Pros of Airsonic

• Built on Java, offering better cross-platform compatibility and performance
• Supports a wider range of audio formats, including FLAC and OGG
• More active development and frequent updates

Cons of Airsonic

• Higher system requirements due to Java runtime
• Less extensive plugin ecosystem compared to Ampache
• Steeper learning curve for configuration and customization

Code Comparison

Airsonic (Java):

public class MediaScannerService {
    @Autowired
    private MediaFileService mediaFileService;

    public void scanLibrary() {
        // Scan logic here
    }
}

Ampache (PHP):

class Catalog {
    public function gather_songs() {
        // Song gathering logic here
    }
}

Both projects aim to provide self-hosted music streaming solutions, but they differ in their implementation and feature sets. Airsonic, being Java-based, offers better performance and wider format support, while Ampache, written in PHP, is more lightweight and has a larger plugin ecosystem. Airsonic's codebase tends to be more structured and object-oriented, while Ampache's PHP code is more procedural in nature. The choice between the two depends on specific requirements, server capabilities, and personal preferences for language and ecosystem.

Pros of Navidrome

• Built with modern technologies (Go, React) for better performance and easier maintenance
• Lightweight and resource-efficient, suitable for low-powered devices
• Clean, intuitive web interface with responsive design for mobile devices

Cons of Navidrome

• Fewer features compared to Ampache's extensive functionality
• Smaller community and ecosystem of plugins/extensions
• Limited customization options for the user interface

Code Comparison

Navidrome (Go):

func (s *Scanner) ScanLibrary(ctx context.Context) error {
    s.log.Info("Starting library scan")
    allFolders := s.getMusicFolders()
    for _, folder := range allFolders {
        err := s.scanFolder(ctx, folder)
        if err != nil {
            return err
        }
    }
    return nil
}

Ampache (PHP):

public function run()
{
    debug_event(self::class, 'Started catalog update', 5);
    $this->update_remote_catalog();
    $this->update_local_catalog();
    $this->clean_catalog();
    $this->update_last_update();
    debug_event(self::class, 'Catalog update finished', 5);
}

The code snippets show different approaches to scanning music libraries. Navidrome uses Go's concurrency features, while Ampache follows a more traditional PHP structure.

Pros of Koel

• Modern, sleek user interface with a responsive design
• Built with Vue.js, offering a more reactive and efficient front-end experience
• Supports Last.fm integration for scrobbling and music recommendations

Cons of Koel

• Limited file format support compared to Ampache
• Fewer features for managing large music libraries
• Less extensive plugin ecosystem and customization options

Code Comparison

Koel (Vue.js component):

<template>
  <div class="playlist-item" @dblclick.prevent="play">
    <span class="title">{{ playlist.name }}</span>
    <span class="meta">{{ playlist.songs.length }} songs</span>
  </div>
</template>

Ampache (PHP template):

<div class="playlist-item" onclick="playSongs('<?php echo $playlist->id; ?>')">
  <span class="title"><?php echo $playlist->name; ?></span>
  <span class="meta"><?php echo count($playlist->songs); ?> songs</span>
</div>

This comparison highlights the difference in front-end technologies used by the two projects. Koel leverages Vue.js for a more dynamic and reactive user interface, while Ampache uses traditional PHP templates for rendering. The Koel example demonstrates a more modern approach to component-based development, while Ampache's code is more straightforward but potentially less flexible for complex UI interactions.

Pros of Mopidy

• Extensible architecture with a plugin system, allowing for easy integration of various music sources and frontends
• Supports multiple audio outputs and can be controlled remotely
• Active development with frequent updates and a large community

Cons of Mopidy

• Requires more technical knowledge to set up and configure compared to Ampache
• Limited web interface out of the box, often requiring additional frontends
• Focused on streaming and playback, with less emphasis on library management

Code Comparison

Mopidy (Python):

from mopidy import core

class MyFrontend(pykka.ThreadingActor, core.CoreListener):
    def track_playback_started(self, tl_track):
        print(f"Now playing: {tl_track.track.name}")

Ampache (PHP):

<?php
$ampache = new Ampache\Repository\Model\Song($song_id);
$ampache->format();
echo "Now playing: " . $ampache->get_fullname();
?>

Summary

Mopidy is a flexible, extensible music server with a focus on streaming and playback from various sources. It offers a plugin system and supports multiple audio outputs, but requires more technical setup. Ampache, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive web-based music management solution with an easier initial setup, but may be less flexible for advanced streaming scenarios.

Pros of Jellyfin

• More active development with frequent updates and releases
• Broader media support, including live TV and DVR functionality
• Modern, user-friendly interface with customizable themes

Cons of Jellyfin

• Higher system requirements due to transcoding capabilities
• Steeper learning curve for initial setup and configuration
• Less focus on music-specific features compared to Ampache

Code Comparison

Jellyfin (C#):

public class MediaBrowser : IDisposable
{
    private readonly ILogger<MediaBrowser> _logger;
    private readonly IFileSystem _fileSystem;
    private readonly ILibraryManager _libraryManager;
    // ...
}

Ampache (PHP):

class Media extends database_object
{
    public $id;
    public $file;
    public $title;
    public $type;
    // ...
}

Both projects use object-oriented programming, but Jellyfin's C# codebase tends to be more structured and follows modern development practices. Ampache's PHP code is simpler but may be less maintainable in large-scale applications.

Jellyfin offers a more comprehensive media server solution with support for various content types, while Ampache focuses primarily on music streaming and management. Jellyfin's active development and modern interface make it appealing for users seeking a full-featured media center, whereas Ampache may be preferred by those looking for a lightweight, music-centric solution.