Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

deadbeef.sourceforge.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 155 posts

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#21

Post by flyinghamster »

throwawee wrote: post #18
flyinghamster wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really miss Foobar2000 on Linux (I've tried it a few times with Wine, and was never impressed vs. running it natively on Windows), so this looks like it might be just up my alley - especially since it has custom tag support.

> (I've tried it a few times with Wine, and was never impressed vs. running it natively on Windows) Really? I noticed it's slower to start up but other than that it seems the same. I use it pretty regularly because foobar components handle formats the others can't. Other than that, I'd say Audacious is the closest Linux analogue to foobar2000. My one big gripe was freezing up for a bit when a stream cuts out (blockin…

Last time I tried it (quite long ago), I recall having some audio issues. Maybe I should try again... that was back when my old audio interface (that only ever worked on XP, since they never released production-grade drivers for Win7) finally died.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#22

Post by cess11 »

DB is quite nice. Don't know if it still supports it but back in 2017-2019 it was possible to use terminal commands to control playback, similar to what one might use a more complex tool like mpd for, which I wrapped in Picolisp to be able to easily change the music without leaving the REPL and then hooked it up to a socket for remote control over the LAN.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#23

Post by FpUser »

wang_li wrote: post #15
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music players are a great example of a type of app that at first brush seems simple and difficult to do badly, but in reality is littered with subtleties and bits that hinge on the preferences of the user, all of which can make or break the app. Makes it easy to understand why there’s more players than can be counted but few worth using.

That's because they all try to be more than they should be. I don't need or want a visualization option. I don't need or want an equalizer. I don't need or want a library. Those functions properly belong in other places or in the waste bin. My music library is on my filesystem and is sorted and arranged as I prefer. When I want to play an album I drag it over to MPC-HC. When I want to create a custom playlist, I open…

Perfect. The only thing left is to convince every other user to share your opinions.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#24

Post by leviathant »

ryandrake wrote: post #14
scblock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what it is, that doesn't make it good.

It's amazing how bad software developers are at naming their projects. At least this one is unique enough to be searchable, and could probably be SEO'ed above the computer lore (indeed, at least for me it's already #1 for "deadbeef" on the Google SERP). The worst are when they pick a generic English word for a project that has nothing to do with that word. I'm not going to name and shame, but there are so many exampl…

"Why hasn't Gimp found mainstream success?"

"Adoption of our Ogg Vorbis format isn't where we hoped it to be"

"Fork me on Git"

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#25

Post by keyringlight »

ryandrake wrote: post #14
scblock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what it is, that doesn't make it good.

It's amazing how bad software developers are at naming their projects. At least this one is unique enough to be searchable, and could probably be SEO'ed above the computer lore (indeed, at least for me it's already #1 for "deadbeef" on the Google SERP). The worst are when they pick a generic English word for a project that has nothing to do with that word. I'm not going to name and shame, but there are so many exampl…

The thing that gets me is application launchers, I'm fine with any clever and obscure name you pick for something that's intended to be behind the scenes as presumably there's going to be a certain amount of promotion or awareness inside whatever domain is involved. However if a launcher (or a repository/app store as an earlier step) just gives the clever name with no context to what it does rather than "CleverName - media tag information editor".

It can go too far the other direction too, for example the generic names like Files, Phone, etc either preloaded on the device by the manufacturer (eg Samsung) or by Google, or some third party.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#28

Post by worble »

cullumsmith wrote: post #26

If you are a KDE user, I highly recommend fooyin, which is essentially a Qt6 clone of Foobar2000: https://www.fooyin.org/

I've been using strawberry since moving to linux since there was no good foobar2000 replacement but I just discovered fooyin these past couple of days and this is so convincingly close that I can pretend it's just foobar2000.

That's not to throw any shade on strawberry, it's also incredibly good, but foobar2000 will always have it's claws in me.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#29

Post by cosmic_cheese »

wang_li wrote: post #15
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music players are a great example of a type of app that at first brush seems simple and difficult to do badly, but in reality is littered with subtleties and bits that hinge on the preferences of the user, all of which can make or break the app. Makes it easy to understand why there’s more players than can be counted but few worth using.

That's because they all try to be more than they should be. I don't need or want a visualization option. I don't need or want an equalizer. I don't need or want a library. Those functions properly belong in other places or in the waste bin. My music library is on my filesystem and is sorted and arranged as I prefer. When I want to play an album I drag it over to MPC-HC. When I want to create a custom playlist, I open…

I’ve of two minds on this. On one hand I agree, because the more functionality a music player has the more likely some of it will miss the mark, but on the other hand I find file managers as they currently exist are somewhat inadequate and incapable of fully replacing a library management system in a music player.

Without going too far out into the weeds, lack of integration between filemanagers/filesystems and music players is the main problem. File managers aren’t conducive to sorting by audio file metadata - even those that support it force the user to manually enable those columns in list mode and support is spotty across file formats, meaning the user has to fall back on “hacks” like modifying filenames to sort properly when sorting by name.

Additionally, the browser-type design that’s dominant in file managers doesn’t lend to versatile use with other programs.

This is one area where I think BeOS had the right idea. There, audio metadata was accessible by way of the filesystem which made it easy to access by applications and meant that the file manager more robustly supported sorting by that metadata. Additionally, the file manager was similar to that of Classic Mac OS where windows were dead simple and each represented a single folder, which made it easy to use a file manager window as a playlist window.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#30

Post by card_zero »

keyringlight wrote: post #25
ryandrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how bad software developers are at naming their projects. At least this one is unique enough to be searchable, and could probably be SEO'ed above the computer lore (indeed, at least for me it's already #1 for "deadbeef" on the Google SERP). The worst are when they pick a generic English word for a project that has nothing to do with that word. I'm not going to name and shame, but there are so many exampl…

The thing that gets me is application launchers, I'm fine with any clever and obscure name you pick for something that's intended to be behind the scenes as presumably there's going to be a certain amount of promotion or awareness inside whatever domain is involved. However if a launcher (or a repository/app store as an earlier step) just gives the clever name with no context to what it does rather than "CleverName -…

Yes, my tablet has Contacts (icon: a blue figure on a white background), and then it has Contacts (icon: a white figure on a blue background), depending on which tech firm I want to spy on my social relationships.
Post reply on HN