
Show HN: Ampache – Self-hosted personal music and video streaming server - Artemic
http://ampache.org
======
edent
I live Ampache - but I've still not found a good mobile / Android client for
it.

The core server is great at cataloguing my music and streaming it to the
browser, but I'm struggling on mobile playback. Any one found a good player?

~~~
greglikescode
Have you tried dSub _? It 's a subsonic client but it works when you enable
the subsonic api in Ampache.

Tomahawk is an interesting one, but is missing a little for me.

Honestly, I use foldersync to just d/l newly added music from my server on a
routine basis and rely on dSub for when I've added something that hasn't
synced.

_
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=github.daneren...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=github.daneren2005.dsub&hl=en)

------
deng
I love Ampache. While the web interface is not that great, it really shines
with its multitude of backends: Subsonic, Plex, DAAP, UPnP/DLNA, and also
WebDAV access. I'm mostly accessing Ampache via the Subsonic and UPnP
backends, and it works really great. There are excellent mobile clients which
work pretty much out of the box with it (DSub, BubbleUPnP).

------
flarg
Changelog -
[https://github.com/ampache/ampache/blob/master/docs/CHANGELO...](https://github.com/ampache/ampache/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md#381)

This is a pretty great streaming solution but last time I used it didn't deal
with as many codecs as Kodi

~~~
Artemic
That's right but I believe both Ampache and Kodi are complementary (I'm using
both, Ampache on a web server and Kodi at home) and have a quite different
approach.

------
lamby
Very nice. Alas, I wrote my own ghetto version of this in, gosh, 2005 and have
slowly improved and changed it over the following decade into something rather
bespoke and custom to my needs and thus will never get non-trivial
contributions from others.

~~~
mverwijs
2005 eh? Well, ampache is so old, it has a freshmeat entry! ;-)
[http://freshmeat.net/projects/ampache](http://freshmeat.net/projects/ampache)

~~~
Artemic
Yeah, even 15 years old now if you take a look at Internet archives. That's a
long lifetime for a web-based app!

------
Ace17
A C++ / Witty alternative:
[https://github.com/epoupon/lms](https://github.com/epoupon/lms)

------
fargo
is this compatible to with any of the mainstream tv systems such as amazon
fire tv, apple tv etc? if not what are some good alternatives?

~~~
greglikescode
I still don't feel like I have a complete solution for this. You can use Plex
or any subsonic client with Ampache as the backend but it doesn't seem
perfect, or near-perfect, to me.

------
fiatjaf
Where am I supposed to store all the music? S3?

~~~
Artemic
I'm storing it on a personal server. S3 would be theoretically fine if you
mount it as a file system but I'm not sure this would be the cheaper plan.

~~~
pierrec
S3 or other static hosts can certainly be the cheapest thing if used
efficiently, cheapness is one of the main reasons people use them at all! So
it should be mounted, I guess that's the easiest way of enumerating tracks and
getting metadata (edit: and all the file manager features, duh). But would the
traffic also have to go though Ampache? Like this:

    
    
          S3 (music files) -> Ampache server -> client
    

Because it would be a lot more efficient to have the option of specifying that
files should be streamed directly from another host like this:

    
    
          S3 (music files) --->(streaming)>--------\
           |                                        \
      (read metadata, manage files)                  `-> client
           |                                         /
           |                                        /
         Ampache server -->(web interface etc.)>---/
    

I now realize it might be kind of a PITA to implement this because of
Ampache's extensive feature set. Still, it would be really cool and an
efficient way from a pricing as well as speed point of view. Of course, having
a fixed IP and a server in your basement is a also decent solution when it's
available to you. (hah, definitely not available to me right now)

------
auvrw
saw this and immediately upvoted b/c i really want something a lot like this.

went to github and realized i won't use it b/c it's implemented in PHP, i
probably don't want _exactly_ what this is, and i don't want to edit/debug PHP
(not on my own time, anyway).

is that myopic? anyway, that was my honest, off-the-cuff response to the post.

~~~
PlzSnow
Do you refuse to use any website written in PHP? How do you manage to have a
normal internet life in the year 2015?

~~~
giancarlostoro
There's plenty of websites that don't run on PHP though? StackOverflow runs on
ASP .NET, Twitter ran on Rails at one point, now it's partially a mix of
things but some of it is in Scala I suppose, plenty of major sites don't run
off of PHP. PHP isn't impossible to use or anything, but it's not the only
solution. Everyone should use whatever they're comfortable using. Edit: So
long as what they're comfortable using does the job correctly and effectively.

