Iris

Pros of OwnTone

• More mature and established project with a longer development history
• Supports a wider range of audio formats and streaming protocols
• Better integration with various music services and smart home ecosystems

Cons of OwnTone

• Less focus on modern web technologies and user interface design
• Potentially more complex setup and configuration process
• Limited customization options for the web interface

Code Comparison

OwnTone (C language):

int mpd_command_playid(struct mpd_command *command, struct evbuffer *evbuf)
{
  int id;
  int ret;

  id = safe_atoi(command->arg1);
  ret = player_playid(id);

  return mpd_send_ok(evbuf);
}

Iris (JavaScript):

playTrack(uri, {
  spotify_token,
  provider,
  from_uri,
}) {
  return (dispatch) => {
    dispatch({ type: 'PLAY_TRACK', uri });
    // ... more code ...
  };
}

Summary

OwnTone is a more established and feature-rich music server with broader compatibility, while Iris focuses on providing a modern web-based interface for Mopidy. OwnTone may be better suited for users seeking a comprehensive music server solution, whereas Iris might appeal to those prioritizing a sleek, customizable web interface for their existing Mopidy setup.

Pros of Navidrome

• Built with Go, offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Supports a wider range of audio formats, including FLAC and OGG
• Provides a built-in web UI, eliminating the need for separate frontend setup

Cons of Navidrome

• Less customizable interface compared to Iris
• Fewer integrations with third-party services like Spotify and Last.fm
• Limited playlist management features

Code Comparison

Iris (JavaScript):

export default function getTrackIcon(track){
    if (track.type == 'spotify'){
        return 'spotify'
    } else if (track.type == 'local'){
        return 'music_note'
    } else {
        return 'audiotrack'
    }
}

Navidrome (Go):

func (s *selection) GetIcon() string {
    switch {
    case s.client != nil:
        return "computer"
    case s.album != nil:
        return "album"
    case s.artist != nil:
        return "person"
    default:
        return "music_note"
    }
}

Both projects aim to provide music streaming solutions, but they differ in their approach and feature set. Iris focuses on a highly customizable interface with broader third-party integrations, while Navidrome prioritizes performance and native audio format support. The code comparison shows how each project handles icon selection for different types of content, reflecting their distinct architectures and programming languages.

Pros of Lidarr

• Specialized for music collection management and automated downloading
• Integrates with various indexers and download clients
• Offers detailed music metadata and album artwork

Cons of Lidarr

• Limited to music management, lacks multi-media support
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires additional tools for playback functionality

Code Comparison

Iris (JavaScript):

export default function getTrackIcon(track){
	if (track.playing) return 'play_circle_filled';
	if (track.enabled) return 'play_circle_outline';
	return 'remove_circle_outline';
}

Lidarr (C#):

public static string GetRelativePath(string rootPath, string path)
{
    if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(rootPath)) return path;
    return path.StartsWith(rootPath) ? path.Substring(rootPath.Length).TrimStart('\\', '/') : path;
}

Summary

Iris is a versatile music player and manager with a focus on user interface and multi-source integration. It supports various streaming services and local files, offering a unified playback experience.

Lidarr, on the other hand, is specifically designed for music collection management and automated downloading. It excels in organizing and acquiring music but lacks built-in playback features.

While Iris provides a more all-in-one solution for music enthusiasts, Lidarr is better suited for users who prioritize maintaining and expanding their music libraries through automation.

Pros of Airsonic

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Supports a wider range of audio formats and streaming protocols
• Offers advanced features like podcast support and internet radio

Cons of Airsonic

• Less modern user interface compared to Iris
• Slower development pace and less frequent updates
• Higher resource usage, especially for large music libraries

Code Comparison

Iris (React-based frontend):

const App = () => (
  <MopidyProvider>
    <Router>
      <Layout>
        <Switch>
          <Route exact path="/" component={Home} />
          <Route path="/library" component={Library} />
        </Switch>
      </Layout>
    </Router>
  </MopidyProvider>
);

Airsonic (Java-based backend):

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/rest/api")
public class MediaRetrievalController {
    @GetMapping("/stream")
    public void stream(@RequestParam("id") String id, HttpServletResponse response) {
        // Streaming logic
    }
}

Summary

Airsonic is a more feature-rich and established music streaming server, while Iris focuses on providing a modern, responsive web interface for Mopidy. Airsonic offers broader format support and additional features, but Iris excels in user experience and frontend design. The choice between them depends on specific requirements and preferences for self-hosted music streaming solutions.