Recommended Light but feature rich music player

d3c3it · 2005-04-28 22:39:52

Hi everyone
I'm currently setting up a new (new to me) thinkpad, but its only a 1ghz cpu so i really want a lightweight player, but something that displays cd covers (as yes i like it) like muine, but what is the stability of the muine packages like? Or has anyone got any other recommendations, i dont really want something like rhythmbox/amarok as the footprint is too high for me. I would install xmms and the cover plugin but i'd rather something gtk2 based, to fit in with my xfce4 desktop...

Soo...recommendations, if I dont have to make my own PKGBUILD that would be great but if I thats fine im sure i can smack something together.

Cheers everyone

phrakture · 2005-04-28 22:55:46

I think some people like http://noatun.kde.org/screenshots/

I personally use http://www.musicpd.org/ but that probably won't have the feature you're looking for

There's always the default too: http://www.xmms.org

Also: http://www.zinf.org/ , but I think that one's dead...

iphitus · 2005-04-28 23:24:08

I think theres a frontend to mpd that supports covers, miqorz was workin on a fork of one that did not long ago.

Gullible Jones · 2005-04-28 23:42:54

How much RAM do you have? That should be more of a problem than CPU speed... If you have 384 megs of RAM or more, you can run KDE very nicely on a 450 MHz Pentium 3.

As for music players, amaroK is pretty much the best player in existance for Linux at this point.

phrakture · 2005-04-29 03:37:37

iphitus wrote:

I think theres a frontend to mpd that supports covers, miqorz was workin on a fork of one that did not long ago.

yeah it's one of the gtk front ends... like gmpc or something... miqorz was working on sharpmusic - a similar thing done in C#

miqorz · 2005-04-29 04:55:55

Yeah, I took up SharpMusic development for some time before going back to Xmms due to certain reasons...

Greycloack · 2005-04-29 08:47:45

I'm not sure if this would work, never tried it, but you might be able to run the XMMS cover plugin with BMP... BMP is gtk2 so it will fit your requirments, and it's lightweight...

tmadhavan · 2005-04-29 12:51:33

I'd have to go with Amarok too - CD covers and lyrics

Tho I'm not sure how much of a hog it is.

d3c3it · 2005-04-29 15:06:00

Ive got 256mb but iam increasing to 512mb, i was thinking of trying muine but i read on the forum that its a bit br0ke ?

I use amaork on my workstation and other laptop (nontravelling laptop heh) and its great i just really wanted to build up a light desktop, ah ill go with xmms

Gullible Jones · 2005-04-29 20:11:56

256 MB? You shouldn't have problems, even with hefty media players.

For media players: I'd go with MPD and an MPD client for "light", and Amarok (which doesn't need KDE, only QT) for "heavy".

There's also MoreAmp, someone just made a PKGBUILD for that...

Snowman · 2005-04-29 20:40:57

You can try sonic-rainbow: http://sonic-rainbow.sourceforge.net/ . I have submitted it to AUR. BTW, moreamp is also in AUR.

Greycloack · 2005-04-30 09:14:04

Gullible Jones wrote:

256 MB? You shouldn't have problems, even with hefty media players.
For media players: I'd go with MPD and an MPD client for "light", and Amarok (which doesn't need KDE, only QT) for "heavy".
There's also MoreAmp, someone just made a PKGBUILD for that...

Err... Amarok does need KDE, at least the way it's built on Arch :

[root@shabimobile omri]# pacman -S amarok

Targets: gstreamer-0.8.9-1 tunepimp-0.3.0-4 arts-1.4.0-4 mdnsresponder-98-2
         jasper-1.701.0-1 kde-common-3.4.0-7 kdelibs-3.4.0-6 cyrus-sasl-2.1.20-3
         sysfsutils-1.2.0-1 pmount-0.7.1-1 kdebase-3.4.0-5 libvisual-0.2.0-1
         libvisual-plugins-0.2.0-1 ruby-1.8.2-4 xine-lib-1.0.1-1
         gst-plugins-0.8.8-1 kdemultimedia-3.4.0-5 mysql-4.1.11-2 amarok-1.2.3-2

Total Package Size:   84.8 MB

d3c3it · 2005-04-30 10:50:47

Greycloack wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:
256 MB? You shouldn't have problems, even with hefty media players.
For media players: I'd go with MPD and an MPD client for "light", and Amarok (which doesn't need KDE, only QT) for "heavy".
There's also MoreAmp, someone just made a PKGBUILD for that...
Err... Amarok does need KDE, at least the way it's built on Arch :
[root@shabimobile omri]# pacman -S amarok

Targets: gstreamer-0.8.9-1 tunepimp-0.3.0-4 arts-1.4.0-4 mdnsresponder-98-2
         jasper-1.701.0-1 kde-common-3.4.0-7 kdelibs-3.4.0-6 cyrus-sasl-2.1.20-3
         sysfsutils-1.2.0-1 pmount-0.7.1-1 kdebase-3.4.0-5 libvisual-0.2.0-1
         libvisual-plugins-0.2.0-1 ruby-1.8.2-4 xine-lib-1.0.1-1
         gst-plugins-0.8.8-1 kdemultimedia-3.4.0-5 mysql-4.1.11-2 amarok-1.2.3-2

Total Package Size:   84.8 MB

kinda why I don't want to use amarok, i want to avoid having huge libs on my laptop just for 1 program. Turn's out the thinkpad came with 512mb ram already, wooo. I might have ago a building sonance http://sonance.aaronbock.net/screenshots/ as it looks quite good, anyone tried it?

miqorz · 2005-04-30 11:00:07

Looks like Muine to me, Probably one of the million other "based on muine" apps.

d3c3it · 2005-04-30 11:47:18

it does, but noone has given an answer to wiether muine is stable or not??

The new version of that program looks like rhythmbox

polarrr · 2005-04-30 13:12:01

I think for what you want and need, this one should do the trick...

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … =quodlibet

And here are some screen shots:

http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/wiki/Screenshots

I fiddled around with it and I liked it a lot And it's gtk based, plus you can pop album cover if you want. It's pretty customizable in terms of how you want to arrange your music, plus it won't ask you half of KDE or Gnome.

Cotton · 2005-05-01 16:46:00

Any chance of a PKGBUILD for Sonance?

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-01 17:04:19

Rhythmbox is actually pretty good.

polarrr · 2005-05-01 17:17:45

But too much Gnome deps.

miqorz · 2005-05-01 17:19:39

Meh, I don't care much about dependencies. I just don't use Rhythmbox because I personally hate gstreamer with a passion you cannot possibly imagine.

Not to mention I always come crawling back to Xmms. Even after developing on other projects..

polarrr · 2005-05-01 17:26:40

Usually I don't care about deps either as long as audio player is good. But I just don't want to have anything "Gnome" or "KDE" on my machine simply because I dislike them. I have a trim machine and would like to keep it that way, not to clutter with some deps just so that such and such looks "Gnome-ish" or "KDE-ish". My main audio player isn't a linux app to begin with. Foobar2000 Nothing beats the flexibility and awesomeness of this audio player...so far. Works well with certain version of WINE.

d3c3it · 2005-05-01 18:00:16

i wouldve choosen rhythmbox but again i dont want the deps on this machine, lean and mean is the purpose of this box.

i was going to make a build for Sonance if its any good

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-01 18:05:06

I will admit that GStreamer seems rather buggy. But Rhythmbox can be compiled with Xine as a backend...

miqorz · 2005-05-01 18:07:50

Yes, and xine is MUCH better... hah.

The big issue with gstreamer isn't the fact it's a buggy piece of crap. But the fact it's a bloated piece of crap.

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-01 18:15:40

True enough.

Yes, and xine is MUCH better... hah.

Xine works well enough for me. Amarok seems to have some problems with it though.

(Yes, I know MPlayer is technically better...)

Arch Linux

#1 2005-04-28 22:39:52

Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#2 2005-04-28 22:55:46

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#3 2005-04-28 23:24:08

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#4 2005-04-28 23:42:54

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#5 2005-04-29 03:37:37

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#6 2005-04-29 04:55:55

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#7 2005-04-29 08:47:45

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#8 2005-04-29 12:51:33

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#9 2005-04-29 15:06:00

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#10 2005-04-29 20:11:56

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#11 2005-04-29 20:40:57

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#12 2005-04-30 09:14:04

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#13 2005-04-30 10:50:47

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#14 2005-04-30 11:00:07

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#15 2005-04-30 11:47:18

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#16 2005-04-30 13:12:01

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#17 2005-05-01 16:46:00

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#18 2005-05-01 17:04:19

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#19 2005-05-01 17:17:45

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#20 2005-05-01 17:19:39

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#21 2005-05-01 17:26:40

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#22 2005-05-01 18:00:16

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#23 2005-05-01 18:05:06

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#24 2005-05-01 18:07:50

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

#25 2005-05-01 18:15:40

Re: Recommended Light but feature rich music player

Board footer