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

31–40 of 155 posts

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#31

Post by riidom »

Avshalom wrote: post #19

DeaDBeeF has been my goto for a while now because it's the only linux music player with the extremely specific feature I used in winamp: enqueue is an arbitrary list so you can have a playlist, leave it in order and/but/then play a song multiple times in a row. everyone else it's a toggle so you enqueue a song and then enqueue again and it removes it; if you want to listen to a song multiple times before moving on yo…

Qmmp does that too! It's (with deadbeef the primary) my secondary player, where I have a short playlist with songs that are meant to loop an indefinite amount of times.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#32

Post by vunderba »

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…

None of this is universal.

Putting the equalizer upstream at the speaker level means that all of your audio is affected by it. And yet there are many times where I am playing certain types of music, such as classical or tracker impulse chiptune that needs some adjustments - i'd much rather be able to adjust it at the playlist and/or player level.

The advantage of a music player that builds a library from a set of folders is that it's infinitely faster to be able to do fuzzy searches particularly around metadata such as Idv3 tags.

Etc. etc.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#33

Post by Lammy »

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…

My experience is that the most overloaded software project name is “Apollo”. I worked at one big company that had three different internal services by that name. I blame NASA for this one :v

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#34

Post by killerstorm »

I know DeaDBeeF's lead dev (O. Yakovenko) from a game dev forum I frequented ~20 years ago. IIRC I regarded him as one of most competent people on said forum: he was an actual professional game dev, perhaps capable implementing a whole game from scratch, whereas most ppl on the forum were amateurs.

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#35

Post by Lammy »

card_zero wrote: post #30
keyringlight wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It can go too far the other direction too, for example the generic names like Files

The worst is when an application's display name is different from its actual name. Like on my MATE desktop it took me years to fully internalize that “Files” is actually `caja` if I want to invoke it from a terminal. At least Nautilus was a type of shell lol

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#36

Post by card_zero »

Lammy wrote: post #35
card_zero wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It can go too far the other direction too, for example the generic names like Files The worst is when an application's display name is different from its actual name. Like on my MATE desktop it took me years to fully internalize that “Files” is actually `caja` if I want to invoke it from a terminal. At least Nautilus was a type of shell lol

Probably meaningful in another language. For instance it means "box" in Spanish, or in the language of the Pali Tipitaka it means "giving up".

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#38

Post by Lammy »

liotier wrote: post #4
scblock wrote: post #2

Some people I know love it but it just doesn't work for me in the way I use a music player. It's similar to foobar2000 in some ways which depending on your preferences can be good or bad. And the name is terrible. Strawberry is better for me but still kind of janky. Quod Libet and Rythmbox would seem closer to my ideal interface-wise, but scored massive own goals they seemingly will never recover from. How in 2025 mu…

> Strawberry is better for me but still kind of janky Strawberry isn't the most solid program (a few times a year, its search hiccups and gets stuck for a few seconds), but it carries the torch of Clementine's UX - which is my ideal music listening experience.

Which itself carried the torch of Amarok 1.x's UX. No software rewrite, not even GNOME2→GNOME3, ever hurt me as much as Amarok 1.4 → 2.0

Compare Amarok 1.4: https://amarok.kde.org/files/amarok14/shot7.png

To Amarok 2.0 alpha 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20110820190636/http://blog.lydia...

It was so widely disappointing that the “Amarok 2.0 FAQ” had an entry for “IMO Amarok 2.0 looks terrible” even though that's not a question lol https://web.archive.org/web/20090208231357/http://amarok.kde...

Luckily the Clementine project came along to deliver a straight port of Amazon 1.4 from Qt3 to Qt4 which was all 99% of people really wanted.

*James Rolfe voice* What were they thinking‽‽

Re: DeaDBeeF: The Ultimate Music Player

#39

Post by bux93 »

ge96 wrote: post #12

It's funny how a UI can look old. This looks like what Python Tkinter would spit out. Anyway at least for me software like this is more tangible nowadays (I could make it) though I'm not much of a music person (programming related to audio). I also used to have mp3s but not anymore, with Spotify, SoundCloud, BandCamp or YouTube with UBO.

Yes, the clean look of a 'traditional' GUI is somehow refreshing now we're surrounded with dark patterns and inconsistent style over substance.
Post reply on HN