IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!


- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.


- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
What is the most user-friendly audio player? (2009)
What is the most user-friendly audio player?
What is the most user-friendly audio player?
Amarok [ 7 ] ** [2.01%]
foobar2000 [ 138 ] ** [39.54%]
Helium Music Manager [ 1 ] ** [0.29%]
iTunes [ 75 ] ** [21.49%]
MediaMonkey [ 20 ] ** [5.73%]
MusicBee [ 12 ] ** [3.44%]
MusikCube [ 2 ] ** [0.57%]
Songbird [ 5 ] ** [1.43%]
Winamp [ 61 ] ** [17.48%]
Windows Media Player [ 28 ] ** [8.02%]
Which players do you consider to be user-friendly?
Amarok [ 44 ] ** [5.50%]
foobar2000 [ 189 ] ** [23.63%]
Helium Music Manager [ 8 ] ** [1.00%]
iTunes [ 134 ] ** [16.75%]
MediaMonkey [ 63 ] ** [7.88%]
MusicBee [ 25 ] ** [3.13%]
MusikCube [ 18 ] ** [2.25%]
Songbird [ 61 ] ** [7.63%]
Winamp [ 169 ] ** [21.13%]
Windows Media Player [ 89 ] ** [11.13%]
Total Votes: 631
  
krabapple
post Dec 22 2009, 09:54
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 2239
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Antonski @ Dec 11 2009, 08:52) *
I would prefer another title, for example "What's your favorite audio player".



dry.gif

That's the problem when 'user friendly' isn't defined in the first place.

When I started the thread that spawned this one, I basically meant a software FLAC player/album art displayer for n00bs with only average interest in technology for its own sake. Not geeks (like me).

I suppose an ideal u-f app is one that doesn't need a geek to show the naive user how to set it up and operate it. It's intuitive.



This post has been edited by krabapple: Dec 22 2009, 09:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jens Rex
post Dec 22 2009, 12:52
Post #27





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 605
Joined: 18-December 01
Member No.: 680



I can't answer the poll, because I've used foobar2000 solely since 2002, and I don't know any of the others, except iTunes when I'm on the road (pc at home, MacBook when away), which is pretty good. I do consider iTunes more userfriendly, but that says nothing about its capabilities.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shemuel
post Dec 22 2009, 14:37
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 13-December 09
Member No.: 75899



iTunes is probably the most user-friendly. It comes as you would use it from the install, and is fairly clear in instructions. It comes ready with reliable support for iPod too, something that many people need, so it is the player I voted for.

Foobar is one of the least user-friendly music players. But it is definitely the most modifiable, and for this it is my favourite player.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Takla
post Dec 23 2009, 00:52
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 169
Joined: 14-November 09
Member No.: 74931



User friendly is a term that means different things to different people. Is a player which requires detailed configuration friendly? If the result is a player which does exactly what you want then maybe the answer is yes. For an inexperienced user that might be a resounding no, and their idea of user friendly might be the player whose defaults most closely resemble whatever they used before. Some people want an audio player, pure and simple. Others want the audio player to be able to sync their personal player/manage a collection/edit tags/burn CDs/transcode etc etc. Other people wouldn't consider anything to be user friendly if its designers hadn't considered end users with special needs.

I also notice that neither of the players I use daily is even in the poll, probably because they are unavailable or hardly used in Windows. Amarok is a long way from being the only audio/media player on the free desktop. If I mostly used Windows I'd probably say foobar because it is one of the few players which can do what I want without being obtrusive. But in fact I rarely use Windows and for audio playback use Music On Console or gmusicbrowser, the first being a console based player with a ncurses UI and using ffmpeg backend to play anything supported by ffmpeg, and the second being a regular GUI collection/database based player (cover art, lastfm, ratings, tagging etc etc) with a choice of back ends. Both naturally require some configuration but both do what I want (different purposes...MOC has the advantage that I can use it on systems with no graphical desktop but still have an easily navigable nobrainer UI....in this case that's user friendly!) Neither even slightly resembles foobar but one of them would get my vote if it appeared in the list. So that's another null vote.

This post has been edited by Takla: Dec 23 2009, 00:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Dec 23 2009, 02:57
Post #30





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3358
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



Thank you for the commentary Takla. I mostly agree with your perspective and I'm sorry for the lack of free representatives.

Personally I tend to dislike curses and prefer more CLI-driven players on Linux. I use mpd when away from Windows.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Prochazka
post Dec 23 2009, 09:23
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 28-April 08
Member No.: 53119



MusicBee is my no. 1. I have tried almost everyone (winamp, foobar, media monkey, itunes, aimp, etc) but this player/organizer is amazing. You should give it a try...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Meeko
post Dec 24 2009, 16:55
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 24-December 09
From: New York
Member No.: 76308



I've been an avid foobar user for years now. However, it took a bit of time to get used to foobar and get it set the way I like it. That in my opinion, does not make it the most user friendly out of the box. I put my vote in for Media Monkey--out of the box, its easy to set up and its pretty simple, compared to foobar anyway. Once foobar is set up, its a piece of cake for it to do what you want but the blank interface upon default is not what most basic computer users are looking for with stuff like Aero being available. My two cents. wink.gif


--------------------
foobar2000, FLAC, and qAAC -V68
It just works people!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blammo
post Dec 29 2009, 10:36
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 13-April 04
Member No.: 13464



Have to say MusicBee. Used Foobar for years way back but retreated to iTunes (for kids) and Sony Media Manager (for walkman phones) in the last couple of years. Have been waiting expectantly for Songbird to rise to the challenge but no (too slow and no MTP). Found MusicBee recently and well pleased. IMHO it's what Songbird should be. Loads if functionality. Plays all file types (except protected stuff), MTP (in the latest build), audio fingerprinting, taq editing, web browsing (for artist/album), music downloads (from blogs), cover art browsing, CD ripping (to FLAC and MP3), file conversions, folder monitoring....the list goes on. Oo and is pretty quick
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bodhi
post Jan 31 2010, 20:42
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 10-June 06
Member No.: 31712



I'm a foobar user and I love it.

But there's no way foobar is "user-friendly"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Jan 31 2010, 21:21
Post #35





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



The first time I tried foobar it seem distinctly unfriendly.. but I think the usability of a new install has improved a lot over the years.

I might have gone for Amarok as first choice, but they came out with a major revision and haven't got all the features back on yet (like supporting msc players). Apples vs oranges to some extent as they are on different OS's .

I count as distinctly *unfriendly* any player with ripping that defaults to saving your music with DRM. WMP and Itunes both have that at least in their history, along with updaters that wouldn't work so for me that's still where they stand.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rpp3po
post Jan 31 2010, 21:48
Post #36





Group: Developer
Posts: 1126
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Germany
Member No.: 4961



iTunes has never saved rips with DRM.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Jan 31 2010, 21:57
Post #37





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (rpp3po @ Jan 31 2010, 15:48) *
iTunes has never saved rips with DRM.


I don't think it ever forced you to, but the first time I installed it that was the default.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rpp3po
post Jan 31 2010, 22:14
Post #38





Group: Developer
Posts: 1126
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Germany
Member No.: 4961



You may have thought, that that encoded m4a files were DRM protected when you ran into incompatibilities. But actually iTunes has not even ever had the ability to put DRM onto self-ripped files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
а.п.т.
post Feb 12 2010, 12:23
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 25-January 09
Member No.: 65946



I guess this topic should be moved to pool section. no?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
viktor
post Feb 12 2010, 13:29
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 17-November 06
Member No.: 37682



for those who don't speak english, l10n is important, and in this regard foobar2000 keeps to fail badly over the years. that's why several of my friends won't use it.

of course i use it, but that doesn't matter. there's a world beside english speakers, and it's quite huge. foobar2000 doesn't (and apparently won't) support translations, period.

i don't quite understand peter's point, someone who wants to do something with the player won't read help pages all the time but will switch to (or stick with) an other player instead. it's quite obvious. listening to music is definitely something people don't want to learn from books.

This post has been edited by viktor: Feb 12 2010, 13:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
timcupery
post Feb 12 2010, 16:46
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 780
Joined: 19-December 01
From: Tar Heel country
Member No.: 683



QUOTE (rpp3po @ Dec 10 2009, 15:07) *
I think you are confusing the term "friendly". Usually a person with whom anybody can get along with easily is called friendly. In contrast a person that is generally grumpy to everyone except those, who have established friendship with him ("configured once"), is usually not specifically called friendly, although maybe even being totally capable of sustaining great, long-lasting friendships in principle.

So no, Foobar is not user-friendly! iTunes is, and somewhat Winamp, but not Foobar, not even close! It's still the most flexible of the bunch, once configured it can do whatever you want and easily. But I would never call it friendly. That's no big deal, I wouldn't call my best friends necessarily friendly (to everyone), either... wink.gif

I think this deserves repeating.

I am a foobar2000 users and don't see myself switching (lots of configuration has gone into my version of fb2k). I love the program.
But I don't consider it user-friendly. Maybe if canar wants to set it up for my friends, then it will be user-friendly. But out-of-the-box, no.


--------------------
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2E7AH
post Feb 12 2010, 17:03
Post #42





Group: Validating
Posts: 2424
Joined: 21-May 08
Member No.: 53675



foobar is friendly for people who use computers for other things than browse and watch movies
if you don't know what 286 means, or what is dosamp, I guess it's not designed for you nor you need it functionality
thou it's doing it best to do it with every new release
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rpp3po
post Feb 12 2010, 17:23
Post #43





Group: Developer
Posts: 1126
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Germany
Member No.: 4961



Old grumps, who only like other old grumps who can list every quarterback of their favorite football team since 1920 are not usually called friendly! You are just using the wrong word.

I program since MS-DOS 3.3. I would never call Foobar user friendly, anyway. Vim isn't either, although it is a great productivity enhancement for me for ASCII editing. Moreover, I don't really see any cultural or UI related common roots between Foobar, 286s and DOS.

Besides, iTunes doesn't compare badly from a professional user's standpoint, either. I want to get to what I want as quickly as possible, and I want categorized overviews, when needed. iTunes is good at both and I don't need much more. When you are able to feed it properly tagged (including artwork) AAC, MP3, and ALAC files, with a lossless archive in whatever format such is never a problem, it can deliver a great UI experience. At least on the mac platform it is blazingly fast. Within a fraction of a second it it can filter 30000 tracks for just a few letters typed into the easily accessible search field.

This post has been edited by rpp3po: Feb 12 2010, 17:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Feb 12 2010, 17:23
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 2073
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



I voted for iTunes as that is what I have used for the past 6 years (it will be 7 this Fall) ever since Apple released it for Windows back in 2003 shortly after the release of the 3G iPod. It took a little while to get used to as I was coming from a series of different software. Back then, I didn't know much better when it came to audio encoding or management. I had previously used Rio's music software that came with my Rio 600, Rio's software that came with my 1.5GB Rio Nitrus (that was all the storage in the world back in early 2003), and then I migrated to iTunes whenever my Rio Nitrus broke down (the 1" micro drives weren't all that reliable) in late 2003. So far, I have not encountered any issues with its interface. I didn't like what Apple did a year or two ago whenever they made the album view the default, it came off as Apple trying to copy what MS did with the Zune. I prefer the list-o-text view with an album art preview in the lower left corner. It took one click of the mouse to turn it back the way I wanted.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2E7AH
post Feb 12 2010, 17:34
Post #45





Group: Validating
Posts: 2424
Joined: 21-May 08
Member No.: 53675



@rpp3po: lol, dos 3.3 - best OS for 286 biggrin.gif

and dont take it literally
about cultural, I don't know, but when I first meet foobar I thought I can type in console biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BoraBora
post Feb 12 2010, 22:27
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 17-November 04
From: Paris, France
Member No.: 18179



I'd prefer not to vote because my knowledge of most programs in this list is very limited. I tried most of them these past years, often out of curiosity, but Foobar and iTunes are the only ones I really used in their current versions. I loathe iTunes, and I don't find it user-friendly at all. I dumped it as soon as I could switch to a Foobar component for my wife's iPod. Some thoughts:

- Foobar, freshly installed with no components and DUI is much more user-friendly than a lot of players. It's been a slow evolution, but 1.0 unfairly suffers from Foobar's geek-toy reputation.

- Foobar is still missing the basics: a clear and "dummy-proof" help file. And of course, as viktor wrote: translations. I don't mind it myself, but , the language barrier is impossible to overcome for a lot of people.

- no player without custom (user-created) tags support should be called "user-friendly". Any half-decent photo manager let the user decide how to tags its collection.

- no player without support for usual audio formats should be called "user-friendly". And yes, I'm including FLAC in the list.

- If "user-friendly" means "quickly learned by a computer-challenged user", then the old "make it look like reality paradigm" is the best. It's been used from the beginning (the "desk", the "trash", the icons etc.). Hence the most user-friendly audio program should compare to browsing a material (as opposed to virtual) record collection. I'd vote for Album Player if it was in the list. It feels very close to the "real thing".

In the meantime, I'm very happy with Catraxx/Foobar/MP3Tag. But my tolerance to user-unfriendliness is probably average.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
birdie
post Feb 13 2010, 14:26
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 3-March 06
From: this planet
Member No.: 28235



Juk.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krmathis
post Feb 13 2010, 21:07
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 742
Joined: 27-May 02
From: Oslo, Norway
Member No.: 2133



iTunes all the way.
...and in all fairness you have not listed many alternative players that run on Mac OS X. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MartDann
post Feb 17 2010, 19:12
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 18-January 02
Member No.: 1075



No Vote...
i can't compare, i have only used foobar the last 7 or 8 years...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LANjackal
post Feb 17 2010, 22:20
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 731
Joined: 26-October 05
From: Various networks
Member No.: 25371



WMP's metadata retrieval/automatic tagging capabilities continue to rule for me


--------------------
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 05:59