PDA

View Full Version : Best Ubuntu MP3 player?



asakurax
November 27th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Well, I'm currently using Rhythmbox
I noticed, though, that WMP on windows has much better sound quality

If one takes only sound quality into consideration, what is the best MP3 player on Ubuntu?

mahiyar
November 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM
Amarok is kde based but still it is my favourite music player in Ubuntu.

skyjacker
November 27th, 2007, 03:30 PM
Amarok is kde based but still it is my favourite music player in Ubuntu.
+1 My fav also

sweetcancer
November 27th, 2007, 03:32 PM
I would go for amarok.

PmDematagoda
November 27th, 2007, 03:37 PM
I prefer Amarok on KDE but on GNOME I prefer Exaile since it allows me to control it more easily than Amarok and has a lot of the features found on Amarok.

ukripper
November 27th, 2007, 03:39 PM
i like XMMS it takes less resources than other players

adityakavoor
November 27th, 2007, 03:51 PM
I prefer Amarok on KDE but on GNOME I prefer Exaile since it allows me to control it more easily than Amarok and has a lot of the features found on Amarok.

+ 1 for exaile

edm1
November 27th, 2007, 03:59 PM
If one takes only sound quality into consideration, what is the best MP3 player on Ubuntu?

No-one has listened to the question. I think all the media players so far have been based on either the gstreamer or xine multimedia playback engines. So the quality of sound is going to be purely dependent on the mp3 decoder you haver installed for each and the drivers for your soundcard. Since you're currently using Rhythmbox (gstreamer) i'd recommend giving a xine based player a go and comparing them.

ukripper
November 27th, 2007, 04:02 PM
No-one has listened to the question. I think all the media players so far have been based on either the gstreamer or xine multimedia playback engines. So the quality of sound is going to be purely dependent on the mp3 decoder you haver installed for each and the drivers for your soundcard. Since you're currently using Rhythmbox (gstreamer) i'd recommend giving a xine based player a go and comparing them.

XMMS is based on Xine engine

subs
November 27th, 2007, 04:04 PM
amarok all the way

ukripper
November 27th, 2007, 04:08 PM
For best sound use winamp through wine!

ericartman
November 27th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Just a thought but one of the reasons I use Ubuntu Ultimate is I have access to most everything, xine, Amorak, gstreamer, whatever. Then you can test what sounds best to your ears on your system. For me it is Amorak and FLAC around the house, I only burn mp3 for the car.

Cart

asakurax
November 27th, 2007, 04:53 PM
No-one has listened to the question. I think all the media players so far have been based on either the gstreamer or xine multimedia playback engines. So the quality of sound is going to be purely dependent on the mp3 decoder you haver installed for each and the drivers for your soundcard. Since you're currently using Rhythmbox (gstreamer) i'd recommend giving a xine based player a go and comparing them.

Finally, some1 who actually read my question...

Umm, if haven't installed any codecs for my soundcard...
Ill give XMMS a try

thx a lot

pressed
December 9th, 2007, 07:48 AM
if you're using rhythmbox, i don't think it's fair to say the comparison is purely gstreamer vs xine. i should mention that i don't have a deep understanding of the codec difference, but rhythmbox has no equalizer, which can make a huge difference. so try a player with an equalizer, like amarok.

the other player i've had a good experience with is banshee, which had an excellent sound out-of-the-box, but no equalizer. (currently in production, apparently)

Cresho
March 25th, 2008, 06:40 PM
I dont understand why people say winamp sounds better than amarok. I use 5.1 audio and dont even bother with winamp since you cannot get 5.1 unless you use a plugin and even then, it dont come as close to the 5.1 audio in amarok.

northern lights
March 25th, 2008, 06:56 PM
For best sound use winamp through wine!

I don't hear big a difference between any player if equalizer settings are off. When listening to mp3s the quality is limited by the encoding much more so that what you play/decode it with.

A 128 kbps file will obviously sound worse than the same song/recording encoded with 192, for instance.

Running a music player through wine is in my opinion like parking a Porsche on a flatbed truck, then driving the truck and thinking one's driving a sports car...

bm13084
March 25th, 2008, 06:58 PM
do any of the players allow cross fading on command like windows' apollo?

Wobedraggled
March 25th, 2008, 07:00 PM
Taken from the thread below, this is your best bet.



Hi,

For highest sound quality use jackd + xmms + jack-rack. Also install cmt, ladspa and caps plugins: there are hundreds available, for free !

As for MP3, consider using a lossless audio compression encoder like FLAC instead...

Audio culture:
http://ubuntustudio.com/wiki/index.p...io_Preparation
http://linux-sound.org/


http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=223130 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=223130)

bvm
March 25th, 2008, 08:53 PM
It is highly unlikely that you are hearing a difference in sound quality inherent in the two programs. Nigh-on impossible, in fact. What you are most likely hearing is either a placebo, or the result of some DSP applied in either WMP or your linux player. Check for equalisers, maximizers, enhancers etc, present in WMP and the adjust to taste on Linux.

myusuf3
March 29th, 2008, 10:23 PM
I don't hear big a difference between any player if equalizer settings are off. When listening to mp3s the quality is limited by the encoding much more so that what you play/decode it with.

A 128 kbps file will obviously sound worse than the same song/recording encoded with 192, for instance.

Running a music player through wine is in my opinion like parking a Porsche on a flatbed truck, then driving the truck and thinking one's driving a sports car...

I think he just pwned this thread!

SomeGuyDude
March 29th, 2008, 11:45 PM
I always thought Audacious sounded fantastic. It's annoying, though, that there's no perfect player out there. Audacious sounded the best, but Sonata+MPD just works the best.

But yeah, if sound quality is your focus, Audacious all the way.

Ingebeeldvriendje
March 29th, 2008, 11:53 PM
Amarok!
or listen if you want a simple music player with not too many options.
Never noticed bad sound quality

cardinals_fan
March 30th, 2008, 12:21 AM
Xfmedia.

rMatey
March 30th, 2008, 01:57 AM
PC World article on the players....
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128636/article.html?tk=nl_hdxcol



:lolflag:

rMatey
March 30th, 2008, 02:09 AM
Songbird does a pretty good job on the MP3s and also for Shoutcast braodcasts.

unc0nn3ct3d
May 16th, 2008, 06:52 AM
I have tried running Amorak in Gnome and it is just so unstable and buggy that no matter how nice the interface is I can risk ever having that program run on my machine.. Last attempt it bugged out as usual and then spawned 30 copies of itself until I have to shut the whole system down and start again.

SongBird looks pretty decent bug it sits at 40+MB of ram while streaming in Radio plus has no in-player station browser, Amorak is at 20mb and the rest that or less.

XMMS has just been hell to get running properly in Gnome

God if Winamp could make a nice Lamp Program we would be set but if anyone else has any suggestions for stable players that run in Gnome and also have a contained in program radio browser such as Amorak that don't gobble down ram that would be greatly appreciated.

Last.Fm has a good player that is interesting enough, run great, stable and sips away at the ram only taking up 7-8mb

Installed and using Exaile right now, has in-prog shoutcast listings, tray buttons for << >> and Pause and sits at 27mb of memory usage so not terrible. Best one for Gnome I have found and after nearly 12 hours of searching and fiddling I am glad I found it.

Barrucadu
May 16th, 2008, 10:00 AM
I've never noticed any difference in sound quality between Windows and Linux. However, I'm currently using Quod Libet for all my music-playing needs.

Magnes
May 16th, 2008, 10:59 AM
I've never noticed any difference in sound quality between Windows and Linux

Well, most commonly used mp3 player on Windows - Winamp used and maybe is still using quite bad mp3 decoder (only 16-bit). Amarok and other Linux apps use mostly MAD, which is very, very good (as is the decoder in Foobar2000).
Some quality issues on Linux may be caused by:
- software mixing with ALSA (there where quality problems with it),
- wrong setting in mixer - if you have sound amplifier with regulation you should set the volume in alsamixer to 0,0 decibels on every channel (more than that => distortion, less than that => well, if it's very low the quality will suffer) and leave it. Change volume ONLY with your sound amplifier. Also note that 0,0 decibels on some cards is NOT always 100% (on my SBLive! it's 74% if I remember correctly for Wave).

PS. Amaroks works and always worked fine for me (on Gnome).

kpkeerthi
May 16th, 2008, 11:25 AM
I always thought Audacious sounded fantastic. It's annoying, though, that there's no perfect player out there. Audacious sounded the best, but Sonata+MPD just works the best.

But yeah, if sound quality is your focus, Audacious all the way.

I completely agree with you.

I mainly use rhythmbox (due to large library & iPod support) and I have used quodlibet/banshee/exaile in the past.

I recently installed audacious and I find the sound quality is definitely superior compared to rhythmbox/exaile/quodlibet/banshee. Not sure why/how?

trestamanos
September 13th, 2008, 06:44 PM
Amarok is relatively simple.

On the top menu bar click System>Administration>Synaptic Package Manager

Good luck

tres

northern lights
September 13th, 2008, 07:38 PM
Amarok is relatively simple.

On the top menu bar click System>Administration>Synaptic Package Manager

Good luck

tres

Major archeology.

Raffles10
September 13th, 2008, 07:56 PM
+1 MPD (http://www.musicpd.org/) & Sonata (http://sonata.berlios.de/)

It takes a bit of setting up, especially for a new Linux user but it's well worth the effort. I've found this to be the best replacement for foobar2000 in Linux.:)

northern lights
September 13th, 2008, 08:06 PM
Major archeology.Do you guys realize this thread is from November '07?

doorknob60
September 13th, 2008, 08:13 PM
Yes, but Amarok is ftw :KS Best player out there for any OS.

Sinkingships7
September 15th, 2008, 04:22 AM
Linux is horrible at sound. None of the playback engines sound any good at all, IMO. For the best experience, you'll need something with an equalizer. Amarok's pretty much the only application that does this right, and it's still no good.

dimeotane
October 5th, 2008, 02:14 AM
what about beep-media-player

its kinda like winamp

RiceMonster
October 6th, 2008, 07:51 AM
Linux is horrible at sound. None of the playback engines sound any good at all, IMO. For the best experience, you'll need something with an equalizer. Amarok's pretty much the only application that does this right, and it's still no good.

Try audacious. It has an equalizer that actually works well. Other than that, you're right.

ukripper
October 6th, 2008, 08:20 AM
I liked XMMS but it has been burried with gutsy and now audacious has taken its replacement on my systems, and i really like it except need more skins like xmms with vumeter!

prakashkashyap
May 16th, 2009, 02:01 PM
I tried all the options.... rhythmbox, audacious, amarok, xmms.... nothing was able to match the performance of jet audio on windows...

so... with some hesitation I installed wine and got jet audio 7.18 set up was easy and had teething trouble setting up library of 5000 songs but finally got working and sound quality is amazing... so I would recommend jet audio on wine ...

ontadimanamana
July 2nd, 2009, 11:50 PM
I prefer Amarok on KDE but on GNOME I prefer Exaile since it allows me to control it more easily than Amarok and has a lot of the features found on Amarok.

+1 Exaile :guitar:

doorknob60
July 3rd, 2009, 12:33 AM
Exaile.

GCFreak
July 3rd, 2009, 06:02 AM
My favourite media player under Linux is actually Rhythmbox, it sounds incredible under my 5.1 audio setup, I think it has the most intuitive interface for me even though it does have its problems. I don't care about the equaliser because I prefer not to use them anyway. My favourite under Windows is Winamp, by far. Both sound the same to me, and I prefer playing music under Linux because under that I can adjust my sound channels manually, while I can't under Windows (stupid! my speakers aren't balanced due to me having a defective audio extension cable and I can't be bothered replacing it, so it's all unbalanced under Windows, while it's well adjusted on Linux and sounds amazing).

VCSkier
July 3rd, 2009, 12:48 PM
It is highly unlikely that you are hearing a difference in sound quality inherent in the two programs. Nigh-on impossible, in fact. What you are most likely hearing is either a placebo, or the result of some DSP applied in either WMP or your linux player. Check for equalisers, maximizers, enhancers etc, present in WMP and the adjust to taste on Linux.

bvm is right. It's very unlikely that any of these players just produce lower quality audio. Even foobar2000's website will say this. Actual differences are caused by DSP's sometimes, but these things are usually just "perceived" differences.

If all else fails, sprinkle magic musical fairy dust on your cables and speakers. It did wonders for me! Now my sound is crystal clear. :)

VCSkier
July 3rd, 2009, 12:59 PM
For the curious, here's the quote from foobar2000.org (http://www.foobar2000.org/?page=FAQ#other_questions):


Does foobar2000 sound better than other players?

No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples).

RiceMonster
July 3rd, 2009, 02:19 PM
For the curious, here's the quote from foobar2000.org (http://www.foobar2000.org/?page=FAQ#other_questions):

Yes, but foobar has a working equalizer, unlike 98% of Linux players. Plus, it's very lightweight, had gapless playback, manages music properly (there's a bunch of Linux players that get this right), and is fully customizable. It's not just sound quality that makes it appealing.

Right now the two best players for me are mpd and audacious. If mpd had an equalizer, it'd be perfect. That's the only thing it's lacking. audacious only manages playlists, not a music library, which is no good when you have lots of music.

VladimirCZ
August 21st, 2009, 07:22 PM
I am using Jaunty 64-bit and unfortunatelly, if I want to get the sound quality that I am accustomed to from Winamp etc., I have to play mp3 files in SMplayer / Mplayer.

Apps based probably on Gstreamer like Rhythmbox, Exaile or Banshee produce weak and feeble sound (even when pregained and then with clippings) comparing to SMplayer (without pregaining and clippings).

Also Xine is not much better than Gstreamer when considering its sound quality.

If you want good sound quality, try SMplayer.

Chronon
August 21st, 2009, 07:33 PM
Yes, but foobar has a working equalizer, unlike 98% of Linux players. Plus, it's very lightweight, had gapless playback, manages music properly (there's a bunch of Linux players that get this right), and is fully customizable. It's not just sound quality that makes it appealing.

Right now the two best players for me are mpd and audacious. If mpd had an equalizer, it'd be perfect. That's the only thing it's lacking. audacious only manages playlists, not a music library, which is no good when you have lots of music.

It has the best replaygain scanner I have seen, too.

VladimirCZ
August 21st, 2009, 08:30 PM
With respect to my previous message I would like to recommend
aTunes from http://www.atunes.org.
It requires Java and Mplayer, but offers many many features and good sound quality of Mplayer.

ninjashoes
December 25th, 2009, 02:56 AM
I have been using Songbird lately. So far it just seems to be less clunky and easier to use. I havent really noticed much difference in sound quality between Songbird, Rythmbox and Amarock. I do use the equalizer plugin for Songbird.

I am trying Audacious right now and will let you guys know how I like it.

update: I am noticing that Audacious sounds a bit better but I am not sure if its just some dps thing like someone else mentioned or what. I do like the way it sounds but the program does freeze if I try to import too many files.

fatigue
May 4th, 2010, 05:03 PM
songbird is the best

Animal X
May 4th, 2010, 10:11 PM
I like vlc, also, but i use rythmbox- however i prefer wav over mp3

zodiacdm
June 21st, 2010, 03:29 PM
if you're using rhythmbox, i don't think it's fair to say the comparison is purely gstreamer vs xine. i should mention that i don't have a deep understanding of the codec difference, but rhythmbox has no equalizer, which can make a huge difference. so try a player with an equalizer, like amarok.

the other player I've had a good experience with is banshee, which had an excellent sound out-of-the-box, but no equalizer. (currently in production, apparently)

Actually, there is an equalizer now in banshee. It's the one I've been using so far and am satisfied with the quality, being particular on this myself.

I am interested in finding some DSP plugins, however...

gutterslob
June 21st, 2010, 04:31 PM
MoC has been my favourite for a while now. It's light (console based), has a very clean sound, and I can make my own EQ presets for it. I've never been as happy with any other audio player (console or gui) on any platform (Linux or otherwise), and I've tried quite a few.

If you insist on a GUI player, I think DeadBeef is pretty decent. It's pretty light, has great software equalization and themes well.

Note: My choices are based solely on audio quality ... no idea how well they'll work with all those newfangled features like that last.fm thing (squabbling or wiggling or whatever you call it).

captainron042
June 24th, 2010, 12:08 AM
When I switched to linux(ubuntu 8.04), I used Amarok. I loved it, and can't remember anything I didn't like about it. After upgrading at some point, I found the new versions of Amarok suck real bad. It became less intuitive and overly complicated, and doesn't work well with ubuntu. :(

I tried all the major players out there, but found that none of them fit my needs best. I feel like I've *sigh* settled with Rythmbox. As an audiophile, I've been unhappy the last year or so. :(

My wishlist:
* large library support (41 GB and rising!), where I can choose mp3s based on any tag item.
* cross-fading
* playlist management***
* usable statistics with long history (most played, recently added, ect)
* folder watching
* quality (although not too important, as I send the signal to my surround sound receiver anyway)



***I don't know how to better word this, but Rythmbox's playlist sucks real bad. It removes music after it's been played or if it's switched from it. sometimes I like to have the same song played again, or if I go out to get the mail, I can come back and just put it back on the song that was playing when I left. This can be complicated when my playlist isn't just an album, but a carefully selected and ordered list from several artists. Also, rythmbox's playlist won't let me reorder a shuffled playlist. IE: I shuffle a playlist, and decide I want to hear a certain song next. I drag that song to the top, and it reorders the list back to default.



Anyway, I just found out about Clementine, "CLEMENTINE: THE GHOST OF AMAROK 1.4 IN QT4". Anyone ever try it?

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/04/clementine-ghost-of-amarok-14-in-qt4.html

jmszr
June 24th, 2010, 08:29 AM
captainron042,

Here is the ppa for Amarok 1.4: https://edge.launchpad.net/~bogdanb/+archive/amarok14/?field.series_filter=lucid .

KingYaba
June 26th, 2010, 06:58 AM
songbird is the best

Songbird has been discontinued on the Linux side. :(

CuXe
July 31st, 2010, 02:44 AM
I have been spoiled by Winamp's audio settings for years and now that I have started playing around with Ubuntu I have noticed that many audio players can't reproduce the sound settings in winamp.

I believe that the difference resides in the equalization settings and not on whether or not a 16bit sample sounds the same in winamp or a linux player.

Personally I love winamp's sound settings and thus I tried to recreate the same eq settings in Linux and for the most part I failed. Yeap, I have to admit I can't live without an mp3 player with an equalizer I can adjust to my tastes.

The one player that came close to Winamp was Audacious, not because of its interface, NOPE! I am talking about its equalizer features. The problem with Audacious is that if you are not very careful, your eq settings will most likely create sound distortion in the mid-bass and upper-midrange.

I love having a heightened bass level, slightly high mid-bass, a leveled out mid-range, a slightly high upper-midrange and a high-end range just above the upper-midrange setting. I know this is not very specific at all but in most linux mp3 players I've tried to recreate these settings on I almost always end up getting some sort of distortion or weird sound.

In Audacious the midrange sound has a weird setting and so the voices get overpowered by the the mid-bass and high-end regardless of the settings I tried.

Thats when I read about the SMPlayer and decided to give it a go, the first time I launched the player I almost immediately gave up on it because it is in fact a video player and in windows I DON'T use video players (VLC,MPC) to play mp3 files since I find them rather bloated and are not as intuitive as winamp when it comes to handling mp3 files.

After finding an SMPlayer reference in this thread I decided to give it a second chance and to my surprise the eq settings in the SMPlayer beat most linux mp3 players out of the box. I know lots of people prefer Rhythmbox, Banshi, etc... but neither of those was able to come through for my tastes simply because they sound too flat because of their eq settings.

After playing around with SMPlayer's equalizer I was able to get an audio setting that is highly comparable to that of Winamp, there was no distortion after applying the settings I wanted which is something that was killing me with the rest of mp3 players with equalizers in Linux.

While the audio settings are great in the SMPlayer there are some things that need to get worked out, those are:


1. When you jump from one file to another in playlist mode the player seems to play the first 0.5sec of the track and then goes back and plays the track. While that is not a deal breaker it is annoying and hopefully it will get fixed sometime.

2. Whenever I tried applying an equalizer setting the volume went wild for a second or so and if you have your headphones on this can be rather harmful to your eardrums.

3. I'd like to see some sort of integration into the top panel like Rhythmbox but just like point 1 this is not a deal breaker.

Furthermore, Audacious seems to use more CPU than the SMPlayer when using the non-GTKui for some reason. I thought it was the ALSA driver or something but I tested ALSA vs OSS in the SMPlayer and could not for the life of me tell the difference between the two as far as audio quality. Both reproduce my eq settings exactly the same in the SMPlayer and there wasn't a significant jump in CPU utilization either.

Overall I have to say, the SMPlayer is my #1 linux alternative to Winamp, not because of its interface but because of the built-in sound settings/tweaks and equalizer options.

gewone
November 19th, 2010, 06:27 PM
I must agree with the previous spokesman. Not that I'm an audiophile, in fact, I'm very novice when it comes to actual sound quality and to be honest I've used default EQ settings in Winamp throughout all my years of Windoze fiddling. However, one thing that bothers me is the import feature in -NIX players. Let's assume that one has a huge MP3 collection with >3000 folder albums. In Windoze / Winamp, he or she just needed to drag-n-drop 'the big folder' into the Winamp and it would take approx. 30 seconds on a 3GHz CPU to get it all there and start playing. Now, if one try this with Ubuntu players, they tend to freeze up. Amarok, Banshee and Exaile just to take a couple of examples. The only satisfying way may be to use Winamp over Wine, although me myself is not quite pleased with the way Winamp acts in Wine. Aawergh, it would have been so awesome if the old XMMS projekt would have livled on. I'm not talking Audicious or XMMS 2 now, but the original XMMS. If anyone could provide a [working] DEB package for Maverick Meerkat it would be so funky fresh. After all, it's Friday, right? :)

beew
November 19th, 2010, 08:56 PM
vlc wins hand down. As long as it works I don't even bother with the others. mplayer is good too. With vlc I can get rid of both totem and Rhythmbox.

ekjsim
January 2nd, 2011, 11:17 AM
I tested Amarok, Rhthmbox, Banshee, Audacious. And I found that Amarok has the best sound quality of all. However I encountered several issues with it before getting it to work on Ubuntu 10.10

First install Amarok through the Ubuntu Software Center.
Then,
install
sudo apt-get install libxine1-ffmpeg
sudo apt-get install phonon-backend-gstreamer

with these 2 files, you should be able to run both wma, mp3, and whatever not.

cheers,
eric sim

gewone
January 8th, 2011, 12:43 PM
I've come to grow. My new opinion is Audicious (http://audacious-media-player.org/) with Winamp Classic interface. Looks awesome! :)

ilovelinux33467
January 8th, 2011, 12:46 PM
My vote goes to Amarok

linuxyogi
January 8th, 2011, 01:09 PM
Try VLC.

Select the headphone surround feature in preferences (even if you are using speakers) & see if you like it.

Spice Weasel
January 8th, 2011, 01:54 PM
My favourite FLAC player is Audacious in GTK mode.

I will -not- allow MP3 in this house, young man!

justinepeter754
January 8th, 2011, 02:00 PM
Thanks i recently shifted to Ubunbtu this can help me in future

ElRoger
May 8th, 2011, 12:02 AM
Amarok is kde based but still it is my favourite music player in Ubuntu.
i totally agreed¡! but i had problem.. my amarok said that it could't play any of my mp3 files .. really do not know why ... :( actually i am a new user of ubuntu ... that most be the reason.. :) jaja¡!

marl30
May 8th, 2011, 02:51 AM
i totally agreed¡! but i had problem.. my amarok said that it could't play any of my mp3 files .. really do not know why ... :( actually i am a new user of ubuntu ... that most be the reason.. :) jaja¡!

sounds to me like you need to install the restricted extras.
VLC is without a doubt the best in Linux, but not my favorite overall player. But it's my favorite for playing videos and DVDs. Amarok and Audacious for everything else.

demilord
May 11th, 2011, 03:43 PM
Rhythmbox does the job.. Banshee is to bloated

I try to reduce mp3, I mainly play only flac these days... I would love to see ogg as mainstream but Ill be dead when its there as mainstream..

markymark64
May 12th, 2011, 02:32 AM
Hey All, figured I'd throw my two cents in. As far as I can see there is no music player that comes close to offering the features or the quality of Media Monkey but I've been testing them all to find one that I'm happy with. I tried running MM under wine but found out that it's a complete mess. I don't want to install VB just to run MM so I need to find something else. It's even more important since I'm purchasing a laptop and plan on backing it up and wiping it so that I can install Ubuntu on it. That will make my laptop my first "true" ubuntu pc. I don't plan on running anything but Ubuntu.

That said. Here's my list and current remarks.


Amarok: I hate it. It's buggy and freaked out on my pc. Also uses a lot of resources just to play one file.

Banshee: Sorry, this one doesn't cut it either. Maybe my expectations are too high but MM has set the bar high and Banshee doesn't cut it. Maybe if they offered better EQ settings but they don't.

Rhythmbox: Ubuntu's new default music player. This one also leaves much wanting. It plays nice but doesn't cut it for me.

Guayadeque: This one comes close. I mean very close. However, I find a few things that cause me to miss MM. First, their podcast plugin sucks. I have loads of podcasts on my machine which Guayadeque and the other players can clearly see. On MM when you add a new Podcast it automatically scans your folders to see if any currently saved podcasts have the same information and then it adds them to the folder. Guayadeque doesn't do this. Instead it bypasses all of your saved podcasts and will download every podcast all over again. This is so darn frustrating. Beyond this, Guayadeque looks nice and plays well. Another thing I don't like is the actual chore of playing music. If you want to play music it creates a playlist. Click on the song in an album and it adds that song to the playlist and will only play that song. Grr. You have to "select" and play all the songs on the album. Guayadeque isn't intelligent enough to figure this out yet. I still have hopes for this player. I think there's only one guy doing all of the developing and coding and I applaud him for making it this far. Still, forget the EQ. Every EQ on music players for Ubuntu/Linux suck.

Oh, and I won't even mention how much I dislike Songbird or Exaille. I save my music on another partition that happens to be a windows partition. Any music player that won't allow me to set a location for where I have my music doesn't even qualify in my book.

So, is there a full-featured player for ubuntu/linux that I've missed? Tell me that one of you has found something please.

meconio
May 18th, 2011, 12:06 AM
I'm sticking with Guayadeque, since I'm not an internet radio listener or a podcast fan, it does what it says, the difference between quality sound with the others is not that much better but so far it's been far more stable on my PC than Rhythmbox and I don't like Banshee interface.

It only lacks a quicklist for unity launcher and a better album art search plugin.

del_diablo
May 19th, 2011, 11:07 AM
So, is there a full-featured player for ubuntu/linux that I've missed? Tell me that one of you has found something please.

MPD?
You need a frontend, and the config file is not that confusing.

johnnybgoode83
May 21st, 2011, 01:34 AM
For me the best is Guayadeque. It is pretty full featured but also quick and handles large collections with ease. Not a resource hog either which is very important to me.
The ipod support is a bit lacking at the moment but it is under development.

nrundy
May 21st, 2011, 01:43 AM
Exaile

holiday
May 21st, 2011, 01:57 AM
No-one has listened to the question. I think all the media players so far have been based on either the gstreamer or xine multimedia playback engines. So the quality of sound is going to be purely dependent on the mp3 decoder you haver installed for each and the drivers for your soundcard. Since you're currently using Rhythmbox (gstreamer) i'd recommend giving a xine based player a go and comparing them.

This is a really interesting point. And you're right: you're the first to bring it up. But you don't have to diss the rest of these people who are trying to help.

DrKrall
June 11th, 2011, 01:01 PM
Wow. Lot of answers, but hardly no answer to the question asked. ](*,)

He didn't ask about your favourite music player. He asked which player gives the "BEST SOUND QUALITY" possible. Nothing else.

Unfortunately i can't answer myself right now. I'm evaluating at the moment.

camaron1
June 14th, 2011, 12:29 PM
Another thing I don't like is the actual chore of playing music. If you want to play music it creates a playlist. Click on the song in an album and it adds that song to the playlist and will only play that song. Grr. You have to "select" and play all the songs on the album. Guayadeque isn't intelligent enough to figure this out yet. I still have hopes for this player. I think there's only one guy doing all of the developing and coding and I applaud him for making it this far. Still, forget the EQ. Every EQ on music players for Ubuntu/Linux suck.


If you want to play the whole album just double-click in the album, not need to select songs. Whether guayadeque plays on click or adds to playlist is something you can change in preferences

VishnuNJ
September 5th, 2012, 06:39 PM
:KSAudacious is a light weight player.. :KS

In preference do the following changes..

AUDIO:


Bit depth: 24 or higher
Buffer: 750+ (if you play Internet Radio)
Soft clipping: ON
Reply Gain: Enabled (Album mode: OFF, Prevent clipping: ON)
Adjust Levels: 0.0dB (both)
PLUGINS (Dont turn off Default 'ON' plugins)

PLUGINS >>Effect:


Crystalizer: ON (default setting)
Channel Mixer: ON (2 for headphones)
Sample Rate Converter: 88200KHz

PLUGINS >> General:


AOSD: ON (Set your preference)
Gnome Shortcuts: ON
Scrobbler: ON, if you have last.fm account


Save and restart player..


Then, Its Time to Disco.. :guitar:


PS: If Using Gnome, changing (RightClick>View>) Interface to 'Winamp Classic' and (RightClick>View>) 'Put on all workspaces' + (RightClick>View>) 'Always On Top' will make this player more useful as a background player.. Also note that Mouse Scrolling within player interface changes volume and clicking title bar 'rolls up' player..

Jakin
September 5th, 2012, 09:50 PM
I like Juk... why oh why doesn't cover gloobus support it..

desiguy2447
October 3rd, 2012, 03:30 PM
I am using the VLC player for music, and the VLC gives the best audio with a good amount of Bass going to my Logitech speaker system via the creative labs USB audio device. I tired the built in music player in Ubuntu Rhythmbox but it lacked Bass, and the Equalizer didn't help then ran the terminal scripts to increase the bass didn't do anything. Then tried the mentioned player in the forum but that help much. VLC works prefect with out needing to use the VLC's buit in Equalizer to adjust anything.

VishnuNJ
October 5th, 2012, 06:14 AM
I admit that VLC is an all round player.. it even has parametric equalizer.. But VLC is mainly designed to be used as a video player, not a dedicated audio player..

Also when we use VLC as an audio player its interface will not remain 'on top' by default.. thats kind of annoying for me as i like my player to be 'visible on all desktops' and 'on top' by default.. audacious do it without a hitch..

Plus VLC lacks 'crystallizer' plugin - a plugin which enhances and restores high frequency lost during mp3 conversion.. =D>.

Keeping different player for audio and video has some benefits.. like, you could pause an audio file to preview a video and return playing audio from where you paused..

Audacious support multiple play list (Shortcut: 'P' from within playlist).. and Queue (Shortcut: 'Q' from within playlist) within playlist - a nice feature an audio player needs.. Also it has library and library search support.. \\:D/.

You could also use winamp interface on audacious, which makes its interface look better..


_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_




If you do replay gain on all your songs, i prefer you to turn off soft clipping..
SOFT CLIPPING : OFF
doing so increases dynamic range of your songs... :-\":-({|=

(NOTE 1: if you dont calculate reply gain, higher dynamic range can cause distortion from speaker, #-owhich is undesirable.. )
(NOTE 2: 'QtGain' is a good replay gain calculator with a simple GUI. INSTALL:apt:qtgain (apt:qtgain))
(NOTE 3: Also install 'aacgain' along with QtGain. INSTALL:apt:aacgain (apt:aacgain))


_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

If you want high fidelity, try to use equalizer to create a preset for each of your device with almost flat response for entire audio spectrum..

(you could use audacity to create same amplitude frequency sweep)
(Or you could generate sine waves with following frequencies and play it one after another:
40, 60, 170, 310, 600, 1k, 3k, 6k, 12k, 14k, 16k, 18k, 19k )




To get a powerful bass increase gain of 310Hz... For me, the below settings works fine..

60Hz - 1.91
170Hz - 2.88
310 Hz -5.28
Other bands.. - 0.00





[Presets]
Preset0=Bass up

[Bass up]
Preamp=0
Band0=1.9199999570846558
Band1=2.880000114440918
Band2=5.2800002098083496
Band3=0
Band4=0
Band5=0
Band6=0
Band7=0
Band8=0
Band9=0

mamamia88
October 6th, 2012, 04:56 AM
Not going to read entire thread but have you tried clementine?