PDA

View Full Version : Who thinks amarok is the best music player on any OS?



fela
September 7th, 2009, 05:25 PM
I haven't found a music organizer/player app on any OS that surpasses the supreme quality of AmaroK!

Who disagrees with me?

simmeson
September 7th, 2009, 05:27 PM
I do really like amarok 2 now when I've switchet to KDE, but in my Gnome days I used Rhythmbox which also are really good. Both has it's pros and cons, but I am starting to really appreciate amarok.

Screwdriver0815
September 7th, 2009, 05:29 PM
I haven't found a music organizer/player app on any OS that surpasses the supreme quality of AmaroK!

Who disagrees with me?

I disagree with you :D

Rhythmbox is far superior to Amarok 2 in terms of stability and usability. Of course Rhythmbox has less features but it is simply much more useful.

Artificial Intelligence
September 7th, 2009, 05:30 PM
I like it ^_^


For those on Ubuntu/kubuntu 9.04 wants to try the latest Amarok 2.2 beta; https://edge.launchpad.net/~kubuntu-ppa/+archive/beta

chriskin
September 7th, 2009, 05:33 PM
I disagree with you :D

Rhythmbox is far superior to Amarok 2 in terms of stability and usability. Of course Rhythmbox has less features but it is simply much more useful.

Rhythmbox has the plugin to show the cd cover and info on the desktop, which made it my favorite
exaile comes second and amarok follows at third place.

fela
September 7th, 2009, 05:33 PM
I disagree with you :D

Rhythmbox is far superior to Amarok 2 in terms of stability and usability. Of course Rhythmbox has less features but it is simply much more useful.

I used to be just like you, when I used GNOME.

I wonder, what are the chances you run GNOME?

As for usability - either you hate amarok or you love it. I used to hate it, but after using it as my main player for a few days I now absolutely love the interface and can't stand any other music player - also the latest version is sooooo much more stable and easier to use, I agree that the earlier versions of amarok 2 were a complete shambles. When was the last time you tried amarok?

RiceMonster
September 7th, 2009, 05:35 PM
It's good. I really like amarok 2 despite the complaints. I think foobar2000 is better than amarok, though.

Whiffle
September 7th, 2009, 05:35 PM
I loved the version in the kde3 days, but the kde4 version has yet to win me over.

And I think foobar2000 is probably either better, or a close tie with even that old version of Amarok. Its a shame its windows only (although it does run well in wine)

Skripka
September 7th, 2009, 05:38 PM
It's good. I really like amarok 2 despite the complaints. I think foobar2000 is better than amarok, though.

Yep.


My main gripe is the inability to get rid of that utterly useless middle panel in the Amarok2 interface. To me it is only useless clutter, the Wiki panel doesn't even work 95% of the time with 99% of my large music library.

Screwdriver0815
September 7th, 2009, 05:41 PM
I used to be just like you, when I used GNOME.

I wonder, what are the chances you run GNOME?

As for usability - either you hate amarok or you love it. I used to hate it, but after using it as my main player for a few days I now absolutely love the interface and can't stand any other music player - also the latest version is sooooo much more stable and easier to use, I agree that the earlier versions of amarok 2 were a complete shambles. When was the last time you tried amarok?

it is running right now :D

I agree that the latest version is much more stable than previous versions.

But what makes me mad is, that the playlist control is... to say it like it is... stupid.

To play an album, you have to right-click on it and to choose "replace playlist". In other players you simply do a double-click...

but maybe the settings are wrong in my Amarok... but as the settings menu is a mess, I don't have any clue how to fix this.

I really like KDE and its programs, but Amarok 2 is the worst I have ever experienced in Linux. Its like a windows-app. :D

Edit: I run both - Gnome and KDE. Amarok is running in KDE (on the desktop) and Rhythmbox is used on the Laptop (which runs Gnome)

RiceMonster
September 7th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Yep.


My main gripe is the inability to get rid of that utterly useless middle panel in the Amarok2 interface. To me it is only useless clutter, the Wiki panel doesn't even work 95% of the time with 99% of my large music library.

You can get rid of it. There's an option called "hide context view" in preferences. You can also do it dynamically with bespin hacks.


To play an album, you have to right-click on it and to choose "replace playlist". In other players you simply do a double-click...

No you don't. Just drag and drop it onto the playlist

fela
September 7th, 2009, 05:47 PM
Yep.


My main gripe is the inability to get rid of that utterly useless middle panel in the Amarok2 interface. To me it is only useless clutter, the Wiki panel doesn't even work 95% of the time with 99% of my large music library.

Settings > Amarok > Hide Context Panel (or similar)

Debunked ;)

People are just too fast on this forum.

Skripka
September 7th, 2009, 05:49 PM
You can get rid of it. There's an option called "hide context view" in preferences.

Excellent! :)


PS-Everytime I've tried to run Bespin, be it Arch or *buntu, I end up with a b0rked KDE on my next login.

gn2
September 7th, 2009, 05:51 PM
Best one I've tried is Atunes (http://www.atunes.org/?page_id=6).

pwnst*r
September 7th, 2009, 05:55 PM
serious question: amarok works on a Mac?

also, for windows it's all about foobar. nothing comes close in windows or linux.

Viva
September 7th, 2009, 05:57 PM
Rhythmbox FTW!

Jim!
September 7th, 2009, 05:57 PM
I'll disagree with you too, I prefer Rhythmbox over Amarok 2.

fela
September 7th, 2009, 05:58 PM
serious question: amarok works on a Mac?

also, for windows it's all about foobar. nothing comes close in windows or linux.

I got amarok 1.4 running on one our mac, as well as KDE. I haven't tried Amarok 2, which would also require QT4. I compiled it all from source which took quite a while!

Also, tell me what's so great about foobar2000, cause when I used it it was absolutely **** compared with amaroK, at least in my opinion.

Skripka
September 7th, 2009, 05:59 PM
serious question: amarok works on a Mac?

also, for windows it's all about foobar. nothing comes close in windows or linux.

I don't think there's a stable release for OSX, but there is a port available of Amarok2 for Leopard:

http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/Download:Mac_OS

Jimleko211
September 7th, 2009, 06:03 PM
I disagree with you. My favorite media player is Banshee, though Rythmbox is pretty nice, too.

Screwdriver0815
September 7th, 2009, 06:05 PM
No you don't. Just drag and drop it onto the playlist

and then it does not start automatically. It doesn't even start, when you press "play"!.

maybe something is broken in my Amarok but, really, it doesn't work. The only way to get playing music is right-click --> replace playlist. I hate it! :guitar:

maybe I try A-Tunes on the KDE-Desktop. How is it in terms of look? Does it fit well into KDE?

pwnst*r
September 7th, 2009, 06:06 PM
I got amarok 1.4 running on one our mac, as well as KDE. I haven't tried Amarok 2, which would also require QT4. I compiled it all from source which took quite a while!

Also, tell me what's so great about foobar2000, cause when I used it it was absolutely **** compared with amaroK, at least in my opinion.

how exactly was it ****? foobar is much more customizable than amarok could ever hope to be.

RiceMonster
September 7th, 2009, 06:07 PM
how exactly was it ****? foobar is much more customizable than amarok could ever hope to be.

And it has flawless gapless playback, an equalizer, and really good replay gain support.

pwnst*r
September 7th, 2009, 06:08 PM
Rhythmbox FTW!

rhythmbox works in OSX and Windows?

pwnst*r
September 7th, 2009, 06:08 PM
And it has flawless gapless playback, an equalizer, and really good replay gain support.

most don't even know what those components are, so i didn't bother mentioning them ;)

Viva
September 7th, 2009, 06:16 PM
rhythmbox works in OSX and Windows?

No, but it is best music player I've used on any OS

khelben1979
September 7th, 2009, 06:19 PM
I don't. I like music players which is memory efficient with less features.

gn2
September 7th, 2009, 06:20 PM
maybe I try A-Tunes on the KDE-Desktop. How is it in terms of look? Does it fit well into KDE?

Should work fine with KDE.
Screenshots (http://www.atunes.org/?page_id=5).

coldReactive
September 7th, 2009, 06:21 PM
I disagree, because it's playlist based. ;)

Screwdriver0815
September 7th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Should work fine with KDE.
Screenshots (http://www.atunes.org/?page_id=5).

it looks a little bit strange anyway... but it works like I want it. Thats the main thing.

Thanks for the tip!

kotnik
September 7th, 2009, 06:55 PM
I haven't found a music organizer/player app on any OS that surpasses the supreme quality of AmaroK!

Who disagrees with me?

Unfortunately, I do :(

I use Audacious, since it's the only player I've tried that have decent EQ...

smbm
September 7th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Who disagrees with me?

I do.

fela
September 7th, 2009, 07:46 PM
And it has flawless gapless playback, an equalizer, and really good replay gain support.

Amarok seems to have flawless gapless playback (not that I'd really need it); version 1.4 had an equalizer (don't know where it's gone in 2); and amarok also has replay gain support (don't know if it's as good as foobar2000 though).

RiceMonster
September 7th, 2009, 07:47 PM
Amarok seems to have flawless gapless playback (not that I'd really need it); version 1.4 had an equalizer (don't know where it's gone in 2); and amarok also has replay gain support (don't know if it's as good as foobar2000 though).

all of these are implemented far better in foobar2000

Mr Bean
September 7th, 2009, 08:03 PM
I tried Amarok (albeit briefly) and I didn't much care for it.

I use Rythmbox but I don't find it ideal either.

On Windows I liked MediaMonkey for listening to music.

I can't really cite any reasons as it's a while since I used anything other than Rhythmbox but it's just one of those things where you either like the interface of a program or you don't and Amarok wasn't doing it for me at all.

PurposeOfReason
September 7th, 2009, 08:04 PM
And it has flawless gapless playback, an equalizer, and really good replay gain support.
Software equalizers get a thumb down. I hate eqs in general. I like MPD for simplicity.

Whiffle
September 7th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Oh speaking of foobar, if anybody wants to run it under wine, it sounds better if you enable the resampling plugin and resample to 48000 Hz.

SuperSonic4
September 7th, 2009, 08:07 PM
Amarok is pretty cool but for some reason it and my sound card don't play ball - it's quite annoying so I use exaile

Screwdriver0815
September 7th, 2009, 08:07 PM
off topic:

is foobar 2000 better than A-Tunes? :)

RiceMonster
September 7th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Software equalizers get a thumb down. I hate eqs in general. I like MPD for simplicity.

Yes mpd is very good as well.

Skripka
September 7th, 2009, 08:20 PM
Software equalizers get a thumb down. I hate eqs in general. I like MPD for simplicity.

You can pry my software EQs from my cold, dead hands. I'd much rather have the option to tweak, than not at all--but that is the musician in me.

PurposeOfReason
September 7th, 2009, 08:40 PM
You can pry my software EQs from my cold, dead hands. I'd much rather have the option to tweak, than not at all--but that is the musician in me.
For making music they are fine, not playing. Play that tune flat, play it like the artist made it. It's not their fault you don't have the system to give out true bass and need to turn up those frequencies.

SuperSonic4
September 7th, 2009, 08:42 PM
Amarok is actually pretty cool now I'm using the vlc backend in Phonon! :D

I'm using version 2.1.1 hauled from kdemod-extragear

ChrT
September 7th, 2009, 08:42 PM
mplayer-nogui . Because media players are supposed to play media, not do the job of my file manager, music library and window manager.

pwnst*r
September 7th, 2009, 08:46 PM
Software equalizers get a thumb down. I hate eqs in general. I like MPD for simplicity.

actually i have an awesome audio set up, but i only use eq for poor recordings (no bass, too much treble, etc)

fela
September 7th, 2009, 09:26 PM
For making music they are fine, not playing. Play that tune flat, play it like the artist made it. It's not their fault you don't have the system to give out true bass and need to turn up those frequencies.

I have a nice system with alot of bass quality, maybe that's a reason I don't care much for software EQs either. I have a basic (treble + bass) hardware EQ on my amp that does more than the job for me. I've never actually seriously used software EQs.

hanzomon4
September 7th, 2009, 09:52 PM
Amarok is actually pretty cool now I'm using the vlc backend in Phonon! :D

I'm using version 2.1.1 hauled from kdemod-extragear

Say What?! you can do that?

hanzomon4
September 7th, 2009, 09:55 PM
For making music they are fine, not playing. Play that tune flat, play it like the artist made it. It's not their fault you don't have the system to give out true bass and need to turn up those frequencies.

That's the most frustrating thing.. trying to get a mix to sound decent from crappy headphones to high end sound systems.

SuperSonic4
September 8th, 2009, 08:15 PM
Say What?! you can do that?

Yeah, I hauled the backend from the AUR (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29113)

Google code has it here: http://code.google.com/p/phonon-vlc-mplayer/
(third post)

Amarok can be obtained by
sudo pacman -S kdemod-extragear/kdemod-extragear-amarok

magmon
September 8th, 2009, 08:21 PM
I haven't found a music organizer/player app on any OS that surpasses the supreme quality of AmaroK!

Who disagrees with me?

Personally, I prefer banshee.

Nick Brohman
September 8th, 2009, 11:54 PM
I use Amarok now 'cos Rhythmbox was not imorting all music files.

I have 1.4 (I think) & reading this makes thankful that I won't get the 2... version of Amarok until it is stable(?).

The feature I liked about Rhythmbox is the info on file sizes & how many Gbs used by the files.

I don't know what I'll do when I run out of unplayed songs, I use that to load playlist.

I've just loaded 26,400 songs in less than 30 secs. It takes me longer than that to load a mini disc on to my Sony CMT stereo.

AmaROKS

Nicko

running_rabbit07
September 8th, 2009, 11:57 PM
I would have to say Windows Media Player is the best I have ever used. It played every format and ripped great quality files.

ctrlmd
September 9th, 2009, 12:07 AM
best music player on any OS
nope

on windows 7: windows media player > winamp
on linux: banshee > Rhythmbox
on mac itunes.

oboedad55
September 9th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Rhythmbox is best for me. It handles my ipod well. I can't find that amarok will see my ipod. Am I missing something? If so, please explain as I'd like to give it a better try.

-Jon

Groucho Marxist
September 9th, 2009, 01:53 AM
I haven't found a music organizer/player app on any OS that surpasses the supreme quality of AmaroK!

Who disagrees with me?

I prefer Banshee, as it accomplishes my OS audio needs.

bionnaki
September 9th, 2009, 05:48 AM
MOC wins.

Exershio
September 9th, 2009, 07:27 AM
I don't really like Amarok. I can't stand playlist based music players. I don't like making playlists (in fact I've never made one in my entire life). I'd much rather just pick a song from an artist, and after that song, it'll keep playing that album in order until I change songs/artists/whatever.

Rhythmbox does that for me.

To be honest, Windows Media Player 11 is my favorite music player ever. It handles my music just like Rhythmbox does, only its media library is ******* sexy if you have album covers for every album on your computer (which I do. I'm anal about my music collection)

Trail
September 9th, 2009, 07:59 AM
I find amarok2 the best. It has surpased amarok1. Won't bother stating why.

mcduck
September 9th, 2009, 08:41 AM
Of course Amarok isn't the best. It can't be, since MPD is better. :)

ad_267
September 9th, 2009, 09:25 AM
I haven't found a music organizer/player app on any OS that surpasses the supreme quality of AmaroK!

Who disagrees with me?

Even on KDE I'd rather use Banshee or Rhythmbox. I wish there was a Qt/KDE version of Banshee or an alternate interface for Amarok with a library based interface more like Banshee/Rhythmbox.

kotnik
September 9th, 2009, 10:16 AM
Even on KDE I'd rather use Banshee or Rhythmbox.

Banshee comes with EQ? Haven't tried for a while...

ad_267
September 9th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Banshee comes with EQ? Haven't tried for a while...

I think it does, not something I use though. Can't check right now as I'm in Kubuntu 9.10 and banshee just shows a blank window...

joey-elijah
September 9th, 2009, 10:36 AM
Sadly, i'm one of those who still can't "get" Amarok. I hate the "tree" based layout for browsing it's so... not me.

I hate it's ugly buttons, it's bizarre layout... yuk!

That said i think i only used version 2 (is it?) that was in Kubuntu 9.04

fela
September 9th, 2009, 10:37 AM
I use Amarok now 'cos Rhythmbox was not imorting all music files.

I have 1.4 (I think) & reading this makes thankful that I won't get the 2... version of Amarok until it is stable(?).

The feature I liked about Rhythmbox is the info on file sizes & how many Gbs used by the files.

I don't know what I'll do when I run out of unplayed songs, I use that to load playlist.

I've just loaded 26,400 songs in less than 30 secs. It takes me longer than that to load a mini disc on to my Sony CMT stereo.

AmaROKS

Nicko

Amarok 2 is very stable.

hansen7007
September 9th, 2009, 10:54 AM
Amrok is not too much good music player.

hoppipolla
September 9th, 2009, 11:05 AM
I think that it WILL be the best music player in the world... but at the moment I still find it quite buggy and unfinished, although I have to admit I haven't tried the newly released 2.2 beta yet :)

For now, I'm on Banshee just because it's more solid, Amarok 2.1 broke it's itself beyond the point of usefulness on my machine ._.

ad_267
September 9th, 2009, 11:22 AM
Amarok is stable enough for me, I just don't like it. Which is annoying because there's no other audio player of similar quality for qt/kde.

Sinkingships7
September 9th, 2009, 12:14 PM
I hate Amarok. I'm not a fan of playlist-based media managers. I think it's interface is terrible. It also suffers from what I like to call the "Big & Ugly" Linux GUI.

Seriously, everything's huge in Linux. It makes it look like a toy.

fela
September 9th, 2009, 12:17 PM
I hate Amarok. I'm not a fan of playlist-based media managers. I think it's interface is terrible. It also suffers from what I like to call the "Big & Ugly" Linux GUI.

Seriously, everything's huge in Linux. It makes it look like a toy.

Yeah, I realized I was a bit sick of that after the initial Amarok 2 WOW factor passed (like gas). I've now rolled back to amarok 1.4. It's great and I'd still say that version 1.4 is the best player I've used on any platform.

Sinkingships7
September 9th, 2009, 12:22 PM
Yeah, I realized I was a bit sick of that after the initial Amarok 2 WOW factor passed (like gas). I've now rolled back to amarok 1.4. It's great and I'd still say that version 1.4 is the best player I've used on any platform.

Amarok 1.4 wasn't too terrible. It at least had an equalizer.

fela
September 9th, 2009, 12:23 PM
I hate Amarok. I'm not a fan of playlist-based media managers. I think it's interface is terrible. It also suffers from what I like to call the "Big & Ugly" Linux GUI.

Seriously, everything's huge in Linux. It makes it look like a toy.

You mean everything's huge in GTK, or everything's huge in QT, etc. NOT Linux. Theoretically Apple could port Cocoa to Linux and then would you still say everything's huge in Linux? Or what if Windows ported their GUI API to Linux? Same?

But yeah I agree that GTK suffers from the big and ugly. Not so sure about QT though, I think I like it.

Sinkingships7
September 9th, 2009, 12:30 PM
You mean everything's huge in GTK, or everything's huge in QT, etc. NOT Linux. Theoretically Apple could port Cocoa to Linux and then would you still say everything's huge in Linux? Or what if Windows ported their GUI API to Linux? Same?

But yeah I agree that GTK suffers from the big and ugly. Not so sure about QT though, I think I like it.

Well, yeah, mostly GTK. Qt has everything right, but KDE ruins it with its over-sized bottom bar with the giant K in the Korner and its Krazy menus. It makes the whole thing feel like a well-padded children's playroom.

fela
September 9th, 2009, 12:33 PM
Amarok 1.4 wasn't too terrible. It at least had an equalizer.

It has an equalizer but I don't use it. I don't like software equalizers, because my music collection is already quite high quality (between 192 and 320 kb/s MP3s) and my amp and speakers are pretty good aswell (my amp has a hardware equalizer on it anyway).

fela
September 9th, 2009, 12:35 PM
Well, yeah, mostly GTK. Qt has everything right, but KDE ruins it with its over-sized bottom bar with the giant K in the Korner and its Krazy menus. It makes the whole thing feel like a well-padded children's playroom.

You can resize the bottom bar, I've made it about 28 pixels high (smaller than windows' one). Also you can make GTK look a LOT nicer just by making the text on toolbars appear beside the buttons instead of under them. But I agree that GTK really does have that big and ugly thing, that's partly why I don't like it.

Sinkingships7
September 9th, 2009, 12:38 PM
It has an equalizer but I don't use it. I don't like software equalizers, because my music collection is already quite high quality (between 192 and 320 kb/s MP3s) and my amp and speakers are pretty good aswell (my amp has a hardware equalizer on it anyway).

That's my solution now, too. A nice receiver hooked up to a gorgeous Polk Audio 5.1 setup. Hardware equalizers are universal (so to speak) so I don't have to fiddle with software settings on any OS. Good thing, too. Without it, I don't think Linux could cut it for me. Big audio enthusiast here. :P

GMU_DodgyHodgy
September 9th, 2009, 02:09 PM
I prefer Banshee. Plays all the formats - it syncs with my Ipod and it can play videos well.

It has a clean interface that integrates well with the Gnome desktop.

fela
September 9th, 2009, 02:20 PM
I prefer Banshee. Plays all the formats - it syncs with my Ipod and it can play videos well.

It has a clean interface that integrates well with the Gnome desktop.

I use the KDE desktop though, GTK apps don't seem to integrate very well in KDE, at least not as well as QT apps in Gnome. But I prefer Amarok 1.4 anyway :)

Whiffle
September 9th, 2009, 02:23 PM
I use the KDE desktop though, GTK apps don't seem to integrate very well in KDE, at least not as well as QT apps in Gnome. But I prefer Amarok 1.4 anyway :)

Have you tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK-Qt ? Works pretty nice for me.

sideaway
September 9th, 2009, 02:43 PM
Amarok 1.4 was the reason I installed linux. My brother was using it and I fell in love with it fast. However, i have had endless issues with Amarok 2 and GTK, and it gave me a headache, this is the first linux build I've done with out an amarok installation and running 90% of the time :P

I considered going back to 1.4, but I just haven't, I now use Rhythm Box as the main music player.

But my top 4(5) are:

1 - Amarok 1.4, waiting for its younger brother to catch up, still hasn't imho
2 - Foobar2000, Oh the features and quality!
3 - Winamp/Rhythmbox (couldn't place one over the other)
4 - Windows Media Player, pretty damn fine looking and simple to use.

YeOK
September 9th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Songbird for me. songbird (http://getsongbird.com/)

gtr32
September 9th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Who disagrees with me?

I do if we are talking about any OS. MediaMonkey.

guest054
September 9th, 2009, 05:30 PM
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2506/pantalla1.th.png (http://img525.imageshack.us/i/pantalla1.png/)

equalizer?, im not good with equalizer because the music sound worse than without equalizer. but that look like an equalizer.

:guitar:

cptrohn
September 9th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I prefer songbird now.

hoppipolla
September 9th, 2009, 06:57 PM
I really wouldn't worry too much about niggles and things with Amarok 2.x at the moment. Do you remember how crappy KDE 4 was before 4.3?

Amarok 2.x will come along aswell - 2.2 looks to be excellent :)

fela
September 9th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Have you tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK-Qt ? Works pretty nice for me.

That's what I use, except there are bugs such as scrollbars looking bad in iceweasel/icedove and the toolbars and things just not looking completely right.

oboedad55
September 9th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Songbird for me. songbird (http://getsongbird.com/)

Is there a .deb for Songbird somewhere?
Never mind, I found it here: http://www.getdeb.net/search.php?keywords=songbird

Screwdriver0815
September 9th, 2009, 11:38 PM
is there any alternate player which is not based on playlists which fits nicely into the KDE desktop?

ad_267
September 10th, 2009, 03:28 AM
is there any alternate player which is not based on playlists which fits nicely into the KDE desktop?

There's Juk, but that's about it.

DeadSuperHero
September 10th, 2009, 06:12 AM
I need to get me some 2.2 Beta loving on Karmic.

nisshh
September 10th, 2009, 08:03 AM
VLC forever! if i had to choose though i go with rythmbox.

kotnik
September 10th, 2009, 09:38 AM
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2506/pantalla1.th.png (http://img525.imageshack.us/i/pantalla1.png/)

equalizer?, im not good with equalizer because the music sound worse than without equalizer. but that look like an equalizer.

:guitar:

!?

This is mine Amarok:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4602/screenshot001jw.th.png (http://img38.imageshack.us/i/screenshot001jw.png/)

I'm quite sure that there's no equalizer there...

kotnik
September 10th, 2009, 09:42 AM
I think it does, not something I use though. Can't check right now as I'm in Kubuntu 9.10 and banshee just shows a blank window...

I just checked out, it does!!

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4903/screenshot002hc.th.png (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/screenshot002hc.png/)

Thanks!

ithinkitschad
September 10th, 2009, 09:45 AM
I like songbird. You cant ever have enough addons or themes.

steevc
September 10th, 2009, 01:25 PM
I've been a fan of Amarok for a while now. I loved 1.4. The podcast support was good and I could easily burn some radio shows to a CD for listening in the car. I think I moved to 2.0 when last.fm stopped working due to API changes. That change was a bit painful due to lack of features I was used to. It's got a bit better, but on 2.0.90 that I have now there are still a few problems with podcasts and I've also found that it is not picking up metadata from some files. I'm interested to know what version will be in Karmic next month and what improvements will I see in those areas?

I tend to use Amarok in several ways:
1. Streaming from last.fm. Generally works pretty well
2. Listening to whole albums by navigating the collection tree
3. Picking out individual tracks by filtering
4. Downloading podcasts for transfer to CD or portable device. This was better in 1.4

I don't use playlists too much.

The Thug
September 10th, 2009, 02:08 PM
I've looked at Rhythmbox, Banshee and Amarok but prefer Songbird.

Only complaint that I have with Songbird is that you can't "minimise to tray" like Banshee.

Johnsie
September 10th, 2009, 03:16 PM
I really don't like the GUI's in any of these programs. I remember the days when media players actually looked good. Nowadays alot of them look like not alot of work was put into making them look nice... Like a basic form someone designed on Visual Basic or something... Songbird probably has the best gui, but it comes with all the problems associated with Firefox and is more resource intensive than it should be. I like Spotify because it looks nice and is well organised, but doesn't allow you to play your own mp3's or cd's.

Winamp used to be good until AOL bought them out and ruined it, just like they bought ICQ and ruined that. Amarok 1.4 was ok and I think 2.x is a good start but they need to think logically about how it is laid out rather than just throwing as much as they can into one gui.

I'm yet to find a fully featured media player that's well organised, looks good and and isn't bloated.

Tuxoid
November 10th, 2009, 12:53 AM
i don't really like amarok's ui. It suffers from information overload.

ratcheer
November 10th, 2009, 02:07 AM
I like songbird. You cant ever have enough addons or themes.

I tried Songbird, today. First, I was disappointed that it won't rip an audio CD to music files. Then, I found out it won't even play an audio CD. I removed Songbird.

Tim

ratcheer
November 10th, 2009, 05:42 PM
For now, I am settling with Rhythm Box. I don't especially like it, but it does what I need it to do. It looks complicated to run Amarok on Gnome and I don't see any other players out there that meet my needs.

Tim

Странник
November 10th, 2009, 05:59 PM
Amarok and foobar2000 are the best players

dizee
November 10th, 2009, 06:02 PM
It looks nice but it is very buggy for me on Karmic, so got rid of it for now. Shame, used to love the 1.4 version.

LADmaticCA
November 10th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Anyone got a good tutorial for setting up MPD? Anyway, I use Exaile mostly these days.

Dekkon
November 10th, 2009, 10:19 PM
Disagree.

I hated using it, the design just wasn't really made for music. Finding music was an annoyance compared to WMP or god-forbid iTunes.

Im different from people tho.

fela
November 10th, 2009, 11:16 PM
i don't really like amarok's ui. It suffers from information overload.

You either love it or hate it. Or love it one day but hate it the next.

fela
November 10th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Im different from people tho.

What are you, an animal? Alien from mars? I'd love to know?

Just so you know, I'm joking, right. I know how sensitive some people on this forum can be (not to mean you though!)

pwnst*r
November 10th, 2009, 11:56 PM
What are you, an animal? Alien from mars? I'd love to know?

Just so you know, I'm joking, right. I know how sensitive some people on this forum can be (not to mean you though!)

lol

geoken
November 11th, 2009, 01:09 AM
I really don't like the GUI's in any of these programs. I remember the days when media players actually looked good. Nowadays alot of them look like not alot of work was put into making them look nice... Like a basic form someone designed on Visual Basic or something... Songbird probably has the best gui, but it comes with all the problems associated with Firefox and is more resource intensive than it should be. I like Spotify because it looks nice and is well organised, but doesn't allow you to play your own mp3's or cd's.

Winamp used to be good until AOL bought them out and ruined it, just like they bought ICQ and ruined that. Amarok 1.4 was ok and I think 2.x is a good start but they need to think logically about how it is laid out rather than just throwing as much as they can into one gui.

I'm yet to find a fully featured media player that's well organised, looks good and and isn't bloated.

You're probably out of luck. I suspect what you think looks good is what the majority of people consider eye gougingly gaudy and apparently designed by a comity of 13 year old metal heads.

pwnst*r
November 11th, 2009, 01:28 AM
I really don't like the GUI's in any of these programs. I remember the days when media players actually looked good. Nowadays alot of them look like not alot of work was put into making them look nice... Like a basic form someone designed on Visual Basic or something... Songbird probably has the best gui, but it comes with all the problems associated with Firefox and is more resource intensive than it should be. I like Spotify because it looks nice and is well organised, but doesn't allow you to play your own mp3's or cd's.

Winamp used to be good until AOL bought them out and ruined it, just like they bought ICQ and ruined that. Amarok 1.4 was ok and I think 2.x is a good start but they need to think logically about how it is laid out rather than just throwing as much as they can into one gui.

I'm yet to find a fully featured media player that's well organised, looks good and and isn't bloated.

foobar, thanks.

diegodiaz
November 23rd, 2009, 06:21 PM
I actually don't know a lot about linux, but if you don't configure anything, rhythmbox gives you a crapy quality sound but amarok works great

TheNessus
November 23rd, 2009, 06:54 PM
Sorry, but Foobar2000 is the player currently, and it's sadly not available for linux. However, it works wonderfully on Wine.

Xbehave
November 23rd, 2009, 07:13 PM
Sorry, but Foobar2000 is the player currently, and it's sadly not available for linux. However, it works wonderfully on Wine.


why?

Nothing about foobar impresses me much, it plain but then again most media players can be just as plain (see attached)

amarok1.4 (and my amarok2, but not default), bring a stay out of the way UI to a full featured mediaplayer, it can

Sync your portable media,
Play media from the network
Index several sources and play from multipe sources simultaniously (portable,cd,networked,local,etc)
Interact with online services (mangatunes,lastfm,jamendo,etc)
Search media by mp3 metadata (year, album, artist, genre, etc
Modify song metadata
A whole lot more

yet still does all this with a minimal UI, all the alternatives either lack features (foobar) or have stupid UIs (WMP)

TheNessus
November 23rd, 2009, 07:18 PM
why?

Nothing about foobar impresses me much, it plain but then again most media players can be just as plain (see attached)

amarok1.4 (and my amarok1.4, but not default), bring a stay out of the way UI to a full featured mediaplayer, it can

Sync your portable media,
Play media from the network
Index several sources and play from multipe sources simultaniously (portable,cd,networked,local,etc)
Interact with online services (mangatunes,lastfm,jamendo,etc)
Search media by mp3 metadata (year, album, artist, genre, etc
Modify song metadata
A whole lot more

yet still does all this with a minimal UI, all the alternatives either lack features (foobar) or have stupid UIs (WMP)
My personal experience with Amarok is: "ah christ, this POS keeps stalling every time I even remotely approach to click something, what the hell?". It has a nice interaction with online services, but then again, I'm not from the US so most are irrelevant for me. Though the Librvox online service is awesome indeed.

Foobar2000 can be plain, but can be very extensive, even to that level of Amarok. It's highly configurable, metadata bla bla same, plugins... etc. Ok, no portable device support, but that's not too not a big loss.

alexfish
November 23rd, 2009, 07:26 PM
took a chic home saterday night , that was after the karaoke, tried it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, got nowhere

mamamia88
November 23rd, 2009, 07:54 PM
rythmbox is better imo

Dale61
November 24th, 2009, 02:39 PM
For me, Banshee on 9.10, Songbird on Vista.

qwerty2009
November 24th, 2009, 02:52 PM
I find Amarok the ugliest music player for kde, it requires to much customisation to get it how i would like it (i like music players just a plain browser,sidebar and player buttons) but on Amarok at first it shows information from the Internet,lyrics it just feels to bloated on first run

cascade9
November 24th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Sorry, but Foobar2000 is the player currently, and it's sadly not available for linux. However, it works wonderfully on Wine.

FB2K will never be native linux from what I've seen Peter Pawlowski (foobar2000 dev) say over the years.

Which is a real pity, while FB2K can look a bit plain if you don't want to play around with it, its by far the most configurable media player I've ever used.

I would really like to see a linux native media player that has half the options that columns UI or panels UI gives foobar.

Yes, I'm running foobar under wine. I really like my 500x500 album art display, single column playlist, etc..

I vote for 'foobar 2000 is the best music player on any OS' :) Yes, it will run on OSX with Darwine. :mrgreen:

RiceMonster
November 24th, 2009, 03:07 PM
I agree about foobar, however, Amarok 2 (for me) is getting to the point where there's only a few things in foobar that make me prefer it.