[LAU] Decent and attractive audio player

[Justin Smith]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Justin Smith <noisesmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Arthur <arthura at cox.net> wrote:
>  >
>  > Roger E wrote:
>  >  > Another happy Amarok user here. I always fix the tags with Easytag
>  >  > before adding them to the collection. With proper tags the search works
>  >  > perfectly. Easytag can fetch tags from cddb also, and rename files from
>  >  > tags.
>  >  > If only Amarok had a replay gain function like fb2k I reckon it would be
>  >  > perfect. It does take over half an hour to scan my 10000 tracks, but
>  >  > hey, you only need to do that once.
>  >  > _______________________________________________
>  >  > Linux-audio-user mailing list
>  >  > Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
>  >  > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  I also think that amarok is great, but I have a very fast computer. I
>  >  don't fix tags with easytag (but I do think that it's a great program),
>  >  I rip with rubyripper and everything is ready to dump into my music
>  >  folder as is. If you folks don't know about rubyripper, please check it
>  >  out. I found out about it when I was running archlinux and I hope that
>  >  there are binaries for every distro soon. No, I am not affiliated with
>  >  rubyripper in any way.
>  >
>  >  Enjoy,
>  >  Arthur
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  >  Linux-audio-user mailing list
>  >  Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
>  >  http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>  >
>
>
>  From the wikipedia page for the program:
>
>   One has to wonder though: can 3 bytes actually be heard in a wav file
>  that produces 180.000 bytes per second?
>
>  The answer is a definitive yes, and if you are (un)lucky, they may
>  just blow your speakers too. And I presume by 180,000 bytes per second
>  they mean 176,400.
>
>  Since it is a ruby application, presumably it wouldn't even be
>  possible to have a binary for it if you wanted one (or is it mixed
>  ruby/c?).
>
>  It does look like an interesting application, but their alogorithms
>  are either very naively implemented or the wikipedia page explains
>  them poorly.
>

oops, meant to send that to the list