Talk:Comparison of audio player software/Archive 1

Archive 1

Songbird

Songbird needs adding to these lists. 2.97.10.158 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Songbird is listed on Comparison of video player software because it also supports playing video. --Regression Tester (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

video players that are basically audio players (winamp)

• Is there any reason Winamp is not on this list?

Rainintheface5 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• By virtue of Winamp's ability to play video, it is classified as a "video player", and can be found in the "Comparison of video player software" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_player_software —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.208.172 (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

+ What?! So Winamp is not audio player software???!!! I'm thinking this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.48.112.71 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Songbird plays videos too, either it should be removed, or Winamp added back.  Grue  21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why the hell isn't Winamp on this page? If someone asks you, is Winamp an audio player or video player, how do you respond? It is an audio player that can also play video. Or else, since VLC can play mp3s, why isn't it listed here, on the audio player page, by this same hopeless logic? Ivionday (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concur. Characterizing winamp as primarily a video player is incorrect. In addition, as has been said; ask almost anyone and what they view winamp as, and most replies will be audio player, that has video capability as well. Even if the categorization stays, characterizing winamp as primarily a video player is misleading and incorrect. I have used winamp since around 1996 and continue to use it - as it was then it is now - an audio player. mawi (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

the two of these articles are ridiculously named... seriously, so many of the "video players" are primarily thought of as music library management\players that I don't understand what the thinking was when doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.35.86 (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  Concur. Meaningless classification strategy. 69.255.25.124 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Any notable-enough software player capable of audio playback should be listed here, regardless it can play video or not. Programs like VLC, itunes or WMP are "media players", not just video players, so according to this moronic logic they shouldn't appear in Comparison_of_video_player_software either. I don't see why someone would like to relegate those audio/video players to one article or another. --Isacdaavid (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think the two articles should be combined. Looking through the two, the first three tables are identical. It's not until you get to the "Extended features" table that the two diverge at all, and, even then, they're still almost identical!

If, however, enough people believe that they should remain separate, then any players that have video capability should be removed from this article. More importantly, though, the other article ought to be renamed!! It should be "Comparison of Media Players", not "Video Players", which is misleading. Nobody would ever look for Winamp under an article about video players! Ge0nk (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Both articles are already too long (and take ages to load), merging them would make this much worse. Which player with video capability is listed on this page? Please suggest a rename of the video player article there on the talk page.--Regression Tester (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Linkrot

The link in the part Audio format capability (in the second cite note) is dead. --CyberDiablo 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AIMP2 ?

Any reason to not include AIMP2 ?
86.25.121.69 (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
AIMP2 was added on 22 July 2010 and subsequently removed on 24 July 2010. The reason stated for removal was because it did not have its own Wikipedia article.
AIMP2 has had its Wikipedia article deleted twice.
The first time was on 24 February 2009. The deletion discussion was unanimous in favor of removal.
The second time was on 16 July 2009. The reason stated for deletion was CSD ‎G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

I don't understand why AIMP was removed from the "Comparison of audio player software". In fact I don't understand why teh AIMP entry was removed at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elme2009 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that the program is highly rated by CNet editors, if that adds any legitimacy. - KitchM (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Then start a new Wikipedia page for the application!--Regression Tester (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit in the "First public release date" column under the "General" table.

Changed dates to ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) to accommodate chronological column sorting by date —Preceding unsigned comment added by U4ia74 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for clean-up/re-organization

As discussed above, this article is inaccurately titled. It does not compare audio player software; it compares audio player software that cannot play video. It might as well be "Comparison of audio player software that plays .mp3 and .aac but not .ogg." A category this specific is neither useful nor notable, and I believe this falls under WP:OC. Attempting to redefine the term "audio players" to justify the exclusion of software with video capabilities is a poor attempt to avoid this issue.

Having read the discussion at Talk:Comparison_of_video_player_software#Split_page, it appears that video players were excluded from this article to avoid duplication of data. The split was obviously not done very effectively and needs to be reconsidered and/or re-organized.

Options:

1. Merge the two articles back into one: Comparison of media player software.
   • Re-organize tables using columns that apply only to video capabilities (e.g. subtitle resync), only to audio capabilities (e.g. visualizer), and to both/neither (e.g. skinnable). Separate into sections accordingly. Audio-only software can be left out of the video sections.
   • For tables that apply to both/neither, use a "Video playback" column to mark which software plays video, so one could sort by this column to easily compare only video players.
   • PROS
     • Easily compare video player software.
     • Easily compare audio player software.
     • Easily compare audio features of video software.
     • No duplication of data.
   • CONS
     • Even after trimming, the article will be VERY long.
     • Difficulty comparing only software with media library capabilities.
2. Keep both articles but re-organize.
   • Include video players with audio capabilities (seemingly all of them) on both pages.
   • Include audio players with video capabilities on both pages.
   • Re-organize tables using columns that apply only to video capabilities (e.g. subtitle resync), only to audio capabilities (e.g. visualizer), and to both/neither (e.g. skinnable).
   • Include tables that apply to both/neither on both pages. Divide the rest between the two pages accordingly.
   • For tables that apply to audio features, use a "Video playback" column to mark which software plays video, so one could sort by this column to easily compare only video players.
   • PROS
     • Not all on one long page.
     • Easily compare video player software.
     • Easily compare audio player software.
   • CONS
     • Both pages will still be considerably long.
     • A lot of data duplicated.
     • Have to switch between both pages to compare audio features of video players.
     • Difficulty comparing only software with media library capabilities.
3. Three separate articles: Comparison of audio player software, Comparison of video player software, and Comparison of media library software.
   • Same as #2, but players with media library capabilities will be moved to the third page. I suppose this could also include software that organizes but doesn't play if such software exists.
   • Negotiate criteria for inclusion/exclusion to minimize duplication of data. e.g. iTunes and MediaMonkey only on media library page, Winamp on both audio and media library pages, VLC only on audio and video pages.
   • PROS
     • Easily compare media library software (iTunes, MediaMonkey, Winamp).
     • Articles won't be as lengthy (depending on criteria for inclusion/exclusion).
   • CONS
     • Risks overcategorization.
     • Some duplication of data (how much depends on criteria for inclusion/exclusion).
     • Criteria for inclusion/exclusion will probably be controversial.

Either way, the following needs to be done:

• Negotiate criteria for inclusion/exclusion and remove non-notable and legacy software (if any) as per Talk:Comparison_of_video_player_software#Criteria_for_inclusion.
• Negotiate criteria for inclusion/exclusion and remove columns unnecessary for comparison (if any).

Thoughts? Opinions? Alternatives? Which is more important: minimizing length, minimizing duplication of data, or maximizing usefulness/notability? I'll post a link to this discussion on Comparison of video player software, since this concerns that page too. OzW (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not merge the articles, it was a good idea to split them. --Regression Tester (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge. 96.35.174.133 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be merged. This list must contain Winamp and similar Software. 84.130.62.216 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge. Usefulness trumps article length. Maybe separate out those players that are no longer available or not sufficiently notable. Like others here, I think a page with this title which doesn't include Winamp or even (shock!) iTunes is pointless. If I were looking for a media player to use, I'd want to see all the choices... Senpai71 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge. I came to this page to compare and contrast music players. Not to argue with anyone on the technicalities of the definition for "Audio Player". I don't care what the list is called, just put them all in the same one. 97.117.209.195 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge per the very long articles section of the Article size guideline. I did the split and disambiguation of these comparison articles after numerous complaints from both readers and editors that the article size would cause their browsers to become very slow and/or crash while reading and attempting to edit the article. Before the split, the article had become unusable and unmaintainable and was pretty much impossible to edit. There is simply no way to merge these and not have article size problems. Note that the old proposal noted above no longer really applies as this was proposed before the article was split. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge. The issue appears to be a choice between usability versus being a complete, unabridged source. I strongly suggest that the system must be fixed if there is a usability problem, as there is no excuse for doing something halfway. All information on media players must be in one place, else the user is left to figure out where the rest are and how to find them. That is totally counter-productive.

It may be that the wiki needs a redesign for use by slower systems. I totally sympathize with that issue. (Everyone doesn't have broadband.) Also, this might be a place to implement a collapsing page design that autuomatically defaults to less detail while loading, but allows the user to sort into more useful groupings as desired. This would decrease load time, as well as offer more user-intuitive sorting of information.

Trying to do things part-way will never solve the ultimate problems. We do well to ignore the "Can't be done" folks in favor of those who espouse "We can find a way".

Yes, absolutely merge these into one. And find a way to make it work. - KitchM (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't technically feasible to "merge" Comparison of audio player software and Comparison of video player software due to web browser limitations as discussed at Wikipedia:Article size. The original article could not be loaded or edited with the majority of web browsers because the material was just too large. In some cases the large size would cause some browsers to lock up or crash while attempting to load or edit the page. We were also getting close to the limits explained at Wikipedia:Template limits. The only real "fix" in these cases is to split the material into more than one article or page.

The original content was already divided into separate "audio player" and "video player" tables which gave the logical point for splitting the material into two separate articles. See this link for what the article looked like before it was split. Note that this link may cause some web browsers to lock up or crash. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep both but re-organize. Comparison_of_video_player_software already includes audio+video players, and there's a column in Comparison_of_audio_player_software#Features touching video capabilities; so there's already duplicated information and article size won't increase dramatically as you have warned. This is the easiest way to fill the gaps in this article while being coherent with the video one and maintaining sane article sizes. --Isacdaavid (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that adding video players on this site would make a large and already unmaintainable site even larger (and more unmaintainable). So please do not add any video players here. Try to improve the message on top instead--Regression Tester (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

1by1

Why was 1by1 removed from the "Comparison of audio player software"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elme2009 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The list is long enough with just the players that have a wikipedia entry. If you believe that the player is notable, create a page.--Regression Tester (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WavPack lossless?

• .wv column heading in "Audio format capability" column in "Lossless compression" section maybe misleading? Not at all sure of my ground here, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WavPack seems to indicate that *.wv files are not always lossless. Maybe this fact is worth a footnote? I'm not going to do this myself because, 1-I'm not sufficiently versed in the subject, and 2-I've given up on making any direct contribution to Wikipedia articles even in my own area of expertise because the hoops to jump through that have been added to reduce spamish editing are just too much trouble. So I'm throwing it out here in case anyone wants to use it. On a contrary note *.wav files are also not always lossless or even always sound files but since they are widely thought to be always lossless sound files maybe some note should be taken of that in the article. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.135 (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Lossless is the typical use case for WavPack.--Regression Tester (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing in "Extended features" table

Why is "Winamp" missing in "Extended features" table? (Maybe some other software too, and in other talbles too) --95.232.139.32 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Miro needs to be added

Miro should be added as well. Links: http://www.getmiro.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miro_%28software%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZim (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Miro is a video player --Regression Tester (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Scalable, composite and emulation data

The data table under the section of "Scalable, composite and emulation format abilities" provides little to no information in its current state. It either needs more data in it, enough to be of use/reference, or simply nix the entire section. Fewmenleft (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tomahawk

I went through the effort to add this player to the comparison table. What are the reasons for reverting my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilseum (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The list is already long enough (read: too long) with only mentioning players that are so relevant that a Wikipedia article was written for them. Add an article for your player (explaining its relevance) and nobody will object its addition here.--Regression Tester (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are prices being listed?

1. Does it make sense to attempt to list prices in an encyclopedia, when prices often change, and vary depending on the country? 2. If we must list prices, I recommend removing the "non-free" labels as they add a needlessly negative connotation and are likely being inserted to promote someone's "free software" agenda. I believe that this is incompatible with Wikipedia's POV guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Tog (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mister Tog: I agree with #1. #2 is speculation. But yes, listing prices is bad practice as a general rule across the site. The non-free text is a result of Template:Nonfree used in such cases to allow easy sorting and color coordination across the site among lists of software. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ability to rip cd should be included

I do not understand why this basic ablity is not included. Lack of this ability is why I did not allow ITunes to be the default player.1archie99 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

CMus and Rhythmbox Windows Compatible through Cygwin

Rhythmbox is availible through the Cygwin Ports project, and is usable in Windows. Though, I'm not sure how well it supports external devices. CMus can be compiled and used in Cygwin just fine using libraries from the Cygwin Ports project and the Cygwin main repo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.124.128 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

When Windows software is runnable in a Linux VM or via Wine it's still not "Linux compatible".--Mideal (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Songbird

Songbird is discontinued since 2013 and not even available in the App Store, guess that should be marked. I'm missing "shuffle through all songs" as a feature attribute.--Mideal (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Media Monkey

...does not exist for Android.--Mideal (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Rdio

is no audio player software - it's a (OS independent) web streaming service and discontinued.
Rhapsody is a simple streaming service, too, there's also no app.
(Another edit)Where is the VLC listing?
Okay, I see... the "if video capable then not listed here" paradigm is ridiculous.--Mideal (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

I'm not sure what the notability guidelines for lists of software are, but I nonetheless wonder if it would be possible to expand the article to include comparisons of less common players like 1by1, Boom and Winyl. Would primary sources be fine, or do the players need some third-party coverage as well? 98.86.105.218 (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Nightingale

Nightingale is missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.113.240 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disc ripping

I guess there should be some info on which players can save mp3s from audio discs. GeXeS (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of audio player software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512054555/http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/Not_yet_implemented_features_in_Amarok_2 to http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/Not_yet_implemented_features_in_Amarok_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Video LAN Client VLC missing

VLC is a multiformat mediaplayer including Audio streaming and works as audio player. Was opensource VLC player excluded because it is not a pure audioplayer? https://www.videolan.org/ --Bert Niehaus (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose this article is oriented to avoid VLC choice as it is already the most popular and powerful app. Anyone to add it to comparison tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.250.241.172 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Specific OS only comparison

Is there a way to compare software for MAC only or Windows only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddhelmet (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional info on codecs?

It would be useful to know if the players support .dsf .dff DSD formats (64, 128, 256 etc) along with stuff like .flac, .wav etc. Thanks ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.38.88 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)