for my use with a little organization by genre, album, and artist.  Support for mix files as collections of hints (positive and negative assertions) instead of track lists has the nice advantage that the mix stays current for your collection.  It's also nice to be able to do run something like plait --stream --mix jazz industrial when I'm feeling like a change and suddenly have a very eclectic mix pouring off the wires.

[*] Please consult the Chicago Manual of Style FAQ before complaining about the serial comma.

And now for something...

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:33 UTC (Mon) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link]

None of the rules in the Chicago Manual of Style seem to call for a comma immediately following 'and'. ;-)

The style faq

Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:29 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

permits a comma *before* that and, but not one after.

C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-C-U-T.

:-)

The style faq

Posted Nov 29, 2005 3:21 UTC (Tue) by rise (guest, #5045) [Link]

Exactly so, footnotes clearly rot the brain.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:28 UTC (Mon) by ottix (guest, #5169) [Link]

I like slimserver. It can be found at www.slimdevices.com and is meant for driving a nifty music player called the sqeezebox, but it also works really well as a music manager. There are several software players for the protocol.

pros: GPL, perl, remote control of players

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:39 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

As I have squeezebox, I am using the slimserver on a daily basis. It has all the features needed for day-to-day use, but are missing two features I need.

1. Tag cleanup - having ripped all my CD's (over 17000 songs), I found that the tags pulled from freedb is full of rubbish. I usuallly spot an error when I want to play the song containing it, so I want to fix it there and then...

2. I want to create and manage playlists while listening on something else.

Other than that, I find the slimserver front-end easy to use.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:54 UTC (Mon) by jimi (subscriber, #6655) [Link]

I agree. The slimserver is a great piece of software. The slimdevices players are also great products - I love mine. But I have found problems with mine: occasionally the music gets interrupted. A few days ago this problem was particularly bad. every few seconds the music would stop for a second and then resume. I haven't found a good explanation for this yet.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:29 UTC (Tue) by mcisely (subscriber, #2860) [Link]

1. Run top on your server while this is happening and see if somebody is hogging the system. It might help if you can run a kernel with low latency patches.

2. If you are connecting to the squeezebox via wireless, check that something isn't interfering with the signal, like for example a microwave oven (there's a reason why the 2.4GHz spectrum was never initially a licensed spectrum).

In my house, I have an original slimp3, an "upgraded" squeezebox, and a squeezebox2. I've got about 7500 tracks in my music folder now. Slimdevices.com has really got a slick product here.

(As for the earlier point about tag cleanup, in my case I use a collection of custom Perl scripts to pipeline the whole ripping process rather than using an existing tool. It's fairly tedious to use, but the setup includes logic to consistency check the data from cddb, spot spelling errors and suggest fixes.)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:05 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Bah, you missed the best one aviable ever! Music Player Deamon!
http://www.musicpd.org/

It doesn't do album covers.. it doesn't do drag-n-drop playlists, in fact it doesn't do playlists at all, except to read them.

What it does have though is one magical ability... It continues playing music irregardless of what your doing in regards to logging in and out of X and it has a very nice command line client, as well as web clients, and native gtk or qt clients, and probably others beyond that.

It's great for just when you want to listen to music. It just plays it and just stays out of the way, but offers the convienience of 'cd player' style music controls. (pause, ffw, random, etc) It's nice for using your desktop as a jutebox from a laptop or whatnot without having to setup anything complicated, also.

Although Amarok impresses the hell out of me. It's a very nice client and even non-geek people I've shown it to like it. Any music lover should love it. I love using it when I want to sit down and concentrate on music.

Also I expect that it would be very good at making playlists I can use in mpd. :)

cool!

Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:13 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

i've been looking for something a little more feature rich than ogg123 alone on the command line. thanks!

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 0:18 UTC (Tue) by erich (guest, #7127) [Link]

MPD has been my music player of choice for quite some time now.
The best is that you don't need to care about some frigging GUI.
It just plays my music. 24/7. ;-) I've bound some keys in my WM for it, and thats just about as much as I interact with it.
There are a dozen of frontends, i usually have gmpc running, since it shows me the song title upon song change. But thats just about all the features I need...
And mpd has lots, it's library and playlist management are way better than the others I've tried.

The replies to this comment

Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:33 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

illustrate nicely one of my favorite corollaries to "Get The Glue Right":

If you are designing a GUI application, get the split between the top GUI layer and tbe bottom operations layer *very* clear, clean, and publically accessible.

Clearly, several of these respondants would be happy if some of those authors had done this (assuming they haven't).

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:21 UTC (Tue) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link]

Thanks! I got mpd set up this evening on my Fedora system, and I can even drive it from my Wi-Fi equipped Palm TX using Sonix (http://zidd.free.fr/palm/sonix/). Sonix is definitely pre-release quality, but it works, and beats heck out of running an ssh terminal program on my Palm to drive xmms through ncxmms.

Yay!

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 10:39 UTC (Tue) by djmutex (subscriber, #12657) [Link]

I stumbled across MPD a few months ago when I was looking for a music player that could play a playlist without introducing .5 seconds gaps between songs. I do like to listen to opera, and Wagner is not fun with Rhythmbox. Seriously. Even if you're not into opera, any live recording or Dark Side Of The Moon will exhibit the same annoying problem.

MPD handles this, and that's the killer feature for me. The annoying thing is that one needs to keep updating the internal database in its entirety when a single song changes, but maybe I'm just missing something.

If there was a GUI like Rhythmbox for a proper player like MPD I'd be perfectly happy. Until then I'll stick with MPD.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 30, 2005 1:14 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

You may be interested in Pygmy then, a nice MPD frontend.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Dec 25, 2005 23:41 UTC (Sun) by andrewski (guest, #34740) [Link]

Actually, if you're looking for something like Rhythmbox, might I recommend Pymp'd?

--Andrew, author of Pygmy

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 1:11 UTC (Tue) by akumria (subscriber, #7773) [Link]

"Rhythmbox also lacks any sort of digital audio player support; not even the iPod is supported."

Yet the screenshot of Rhythmbox has iPod in it.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 13:57 UTC (Tue) by svena (guest, #20177) [Link]

And recent versions of Rhythmbox (0.9.x series) can also burn a playlist to CD.

Also, there was a new release today that adds support for podcasts and Audio CD, so yes, it really seems like development is picking up speed.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Dec 11, 2005 9:23 UTC (Sun) by andyh (guest, #26163) [Link]

Unless the level of support has changed recently, rhythmbox doesn't support adding music to the ipod, deleting music from the ipod, or automatically syncing to the ipod. The only thing it does support is playing music off of the device. Every ipod owner wants to manage their music. Playing music off the ipod through the computer is probably the least used ipod feature in iTunes.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Nov 29, 2005 1:44 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

> Banshee does have a couple of nice features. One of those is the ability to edit the metadata in music files.

I missed this earlier; it is completely untrue. Banshee's metadata editing does not change the files, only its own library.

Quod Libet is the only application with full metadata editing features, though amaroK is "good enough" for most people. Rhythmbox's editing is highly experimental and doesn't support anything besides MP3 (which I suspect it does poorly) and FLAC.

It's a shame that the review pegged the one application that can't do it at all, as the only one with that feature.

Quantity???

Posted Nov 29, 2005 5:35 UTC (Tue) by wilreichert (guest, #17680) [Link]

Rhythmbox always seemed nice to me, problem is that it would constantly crash before it got done with the initial index of my 600+ ogg'd CD collection. When it came to came to just playing an album at a time, xmms did everything I needed. Color me simple.

Supporting external players other than the iPOD

Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:36 UTC (Tue) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link]

Well, believe it or not, the problem is percieved by the developers.

However, the Banshee developer had to resort to a sort of "call to arms" to collect the needed data.

So, if you want your player supported, check that link and follow his instructions :-)

Amarok supports iRiver...

Posted Nov 29, 2005 8:40 UTC (Tue) by bradh (guest, #2274) [Link]

The amarok developers recently announced support for the iRiver devices
(not using the USB mass storage protocol)

Curses jukebox

Posted Nov 29, 2005 17:30 UTC (Tue) by sdoyon (guest, #4221) [Link]

For console users, PyTone is a curses jukebox.
Does crossfading, multiple players, editable playlist,
song rating and smart random selection, control from shell...

http://www.luga.de/pytone/

Now I'll have to go try MPD too.

Curses jukebox

Posted Nov 30, 2005 21:43 UTC (Wed) by dr@jones.dk (subscriber, #7907) [Link]

I switched from PyTone to MPD (with ncmpc as frontend) and love the much lower resources - plus off course the ability to provide a nice GUI interface for my girlfriend _concurrently_ with my own lean and mean one :-)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers

Posted Dec 1, 2005 3:04 UTC (Thu) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link]

http://moc.daper.net/ is my current preferred program, after working through xmms, rhythmbox, amarok and numerous incomplete toys. It does everything I want, including being able to respond to my multimedia keys (so I can stop without having to find the interface), separate interface to player, so I can restart X without losing music, allows multiple people to change the songs etc.

Yammi - another possible choice...

Posted Dec 3, 2005 14:07 UTC (Sat) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link]

As always with such articles, not all good apps are covered by the Grumpy Editor, and his readers know a few more ;-)

Quite some time ago, I came across "Yet Another Music Manager I..." really like (or simply "Yammi"), and was impressed esp. by its possibilty to just use XMMS as its player backend and very much by its fuzzy search capability, which makes finding some song you barely remember really easy.

Apart from supporting XMMS as player of choice, one also can use Noatun, an internal arts player or an (experimental) gstreamer backend for that task. If you got two sound cards, you even can listen into a different song on the second one while playing the "normal" stream of music on the first - which makes Yammi an interesting tool for your local DJ as well :)

More info about that particular tool can be found on its homepage at http://yammi.sourceforge.net/.

Amarok Scripts

Posted Dec 9, 2005 19:46 UTC (Fri) by oshogg (guest, #23126) [Link]

Amarok also has extensive set of scripts that are available from

http://kde-apps.org/index.php?xcontentmode=56

These really enhance the feature set of amarok. For example the audio
format converter at

http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=23653

allows one to convert the format of all the files in a playlist.

There are many other scripts there. I really like the scriptability of
amarok as it is flexible enough that one can really do pretty much
whatever one wants to do with it.

Osho


Don't forget the simple command line!

Posted Jun 23, 2006 7:06 UTC (Fri) by zaitseff (guest, #851) [Link]

Nice graphical music managers are, well, nice. Just don't forget the humble command line. For years I organised my music collection (stored in Ogg Vorbis format, converted from my compact discs) by using a simple directory structure. In particular, I used (and still use) directories of the form:

/data/music/artist-name--album-name

In each such directory, I stored the files in the format XX-track-name.ogg, where XX is the two-digit track number.

Playing an album then became as simple as typing something like the following on the command line:

ogg123 /data/music/slavic-pentecostal-church--camp-freedom-worship-1/*ogg

Of course, random playing is a bit more complicated, but that has never been an issue for me, since I don't listen to music randomly... :-) I also keep a series of symbolic links for genres, of the form INSTRUMENTAL--artist-name--album-name. You get the idea.

I even wrote a Perl script to generate a shell script that converts an entire compact disc into Ogg Vorbis format, correctly and easily sets the comment fields, and auto-generates appropriate ASCII filenames. It even handles Russian and Ukrainian! You can download it, if you are interested, from my (grossly incomplete) web site: make-oggenc-script.

Having said all that, I must admit that I am now using Amarok...


Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds