Slashdot Mirror


Groove Basin: Quest For the Ultimate Music Player

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."

52 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Winamp by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Winamp by antdude · · Score: 1

      In Linux and Mac OS X? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Winamp by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      home
    3. Re:Winamp by nctritech · · Score: 2

      I'm listening to Winamp 5.666 right now. Winamp is still being actively developed. 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*

    4. Re:Winamp by nctritech · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Winamp by antdude · · Score: 1

      Same here. I did not like XMMS2 thing.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:Winamp by nullchar · · Score: 1

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

    7. Re:Winamp by ichthus · · Score: 1

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

      --
      sig: sauer
  2. Re:Quest For the Ultimate Music Player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  3. Clementine by Atmchicago · · Score: 5, Informative
    --

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    1. Re:Clementine by loufoque · · Score: 1

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

      It's also a cute French first name.

    2. Re:Clementine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

      Clem will remember that.

    3. Re:Clementine by Niterios · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. I am so confused... by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  5. aaaannd... there it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Server fall down, go boom.

  6. Genres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  7. Thank you OP by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 2

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

  8. Re:Now that's a good name! by eepok · · Score: 1

    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.

  9. Re:Really? by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Sweet by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

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

  11. Foobar2000 for Linux by nowsharing · · Score: 3

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

    1. Re:Foobar2000 for Linux by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Foobar2000 runs perfectly under WINE on Linux and OS X. 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.

    2. Re:Foobar2000 for Linux by xvan · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Foobar2000 for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    4. Re:Foobar2000 for Linux by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Foobar2000 for Linux by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

      Foobar2000 runs perfectly under WINE on Linux and OS X. 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.

      --
      Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    6. Re:Foobar2000 for Linux by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    7. Re:Foobar2000 for Linux by Warma · · Score: 1

      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.

  12. Web Based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:Supported formats? by Desler · · Score: 2

    Everything libav supports.

  14. XMplay by danknight48 · · Score: 1

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

    Only downside? No scaling options for dpi :(.

  15. Amarok by esperto · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Amarok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  16. Sounds interesting, need an XBMC client plugin... by complete+loony · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  17. Re:Really? by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  18. Where's the Beef by future+assassin · · Score: 1
    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  19. Re:Really? by Larryish · · Score: 1

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

  20. Re:aimp winamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  21. Re:Really? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    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)

  22. tomahawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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!

  23. Re:Really? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  24. Re:Really? by Adam+Jorgensen · · Score: 1

    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...)

  25. This is an awful Ultimate Music Player (for the re by log0n · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. VLC by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. Re:No thanks...dev making decisions for the user by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  29. Re:Really? by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  30. Re:Really? by nomasteryoda · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    - Good things come to he who waits... but, but Arch Linux FTW!
  31. Re:No thanks...dev making decisions for the user by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

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

    Eedjit.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  32. Re:I'm confused ... your post is ambiguous to me. by nctritech · · Score: 1

    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.

  33. Re:This is an awful Ultimate Music Player (for the by vargad · · Score: 1

    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.

  34. Yes, REALLY by eleqtriq · · Score: 1

    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.